Spokane Municipal Code 10.10.050

Sorry to post cross-threads, but this question can be answered now.
And expanded upon.

BigDave said:

Cherry has to do with an employer employee relationship and Chan clearly as you have stated Cities cannot prohibit firearms outside what State Preemption allows.

Remind me, did you go to the city council with your complaint?

Click to expand...

Yes. Jeff and I went together and met with two city council members.
A resolution was drafted by yet a third city council member to amend the wording of SMC 10.10.050,
and the resolution was reviewed by legal.

The resolution was withdrawn for unexplained reasons before it was presented to the council.

Recently, a fourth city council member was approached by myself.
Jeff has been kept apprised of the details.

Another resolution to change the wording of SMC 10.10.050 is being reviewed by legal.
Legal has agreed that a wording change is necessary.

After legal has blessed the wording, the resolution will be presented to the public safety standing committee.
If it passes that committee, the resolution will be presented during a legislative session, and public comment will be accepted.


Timing is always tricky to predict, but the legislative session could happen this month.
The date, time and location will be published on this site, so that those who wish to attend will be properly informed.

hadji

Great follow through, but it is difficult to understand how can this be so difficult for their council to move ahead, it is already spelled out in RCW 9.41 ???? Sometimes I feel like I am watching Dumb and Dumber when it comes to some politicians....

BigDave said:

Great follow through, but it is difficult to understand how can this be so difficult for their council to move ahead, it is already spelled out in RCW 9.41 ???? Sometimes I feel like I am watching Dumb and Dumber when it comes to some politicians....

Click to expand...

It is incredible the run around we have gotten over this dead end after dead end. It kinda reminds me of my kids when they were young they would spend 2 hours attempting to get out of 15 minutes of work.

Hadji has been on this like a dog on a bone from the start, thanks for all your work and your persistence Sir.

I would recommend, if you haven't already is to attend the city council meeting and address the issue.
If this has not been done yet, it may very well be the reason it is moving along so slowly.
I would also ask the question "why it's it so difficult? our State Legislature has already decided it for us in RCW 9.41
Clearly they are trying to find wiggle room or hoping you will quietly go away! NOT!!!

BigDave said:

I would recommend, if you haven't already is to attend the city council meeting and address the issue.
If this has not been done yet, it may very well be the reason it is moving along so slowly.
I would also ask the question "why it's it so difficult? our State Legislature has already decided it for us in RCW 9.41
Clearly they are trying to find wiggle room or hoping you will quietly go away! NOT!!!

Click to expand...

Dave I believe they have been hoping we/it would go away, like you said NOT!

Your recommendation is a good one.
We will in fact attend, and address the issue.
At the appropriate time.

Which will be soon.


I have attended several city council meetings,
and spoken with five of the seven council members.

But this issue of amending SMC 10.10.050 was never on the agenda.

I could have spoken during a general comments period,
but I deemed that to be counter-productive,
and I am not quite ready to tip my hand.

But, when the time is right,
which is after this amendment is passed,
I will be 'all in' so to speak.

What is at issue here is a minor modification of the SMC,
that will align it with state law, RCW 9.41.290/300.

There will be some that will take issue with the precise wording of the proposed amendment.

But let me assure you, the wording is quite acceptable.

If necessary, I will meet with anyone who intends to attend the city council meeting
that has concerns about the wording of the proposed amendment,
and explain our strategy and why the specific wording is / will be acceptable.

But, neither Jeff nor I will detail that strategy on-line.
At least not yet.

In the mean time, Fetch and I have managed to get
the onerous Spokane City Police trainging bulletin changed that addressed open carry.
The previous bulletin stated that open carry was not allowed in parks.

That has been changed, and actions of the MWAG are taken into account.
Absent aggressive actions, patrol will not be dispatched on MWAG calls.

If any are interested, I can post the text of the recent training bulletin,
which I received from a public documents request.

hadji