Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Preemption, Article 1 Section 24 and & Outdoor Music Festivals

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Preemption, Article 1 Section 24 and & Outdoor Music Festivals

    Not to mention recent SCOTUS cases, we know this is a law that "needs" to be changed but under current laws is it a law that can & should be repealed? This law has been on the books since 1971. I'm still doing data research on firearm injuries at these events but I see no reason this law cannot be done away with. Why is it ok to carry at stadiums, fairs and such but NOT at the festival?


    70.108.010
    Legislative declaration.


    The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals by assuring that proper sanitary, health, fire, safety, and police measures are provided and maintained. This invocation of the police power is prompted by and based upon prior experience with outdoor music festivals where the enforcement of the existing laws and regulations on dangerous and narcotic drugs, indecent exposure, intoxicating liquor, and sanitation has been rendered most difficult by the flagrant violations thereof by a large number of festival patrons.
    [1971 ex.s. c 302 19.]
    Notes:
    Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
    70.108.150
    Firearms Penalty.


    It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

    Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
    [2012 c 117 424; 1972 ex.s. c 123 5.]

  2. #2
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    The sad thing is that it ISN'T "ok" to carry at stadiums and fairs because even the public ones have been abusing pre-emption through "leasing" via the Sequim decision. We need that case overturned.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    Not to mention recent SCOTUS cases, we know this is a law that "needs" to be changed but under current laws is it a law that can & should be repealed? This law has been on the books since 1971. I'm still doing data research on firearm injuries at these events but I see no reason this law cannot be done away with. Why is it ok to carry at stadiums, fairs and such but NOT at the festival?


    70.108.010
    Legislative declaration.


    The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals by assuring that proper sanitary, health, fire, safety, and police measures are provided and maintained. This invocation of the police power is prompted by and based upon prior experience with outdoor music festivals where the enforcement of the existing laws and regulations on dangerous and narcotic drugs, indecent exposure, intoxicating liquor, and sanitation has been rendered most difficult by the flagrant violations thereof by a large number of festival patrons.
    [1971 ex.s. c 302 19.]
    Notes:
    Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
    70.108.150
    Firearms Penalty.


    It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

    Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
    [2012 c 117 424; 1972 ex.s. c 123 5.]
    I'm going to go with a wild shot in the dark and say this has to do with a little speedway in California and a famous (and amazingly still going) rock band and a few of their friends.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    The main problem with this sort of thing is differing levels of judicial scrutiny.

    The courts use different standards of (effectively) evidence when considering whether a law violates rights when it appears to violate the right to freedom of expression than when it appears to violate the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, laws that are obvious violations of the 2nd amendment or Article 1, Section 24 get judicial approval, despite the fact that an identically worded law applied to the first amendment gets struck down swiftly.

    The courts are allowed to consider so-called compelling government interests when considering the right to bear arms, that they are not allowed to consider when the topic is a restraint upon speech. Despite the fact that governments have a greater interest in controlling political speech than they do controlling firearms.

    What we need to do is have one standard (the more strict one, of course) for consideration of all such rights and their interaction with statutes, not the varying strictness we have now.

    Unfortunately, doing so would likely take a constitutional amendment.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    The main problem with this sort of thing is differing levels of judicial scrutiny.

    The courts use different standards of (effectively) evidence when considering whether a law violates rights when it appears to violate the right to freedom of expression than when it appears to violate the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, laws that are obvious violations of the 2nd amendment or Article 1, Section 24 get judicial approval, despite the fact that an identically worded law applied to the first amendment gets struck down swiftly.

    The courts are allowed to consider so-called compelling government interests when considering the right to bear arms, that they are not allowed to consider when the topic is a restraint upon speech. Despite the fact that governments have a greater interest in controlling political speech than they do controlling firearms.

    What we need to do is have one standard (the more strict one, of course) for consideration of all such rights and their interaction with statutes, not the varying strictness we have now.

    Unfortunately, doing so would likely take a constitutional amendment.
    I am of the opinion that lawful open carry is an expression of political belief that is protected by the First Amendment...
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I am of the opinion that lawful open carry is an expression of political belief that is protected by the First Amendment...
    +1 Same here.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    I am of the opinion that lawful open carry is an expression of political belief that is protected by the First Amendment...
    Oh, I agree completely. Unfortunately, the courts generally do not consider any rights to be violated when they tell you that you can't be armed in public. First and second amendments use almost identical language. Article I, Section 24 is even more explicit. Doesn't seem to make a difference. The courts still insist the words mean different things when talking about different rights.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    Not to mention recent SCOTUS cases, we know this is a law that "needs" to be changed but under current laws is it a law that can & should be repealed? This law has been on the books since 1971. I'm still doing data research on firearm injuries at these events but I see no reason this law cannot be done away with. Why is it ok to carry at stadiums, fairs and such but NOT at the festival?


    70.108.010
    Legislative declaration.


    The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals by assuring that proper sanitary, health, fire, safety, and police measures are provided and maintained. This invocation of the police power is prompted by and based upon prior experience with outdoor music festivals where the enforcement of the existing laws and regulations on dangerous and narcotic drugs, indecent exposure, intoxicating liquor, and sanitation has been rendered most difficult by the flagrant violations thereof by a large number of festival patrons.
    [1971 ex.s. c 302 19.]
    Notes:
    Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
    70.108.150
    Firearms Penalty.


    It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

    Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
    [2012 c 117 424; 1972 ex.s. c 123 5.]


    But lets say I am a CEO of company X and I have decided to hire the Rolling Stones to play (Pepsi did this some years back) in an outdoor venue for MY employees. Does the statue still forbid the carrying of weapons? Does festival mean multiple bands? And since only employees are allowed is it considered a private enterprise and not covered under the ridiculous The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals... ?

Posting Permissions

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