eBratt
Regular Member
imported post
I was at Maple Valley's Lake Wilderness park a week or so ago and came across a sign that, among other things, prohibited firearms (no distinctions or exceptions were made). I am anxious to sent a letter to their parks department. I'd like some feedback before I push send on this thing.
***
To whom it may concern:
I am writing concerning a sign I saw at the Lake Wilderness Park in Maple Valley on Saturday, June 2, 2007.
The sign relays the basics of Maple Valley ordinance 7.05, Rules Governing Use Of City Parks. The part that specifically caught my attention was in specific regards to 7.05.050 which addresses the possession of weapons and firearms.
My first concern is that the sign simply states that possession of any firearm or weapon is not allowed. Upon reviewing the actual city ordinance, I see that it clarifies that an appropriate concealed weapons permit is required for carry of a firearm. While this is a step better, it is still problematic.
The problem lies in the fact that Washington Sate holds preemption on all laws regarding firearms including carrying them. According to RCW 9.41.290 and 9.41.300, cities, towns and counties are allowed to enact laws that restrict the discharge of weapons and possession in stadiums and convention centers, but nothing more restrictive than that. They may enact laws that are as restrictive as state law, but not more so.
The concern with the Maple Valley ordinance 7.05.050 is that it is more restrictive than what state law allows (see RCW 9.41.050 and 9.41.270). RCW 9.41.290 specifically states that, "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with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality." Thus, you are advertising a law that is "preempted and repealed" and consequently of no force.
With 7.05.050 being invalid, advertising it to the public is confusing and misleading. With that in mind, I am requesting you to please remove that line from the signs.
Sincerely,
Ethan Bratt
***
Any thoughts or feedback?
I was at Maple Valley's Lake Wilderness park a week or so ago and came across a sign that, among other things, prohibited firearms (no distinctions or exceptions were made). I am anxious to sent a letter to their parks department. I'd like some feedback before I push send on this thing.
***
To whom it may concern:
I am writing concerning a sign I saw at the Lake Wilderness Park in Maple Valley on Saturday, June 2, 2007.
The sign relays the basics of Maple Valley ordinance 7.05, Rules Governing Use Of City Parks. The part that specifically caught my attention was in specific regards to 7.05.050 which addresses the possession of weapons and firearms.
My first concern is that the sign simply states that possession of any firearm or weapon is not allowed. Upon reviewing the actual city ordinance, I see that it clarifies that an appropriate concealed weapons permit is required for carry of a firearm. While this is a step better, it is still problematic.
The problem lies in the fact that Washington Sate holds preemption on all laws regarding firearms including carrying them. According to RCW 9.41.290 and 9.41.300, cities, towns and counties are allowed to enact laws that restrict the discharge of weapons and possession in stadiums and convention centers, but nothing more restrictive than that. They may enact laws that are as restrictive as state law, but not more so.
The concern with the Maple Valley ordinance 7.05.050 is that it is more restrictive than what state law allows (see RCW 9.41.050 and 9.41.270). RCW 9.41.290 specifically states that, "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." Thus, you are advertising a law that is "preempted and repealed" and consequently of no force.
With 7.05.050 being invalid, advertising it to the public is confusing and misleading. With that in mind, I am requesting you to please remove that line from the signs.
Sincerely,
Ethan Bratt
***
Any thoughts or feedback?
, and welcome to the forum, great place to learn a lot here!
