• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Puyallup Carry

C

confused597

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
14
Location
, ,
I was doing a little looking around as the other day a friend and I were near Pioneer Park in downtown Puyallup. Noticed the sign saying no firearms and decided to find out if anything has been done. Found a bit on the forum about trying to get it amended under state preemption. Although the sign is still in the park I did find this: http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/files/library/37807269f0e0299d.pdf

Looks like they have now come into line with state laws. But I didn't see anyone mention the amendment here.

Jared
 
Last edited:
DCKilla

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
A bit of an oversight, Bradley Lake Park has white tape over the "firearms prohibited" part. A short email might take care of that.
 
D

devldogs55

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
104
Location
Puyallup WA
Looks like it only exempts a LEO in the line of duty from discharging a firearm in the park. If a person were to defend himself with a legal CCW you might be in trouble. Not acceptable.
 
DCKilla

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
devldogs55 said:
Looks like it only exempts a LEO in the line of duty from discharging a firearm in the park. If a person were to defend himself with a legal CCW you might be in trouble. Not acceptable.
Click to expand...
RCW 9.41.300 (2) (A), your opinion doesn't match state law.
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
confused597 said:
I was doing a little looking around as the other day a friend and I were near Pioneer Park in downtown Puyallup. Noticed the sign saying no firearms and decided to find out if anything has been done. Found a bit on the forum about trying to get it amended under state preemption. Although the sign is still in the park I did find this: http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/files/library/37807269f0e0299d.pdf

Looks like they have now come into line with state laws. But I didn't see anyone mention the amendment here.

Jared
Click to expand...

Jared, their wording does not include an exemption for citizens use for protection as provided for by our Washington State Constitution Art 1 Sec 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.

(2)Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.​

This issue when addressed could have been resolved by someone following through with the city and now someone in the area needs to address the issue again to avoid misinterpreting.

I find their reasoning to change the law to begin with, ie needing a cpl to open or concealed carry in a park with the exceptions in 9.41.060.
 
D

devldogs55

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
104
Location
Puyallup WA
DCKilla said:
RCW 9.41.300 (2) (A), your opinion doesn't match state law.
Click to expand...

I know what the state law is, and unless I'm reading the city code wrong (which is entirely possible), it's what the city is saying that doesn't match state law - not my opinion.
 
Bill Starks

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
a few years ago we had a OC meet at the park. Other than 2 officers sitting in their cars in the parking lot, nothing came of it.

IMG00186-1.jpg
 
C

confused597

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
14
Location
, ,
BigDave said:
Jared, their wording does not include an exemption for citizens use for protection as provided for by our Washington State Constitution Art 1 Sec 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.

(2)Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.​

This issue when addressed could have been resolved by someone following through with the city and now someone in the area needs to address the issue again to avoid misinterpreting.

I find their reasoning to change the law to begin with, ie needing a cpl to open or concealed carry in a park with the exceptions in 9.41.060.
Click to expand...



I'd say at best it's hazy on the issue of discharge. Although it says: A law enforcement officer acting pursuant to lawful authority is exempt from this subsection. Nowhere does it say a citizen can't discharge a firearm in self defense...it just says you can't shoot in the park without a permit obtained from the parks director. But still makes no specific mention of shooting in self defense. If it doesn't say it's illegal, it's legal.

Jared
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
confused597 said:
I'd say at best it's hazy on the issue of discharge. Although it says: A law enforcement officer acting pursuant to lawful authority is exempt from this subsection. Nowhere does it say a citizen can't discharge a firearm in self defense...it just says you can't shoot in the park without a permit obtained from the parks director. But still makes no specific mention of shooting in self defense. If it doesn't say it's illegal, it's legal.

Jared
Click to expand...

The issue about discharge is clear as the State Legislature has provides for the city or counties to pass ordinances restricting area's what is misleading is they exempt law enforcement as for what ever reason who knows. State law provides for the use of force where ever you have a legal right to be. Clearly their ordinance is pooooorly written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top