• 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.

Chelan County PUD Parks

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
I was looking for some park information in Chelan County tonight and stumbled across this.

http://www.chelanpud.org/documents/ParkRules_FINAL_(012512).pdf

Section 9:
No person shall openly display a firearm or weapon in any park area, nor shall any person discharge or
propel across, in, or into any park area, a firearm, bow and arrow, spear,
spear gun, harpoon, sling shot, BB gun, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property. Provided however that it is permissible to possess hunting equipment secured in a vehicle or transported across Chelan PUD property and gear used for fishing that would otherwise be in violation of this policy,(i.e.relocating a firearm from a vehicle to a boat in preparation to duck hunt, or possessing a fillet knife for the purpose of cleaning fish)
 
Last edited:

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
I noticed that too, but that could be the last, "new or updated" rule/regulation they changed. I'm betting this is an old rule they may not recall having in here, I have found that is the case in some situations. I suppose an email is in order to bring their attention to this preempted rule.

*email sent to board members*
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
I'm betting this is an old rule they may not recall having in here, I have found that is the case in some situations......

I suppose an email is in order to bring their attention to this preempted rule.............

*email sent to board members*

1. There is still a good deal of "old" law out there. When you are neck deep in paper it takes a while to get thru it.

2. An attention getting email as a reminder.

3. " email sent". Citizenship is a Verb. Good on you Stretch
 

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
Response received:


Mr. Xxxxxx,

Chelan PUD commissioners notified me of your recent email regarding our current policy on the open display of weapons in PUD parks.

I wanted to let you know that we are in the process of reviewing this policy and will take your comments into consideration. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to contact me directly with any comments, questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

John Janney General Manager Chelan County PUD 327 N Wenatchee Avenue Wenatchee, WA 98802

(509) 661 - 4602



Sent by Droid
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I have never had any problems on Chelan PUD property...I think that is because "display" is used in the same manner as "display" in RCW 9.41.270. I know it does not have the "intent to intimidate" part, but I've never had a problem...yes, I have talked to a Chelan Sheriff's deputy (this was 25 to 30 years ago) when I was OC, and someone had called in MWAG...his response was "nothing illegal here", did not ask to see the weapon, did not ask for a CPL. That encounter was not specifically on PUD property, but it did go to show the Sheriff's Deputy did know the law.
 

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
Well, here is a response received just a few minutes ago. Also including the attached "revision."

Hi Xxxx,



I wanted to let you know that we have completed our review of Chelan PUD’s park regulation restricting the open display and discharging of weapons in PUD parks. After careful consideration, we believe the restriction on the open display of firearms is reasonable and consistent with RCW 9.41.270. The Chan case and RCW 9.41.290 do not apply.



As I’m sure you can appreciate, the patrons of our parks expect to feel safe in our parks and the open display of firearms in a park could be intimidating and/or warrant alarm for the safety of other park patrons. As you know, this policy does not prohibit persons from carrying a concealed weapon when properly permitted under state law.



As a result of our review, we revised the language under Section 9 – Firearms and/or Weapons. Our goal was to better describe the reasons for the restrictions and to clarify both prohibited and allowed activities. The revised language is attached for your information.



I hope this clarifies our position on this and that you will agree that it is a reasonable approach that accommodates the varied interests of our park customers.



Sincerely,



John Janney
 

Attachments

  • ChelanPUD0516email.pdf
    43.3 KB · Views: 122

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
Last edited:

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
Well, here is a response received just a few minutes ago. Also including the attached "revision."

Hi Xxxx,



I wanted to let you know that we have completed our review of Chelan PUD’s park regulation restricting the open display and discharging of weapons in PUD parks. After careful consideration, we believe the restriction on the open display of firearms is reasonable and consistent with RCW 9.41.270. The Chan case and RCW 9.41.290 do not apply.



As I’m sure you can appreciate, the patrons of our parks expect to feel safe in our parks and the open display of firearms in a park could be intimidating and/or warrant alarm for the safety of other park patrons. As you know, this policy does not prohibit persons from carrying a concealed weapon when properly permitted under state law.



As a result of our review, we revised the language under Section 9 – Firearms and/or Weapons. Our goal was to better describe the reasons for the restrictions and to clarify both prohibited and allowed activities. The revised language is attached for your information.



I hope this clarifies our position on this and that you will agree that it is a reasonable approach that accommodates the varied interests of our park customers.



Sincerely,



John Janney

So, call rapgood and see if he'll sue them for injunctive and declaratory relief.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Well, here is a response received just a few minutes ago. Also including the attached "revision."

Hi Xxxx,



I wanted to let you know that we have completed our review of Chelan PUD’s park regulation restricting the open display and discharging of weapons in PUD parks. After careful consideration, we believe the restriction on the open display of firearms is reasonable and consistent with RCW 9.41.270. The Chan case and RCW 9.41.290 do not apply.



As I’m sure you can appreciate, the patrons of our parks expect to feel safe in our parks and the open display of firearms in a park could be intimidating and/or warrant alarm for the safety of other park patrons. As you know, this policy does not prohibit persons from carrying a concealed weapon when properly permitted under state law.



As a result of our review, we revised the language under Section 9 – Firearms and/or Weapons. Our goal was to better describe the reasons for the restrictions and to clarify both prohibited and allowed activities. The revised language is attached for your information.



I hope this clarifies our position on this and that you will agree that it is a reasonable approach that accommodates the varied interests of our park customers.



Sincerely,



John Janney


Who does John Janney think he is?

RCW 9.41.290 does not apply ROTFLMAO.

What RCW prohibits open carry because that is the only way they can do this.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
Who does John Janney think he is?

RCW 9.41.290 does not apply ROTFLMAO.

What RCW prohibits open carry because that is the only way they can do this.

They are trying to play the game of 9.41.270, saying that an individual would 'warrant alarm' by openly carrying a firearm.

They must have missed the part of State v Spencer where it “only prohibits the carrying or displaying of weapons when objective circumstances would warrant alarm in a reasonable person.” and “the Legislature’s use of the word ‘warrants’ in the statue implies that there must be a sufficient objective basis for the alarm, i.e., circumstances must be such that a reasonable person would be alarmed.”
 

Thor80

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
299
Location
Spokane County, WA
I'd send him some links to Oak Harbor's debacle to give him a look at what happens when elected officials attempt to defy state law.....

-Thor
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
They are trying to play the game of 9.41.270, saying that an individual would 'warrant alarm' by openly carrying a firearm.

They must have missed the part of State v Spencer where it “only prohibits the carrying or displaying of weapons when objective circumstances would warrant alarm in a reasonable person.” and “the Legislature’s use of the word ‘warrants’ in the statue implies that there must be a sufficient objective basis for the alarm, i.e., circumstances must be such that a reasonable person would be alarmed.”


I sent him an email pointing out the error of his ways but forgot to mention Spencer.
 

Amicus

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
33
Location
WA State
A short-timer and doesn't care: http://www.chelanpud.org/11404.html Likely he won't change the policies while he's in office.

How many court cases have decided carrying isn't warranting alarm nor probable cause for a stop? Which can be dumbed down to the courts saying, "hey, gun possession is A-OK!"

This jack leg is just trying to be cleaver. He thinks that they can establish what is "reasonable" and articlate the circumstance into the rule.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
so?????

Half of the parks in Kitsap County are still signed "no firearms", the sheriff and Port Orchard police will not enforce it.

let him ramble all he wants, you're not breaking any law so carry anyway. 10 bucks is on they'll realize they can't do anything about it.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Half of the parks in Kitsap County are still signed "no firearms", the sheriff and Port Orchard police will not enforce it.

let him ramble all he wants, you're not breaking any law so carry anyway. 10 bucks is on they'll realize they can't do anything about it.

No, Eric, not that they won't enforce it, but they CAN"T enforce it.
This will be part of the discussion on Saturday.
 
Top