OT The senior center bans weapons, knifes and firearms inside the building.

It is owned and staffed with city of Everett employees.
I became a member and was handed there rules about firearms.
Can anyone give me a link or give me a simple letter I can paste to my letter I will mail them.
Im not much in words I can send them. So if any one can help me that will be great.
I just want to thank them for the tour but add that there rules banning fire arms is illegal, In this letter Id like to quote the RCWs and be very polite
Thanks

Are you absolutely sure that the facility is operated by The City, regardless of the property ownership? Is there any possibility that The City contracts to a private corporation for operation of the facility? This is a scenario not outside the realm of possibility. If it is contracted to a private corporation, they can probably ban guns. Not that it's right - just legal.

I only ask because I would hate for you to send an email without the proper background information, and then be seen by them as uninformed. I find in these situations research before action results in a better outcome.

I'll write the email for you but let's make sure everything is in order first.

The letter should go something like this: (please ignore the strange formatting that vBulletin adds to my letter)

Dear xxxx:
It has come to my attention that The City of Everett has banned (by administrative rule) the possession of firearms in the Carl Gipson Senior Center.
This ban is in violation of RCW 9.41.290, Washington’s “preemption law”, which prohibits cities from enacting firearms laws or administrative rules that are more restrictive than state law. State law does not authorize the prohibition of firearms in senior centers. Further, on October 31 2011, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, held “RCW 9.41.290 preempts the Firearms Rule. Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public.” Winnie Chan had challenged the City of Seattle’s administrative rule banning the carrying of guns in Seattle parks. The King County Superior Court sided with Chan. The City appealed. The appeals court again sided with Chan (above). The State Supreme Court refused to hear Seattle’s appeal. This is settled law: Cities may not ban guns in their facilities except as specifically authorized by state law.

Everett’s ban on guns in the Senior Center (or any other city facility) is illegal and cannot and must not be enforced.

I request all city staff immediately stop enforcing this administrative rule. I request the Mayor and City Attorney research this issue, realize the error, and make recommendations to the City Council to correct the issue.

Click to expand...

Thanks

Yes I was thinking about that. Right now the services are important to me and I carry my 380 in my pocket. However that was well written letter Dean( Just trying to get rid of gun no gun zones one zone at a time)

I would be sure of who manages it before you send anything. Putting inaccurate information is legalese letters is embarassing, trust me.
Is it a nursing home? I know a lot of people who work in those, and I can understand why management may put up a sign like that. I've heard a lot of stories or aggressive and violent residents, and the staff can't really do anything about it other than distance themselves physically while attempting to provide care. If it is a privately ran place, I don't think it is at all an ideal place to fight over gun rights.

City of Everett owns the building. the Employees are the city of Everett. I asked when I was there yesterday.

does it have a web site you can use and mention as proof/evidence that the city owns and operates it? might look in the city's web site. add the url at the end of the sentence saying the city own/operates it.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

does it have a web site you can use and mention as proof/evidence that the city owns and operates it? might look in the city's web site. add the url at the end of the sentence saying the city own/operates it.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Yep this is the web site. http://www.ci.everett.wa.us/default.aspx?ID=56

Looks like preemption applies.

phoneguy said:

Yep this is the web site. http://www.ci.everett.wa.us/default.aspx?ID=56

Click to expand...

Strange that they post NO rules for tjhe senior center on the web site. That little omission will end up getting them into additional hot water should they try to enfore a "firearms/knives/weapons". It's that old "prior notice" thing.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Strange that they post NO rules for tjhe senior center on the web site. That little omission will end up getting them into additional hot water should they try to enfore a "firearms/knives/weapons". It's that old "prior notice" thing.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Setting preemption aside for the moment, even if there was no prior notice they can still ask one to leave if they don't comply with the rules. From the point they are advised of the rules and refuse to comply, then they can be "trespassed". At that point the party is now eligible for arrest.

Now, back to preemption. How can lack of prior notice even be a factor with a "rule" that's invalidated by State Law?