• 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.

Tacoma has not learned from Seattle.

cpgrad08

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
183
Location
Lakewood, WA
Last edited by a moderator:

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Not only will this get them sued, but this law is instantly repealed the moment it was passed.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....
 

Alsherry

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
50
Location
Puyallup, Washington, United States
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:

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
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:

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
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/wom...un-safety-to-kids?CID=examiner_alerts_article
 
Last edited:

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

cpgrad08

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
183
Location
Lakewood, WA
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/wom...un-safety-to-kids?CID=examiner_alerts_article

So what does that mean? Do we have a way of challenging it?
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
That's insane, in this case the party leasing the property doesn't even want the condition put on it!
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

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

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top