Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: City of Redmond vs state preemption

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    37

    City of Redmond vs state preemption

    Redmond appears to have modified their code to remove firearms after Seattle lost their pre-emption lawsuit a few years back.

    However, I was looking through the existing Redmond codes and came across this one which restricts ranges and also seems to fail the pre-emption test. Any opinions?

    http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/red...dmond0580.html

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753
    Seems to fail preemption how?

    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..."

    9.41.300
    "...(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and..."


    I did a quick read of the Redmond ordinance and it seems simply about business licensing requirements for a range. RCW says cities can pass ordinances on where firearms can be discharged in the city, city probably restricts it to a "Shooting Sports Facility" and the city can certainly set it's licensing requirements for that type of business just as they do for other businesses.

    Nothing jumped out at me that would appear to violate preemption as it is putting requirements on a business being licensed as a "Shooting Sports Facility" and not any requirement or restrictions related to 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..." .



    Preemption only applies to some very specific issues, not anything and everything firearm related.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by 911Boss View Post
    Seems to fail preemption how?

    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..."

    9.41.300
    "...(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) [B]Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions [/B]where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and..."


    I did a quick read of the Redmond ordinance and it seems simply about business licensing requirements for a range. RCW says cities can pass ordinances on where firearms can be discharged in the city, city probably restricts it to a "Shooting Sports Facility" and the city can certainly set it's licensing requirements for that type of business just as they do for other businesses.

    Nothing jumped out at me that would appear to violate preemption as it is putting requirements on a business being licensed as a "Shooting Sports Facility" and not any requirement or restrictions related to 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..." .



    Preemption only applies to some very specific issues, not anything and everything firearm related.
    That restricted shooting has limited authority for a city.
    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)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by boatswain View Post
    Redmond appears to have modified their code to remove firearms after Seattle lost their pre-emption lawsuit a few years back.

    However, I was looking through the existing Redmond codes and came across this one which restricts ranges and also seems to fail the pre-emption test. Any opinions?

    http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/red...dmond0580.html
    A facility is not a person.

Posting Permissions

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