Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Tacoma has not learned from Seattle.

  1. #1
    Regular Member cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    183

    Tacoma has not learned from Seattle.

    Looks like the Tacoma City Council think they can override state preemption.

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/0.../99/289/&ihp=1

    All firearm purchases at gun shows on city of Tacoma property will now require a background check of the buyer.

    The Tacoma City Council unanimously approved the change Tuesday night, closing the so-called gun show loophole for events using city space.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 05-07-2014 at 04:47 AM. Reason: Fixed title - originally Tacoma was not learn from Seattle
    I carry a Para Ordance 1911 .45 ACP.

  2. #2
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Looks like there were 6 people in the stands....

    City Council Meeting Video (start time 46:26)
    http://cityoftacoma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Not only will this get them sued, but this law is instantly repealed the moment it was passed. I wonder if the Tacoma Police Chief and Pierce County Sheriff know and follow the RCWs....

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, United States
    Posts
    50
    Anyone interested in putting the legwork in on this one yet?

    "Government: Finding solutions to problems that never existing in the first place."

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Alsherry; 05-07-2014 at 11:28 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Hopefully the Wes Knodel people know they can legally ignore this ordinance from Tacoma and they'll be back at the Tacoma Dome again, or will whoever runs the Dome use this to try and refuse them?


    Here is the phone and email for the Tacoma City Council:

    http://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_council

    You guys may want to call/email each of them and remind them that Seattle tried something very similar a few years ago and went all the way to the State Supreme Court and lost, and they squandered MILLIONS of tax dollars in a useless fight against a very clear state pre-emption statute.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.]
    Ask them if Tacoma has millions of tax dollars to burn in a pointless court fight. Last time I checked they were laying off cops and fire-fighters because of dropping revenue. Is this really a good idea?
    Last edited by Alpine; 05-07-2014 at 11:30 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    Well, what about Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequim? I'm sure Tacoma will at least try the city-as-property-owner gambit.

  7. #7
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Strickland, Marilyn <Marilyn.Strickland@ci.tacoma.wa.us>
    6:48 AM (5/7/14)
    to me

    Dear Mr. Starks,
    Thank you for taking the time to contact me. The Second Amendment Foundation is well aware of our decision and was interviewed last week in a segment that appeared on KIRO television.
    According to our City Attorney, we do have the legal authority to require background checks for all sales on city property the Dome, and other PAF facilities, when being operated in a proprietary manner, and have the same latitude as do private businesses.
    In other words, we have the ability to prohibit or otherwise “regulate” firearms. This can be accomplished contractually or by virtue of an administrative rule governing the facility.

    Thanks again for your email.

    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Strickland, Mayor
    City of Tacoma
    Sent from my iPad



    They are using the PNWSA v Sequim case for their basis.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/wome...alerts_article
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 05-07-2014 at 12:59 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    The mayor's email pretty much nailed it. Like it or not, that's the way the law is interpreted and applied in this state. Didn't we just have some members from Spokane drop a complaint about some Rand Paul event because their lawyers told them "you can't win"?

    You can copy and paste the preemption RCW all you want, but it still doesn't make it applicable in this case.

  9. #9
    Regular Member cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    Strickland, Marilyn <Marilyn.Strickland@ci.tacoma.wa.us>
    6:48 AM (5/7/14)
    to me

    Dear Mr. Starks,
    Thank you for taking the time to contact me. The Second Amendment Foundation is well aware of our decision and was interviewed last week in a segment that appeared on KIRO television.
    According to our City Attorney, we do have the legal authority to require background checks for all sales on city property the Dome, and other PAF facilities, when being operated in a proprietary manner, and have the same latitude as do private businesses.
    In other words, we have the ability to prohibit or otherwise “regulate” firearms. This can be accomplished contractually or by virtue of an administrative rule governing the facility.

    Thanks again for your email.

    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Strickland, Mayor
    City of Tacoma
    Sent from my iPad



    They are using the PNWSA v Sequim case for their basis.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/wome...alerts_article
    So what does that mean? Do we have a way of challenging it?
    I carry a Para Ordance 1911 .45 ACP.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    So what does that mean?


    It means that when public property is rented to a private party (here the city renting to the gun show promoter), the public property owner can act with all rights of a private property owner, and include any conditions in a lease agreement that a private owner can.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    That's insane, in this case the party leasing the property doesn't even want the condition put on it!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    According to our City Attorney, we do have the legal authority to require background checks for all sales on city property the Dome, and other PAF facilities, when being operated in a proprietary manner, and have the same latitude as do private businesses.
    I find it interesting that the words 'gun' or 'firearm' are not mentioned. Between that and the language of the constitution (state and federal both) that statement could be equally applicable and constitutional for guns and books.

    If it's constitutional to require background checks or enact outright bans of guns under the state constitution, then the same would be true of background checks to buy books or outright book bans.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    That's insane, in this case the party leasing the property doesn't even want the condition put on it!


    Then they don't have to sign the lease.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Then they don't have to sign the lease.[/COLOR]
    That Sequim case is bad case law and needs to be overturned.

    Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    The mayor's email pretty much nailed it. Like it or not, that's the way the law is interpreted and applied in this state. Didn't we just have some members from Spokane drop a complaint about some Rand Paul event because their lawyers told them "you can't win"?

    You can copy and paste the preemption RCW all you want, but it still doesn't make it applicable in this case.
    That was me and the Lawyers did not say it could not be won, they said it was not wise to pursue it at this time better opportunities will happen in the future and the last thing we want to do is take a chance on making more bad case law. In other words it is not a sure enough thing to risk maybe having a bad result at the moment. I am not going to go into how it is winnable here or in PMs.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Wing Wacko View Post
    That Sequim case is bad case law and needs to be overturned.

    Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
    After spending a lot of time on this very subject I have come to the conclusion that IMHO the people that brought the Sequim case did not have a clue what they were doing, what they wanted to accomplish and just plain lost the case because they did not understand the law. Sequim should have been won but they asked the wrong question.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    One last thought. If there are areas open to the public such as restaurants coffee stands etc that are open all the time and accessible without entering an event they can not stop you from carrying there.

    If the Tacoma Dome put on an event and it is free to the public they can not prevent you from carrying during that event.

    I also believe they can not stop anyone from carrying in areas accessible to the public that do not require a ticket to enter.

    Know your stuff and be prepared to suffer the consequences if you do not. Please if you can not afford to properly defend yourself do not push it to the point you have to plea to a deal that hurts the rest of us.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by cpgrad08 View Post
    So what does that mean? Do we have a way of challenging it?
    You can go to court and try arguing preemption. Wether or not it will be successful is the question, certain courts in Washington will often simply substitute their own version of state law for what the law actually says when reading anything involving firearms...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    You can go to court and try arguing preemption. Wether or not it will be successful is the question, certain courts in Washington will often simply substitute their own version of state law for what the law actually says when reading anything involving firearms...
    You're absolutely correct.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    It's a long game. It could be that Tacoma DID learn from Seattle, and this is all part of a plan to alter the course of State Preemption.

    The Seattle Center rule was probably the same. Makes headlines. Stirs up the libtards.

    Californiacation, one baby step at a time.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    106
    To bad I didn't win the mega lotto, I would fully fund this lawsuit.

    It is down hill from here.


    But wait, will I591 have any effect ?? Probably not since this is being treated like private property.
    If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
    --- Arkansas Supreme Court, Wilson v. State (1878)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •