Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Parks in Redmond

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    Well, I decided to take a walk this weekend. I happen to live almost right across the street from a very nice park that's owned by the City of Redmond. I noticed a small sign on one of the paths entering the park. There is not a sign on all entrances, only that one, and one on the other side.

    I was curious, so I walked over and took a look. I noticed right off the bat a picture of a gun with the old large circle with the slash symbol, and underneath "No Firearms". I read all the don'ts that were posted, but nothing in that section related to firearms.

    I take it they can't say this because of state pre-emption, correct? Should I send an email to the city parks department informing them of the state pre-emption and letting them know that restriction is not legal? How should I handle this?

    Thanks!
    Greg

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    Well, I decided to take a walk this weekend. I happen to live almost right across the street from a very nice park that's owned by the City of Redmond. I noticed a small sign on one of the paths entering the park. There is not a sign on all entrances, only that one, and one on the other side.

    I was curious, so I walked over and took a look. I noticed right off the bat a picture of a gun with the old large circle with the slash symbol, and underneath "No Firearms". I read all the don'ts that were posted, but nothing in that section related to firearms.

    I take it they can't say this because of state pre-emption, correct? Should I send an email to the city parks department informing them of the state pre-emption and letting them know that restriction is not legal? How should I handle this?

    Thanks!
    Greg
    Lemme take a crack at it. Can you PM me more details of where you found this sign?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    Well, I decided to take a walk this weekend. I happen to live almost right across the street from a very nice park that's owned by the City of Redmond. I noticed a small sign on one of the paths entering the park. There is not a sign on all entrances, only that one, and one on the other side.

    I was curious, so I walked over and took a look. I noticed right off the bat a picture of a gun with the old large circle with the slash symbol, and underneath "No Firearms". I read all the don'ts that were posted, but nothing in that section related to firearms.

    I take it they can't say this because of state pre-emption, correct? Should I send an email to the city parks department informing them of the state pre-emption and letting them know that restriction is not legal? How should I handle this?

    Thanks!
    Greg
    Lemme take a crack at it. Can you PM me more details of where you found this sign?
    PM Sent.

  4. #4
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I'm definitely waiting to see the result on this one....
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Boise, Idaho, , USA
    Posts
    164

    Post imported post

    Similar thing happened to me many years ago in Shoreline. In the park on 160th and 1st (can't remember the name), I saw a similar sign and I emailed the police department. I was bumped up to the police attorney-type person who said that the signs did not apply to those who had a concealed weapons permit. I kept the emails for many years, but when I looked for them a few months ago, I could no longer find them.

    I'm not sure how the signs apply when a person is OCing without a CWP, however. You might want to clarify those points.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    State pre-emption negates any "law" the park system thinks it has. King County Ordinance is the most common mistake that parks in that area quote. There's a trail out in North Bend that quotes the KCO, and says "no firearms". Funny thing, the KCO reffered to doesn't say anything about not possessing a firearm... It says something about DISCHARGING a firearm, but not about possessing it.

    Besides, neither the county nor the park can enforce that law because of state pre-emption. It's that simple. Unless it's federal land (national park), state pre-emption covers it. With or without a permit. Only state and federal laws apply. Period. That's what state pre-emption means.

    Oh, and contacting the Sheriff's Department is going to get you a vague and dishonest answer. They'll tell you what they want to, which is "don't carry a gun... just to be safe (lol)". They aren't lawyers and their advice is rarely correct. It's more of a "we'd rather you think it means this" than a "it means this". At least that's always been my experience with King County Sheriffs. I actually had a sheriff's deputy once be confused when I told him that you had to be 21 to carry a concealed weapon. He said "really? I thought it was 18!" and he was serious.

    Long story short, know the law and don't expect the police to. Don't get me wrong, they're mostly good guys, but they didn't go to law school and they can't always know every law and it's propper interpretation. They do the best they can, but legal advice is best when it comes from a lawyer.

  7. #7
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I'm resurrecting this thread to alert folks of illegal signage at Richmond Beach Park in Shoreline. I remembered someone mentioning such signage and found this thread.

    Below is the sign and me "civilly disobeying" said illegal sign (yes, I know I need to lose some weight :-p):





    Looks like Shoreline needs to be reminded of State Law.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, very interesting.

    I think Shoreline needs to get a letter explaining premption...
    http://srch.mrsc.org:8080/code/template.htm;jsessionid=F14996AEB1F14CBCE773205F51 0A7ED4?view=main
    8.12.490 Firearms, weapons.
    No person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel shall possess a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, or air or gas weapon in a city park. No person shall discharge across, in, or onto any park area a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property. This section shall not apply where the department has authorized, in writing, a special recreational activity upon finding that it is not inconsistent with park use. [Ord. 195 ยง1, 1999]

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Oh, and contacting the Sheriff's Department is going to get you a vague and dishonest answer. They'll tell you what they want to, which is "don't carry a gun... just to be safe (lol)". They aren't lawyers and their advice is rarely correct. It's more of a "we'd rather you think it means this" than a "it means this". At least that's always been my experience with King County Sheriffs. I actually had a sheriff's deputy once be confused when I told him that you had to be 21 to carry a concealed weapon. He said "really? I thought it was 18!" and he was serious.

    Long story short, know the law and don't expect the police to. Don't get me wrong, they're mostly good guys, but they didn't go to law school and they can't always know every law and it's propper interpretation. They do the best they can, but legal advice is best when it comes from a lawyer.
    The fact is, the answer you will get will depend greatly on who you talk and what their position is. While this may sound bad on the surface, you need to understand that there are over 300KCSO hundred employees who are not commisioned officers. Those are usually the folks answering the phones. They are quite possibly not going to have accurate info, but that doesn't mean they won't try to be helpful and may offer what they believe to be the case.

    I work in the KCSO comm center, and we are usually the ones that get these calls. The answer you should get from one of my folks (all non-commisioned) is that they cannot answer your question or give you advice. The reason is, as expvideo says above, is that is could be considered legal advice and none of use are lawyers. Explaining and interpreting the RCW is considered giving legal advice. Our job is answer calls for reports of crime or general information (what time is the Precinct open? Who do I call about sex offender registration? How do I get a copy of a police report? etc.)

    The cop's job is to investigate crimes and when he believes there has been a violation, respond accordingly. Then the prosecutor makes a determination what if any charges are actually filed. Then a judge or jury make the final determination. While we 911 folks know a lot about the law, and the officers know even more, none of us are lawyers or judges.Yes, mistakes are made. On the upside, they don't get made very often and they are almost always honest mistakes. Everyone in the process is, afterall, human.

    You'd be surprised how many calls we get with folks wanting to play "what if" questions. There are just too many variables and unfortunately folks aren't always forthright and honest with the information they provide.We are not going to be in the position of telling someone they can (or can't) carry a gun based on the set of circumstances they decide to provide us with.

    Now, the officers themselves should know and I think in general KCSO has a pretty good reputation. The unfortunate fact of urban/suburban life is if we get a MWAG call, we are going to have to send someone out. It is pretty much a liability/CYA issue. If it turns out he is a bad guy and does something, and we didn't go to check it out, than we have Jim Forman and the PI all up in our stuff.

    I can tell you when we do get such calls, the folks at 911 are trained to ask the questions about where the gun is, if it is in a holster or out, and what the person is doing or how they are behaving. This info is given to the officer responding.

    I've worked there almost 16 years and I've never heard anyone in the comm center tell anyone not to carry a gun. If someone ask about the particulars, we will give them info on how to apply for a CPL and or refer them to the RCW.

    My advice to everyone is if you call anyone in "the government" about anything, get a name (or ID number) of who you talk to, and write down the date and time of the call. If you are given bad information or treated poorly, very little can be done without being able to track down the source of the info.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Hi Lonnie,

    There are many of these signs all over the older Eastside parks. Many of them are rusted and look quite old, however.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Thank you 911Bossvery well put.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North of Seattlle, South of Canada, Washington, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Not enforceable. However, doesn't mean you won't get contacted as a matter of a call. Our city has the same nonsense on the signs. They won't alter the signs and we are expected not to enforce it (unless discharging a firearm, acting aggressively with it, etc.).

Posting Permissions

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