Fort Vancouver-No weapons

imported post

Anybody hereattend or is going to the Fort Vancouver fireworks display? I went down there for a little while todayto see if they banned firearms, because the localpaper herehad stated their would beno weapons allowedwhen entering the event. Now part of the event his held on the National Historic reserve which is surrounded by a wooden fence that clearly states NPS boundary and the rest is city of Vancouver property. I know you cannot carry on National Parkproperty that's not my problem. They had a check point about a couple of blocks away that is city of Vancouver you could actually carry in the reserve and never touch NPS land. I never did see a no firearms signs but they were checking bags and what not for weapons and I know if they found out I was carrying that would have told me to leave. When the Fort of Vancouver is not having the 4Th of July event there is a major road that runs through this area. Also they had private security going through bags not police. Lonnie I would love to get your take on this. I have been reading your post for awhile and find you to be a knowledgeable person on firearms issues.

imported post

It's a good question you ask. I live on Federal property (Naval Base Bangor) and was told by the Master at Arms that the followingrules pretty much apply to any land that isowned by the Federal government; unless specifically noted. For example, every time I enter baseI have to put the gun in condition four,separate the magazine and the gun and place them at opposite ends of the vehicle (e.g. gun in trunk and magazines/ammo in the glove compartment) and claim them to the guard. Rule of thumb as far as I am concerned is that if it's federal land, keep it in condition four and don't pack it. I know it sucks, but that's just how the government works. I found this on another forum going into detail about the rules of NPS property if you wanted proof. As for the road that goes through there? I'm going toguess that sliver of roadis property of the city and/or state and not subject to federal guidelines. And if you were unfortunate to get pulled over, i doubt they'd charge you for legally carrying. Worse comes to worse, you just "didn't" know.


Possession or use of firearms or other weapons in allNational Park System areas is prohibited (except as otherwise provided in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36 parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska Regulations). With rare exception (such as times when controlled hunting is allowed) weapons are to be dismantled completely and cased while visiting in NPS areas in the United States. In order to transport weapons through NPS areas they must be dismantled and adequately cased or packed in such a way as to prevent their use. Loaded weapons are subject to confiscation by park authorities.

imported post

The thing that earks me the most is any other time you can go into this area because its city property. For example its like a park in your area being closed off a couple blocks away in every direction and them setting up checkpoints so they can keep and eye on what is brought into the area. I will have to say I never saw a no firearms sign at the check point, but I know and have talked with and officer and they had said its against federal law to carry their which they are correct. They just include from the checkpoint in which is not correct. Sorry for the rant....

imported post

If it is city property, than they have no control over firearms, unless there is a specific city or country ordance banning it. It's always safe to check with the county first, but in my book state law overrides any city ordance and I'm sure would be thrown out. Then again I'm from the east coast and we're used to people carrying around guns and such, so I guess I'm a bit more liberal when it comes to this. I tell ya, wasn't the west built on guns? What happened?!:what::what:

imported post

G27 wrote:

If it is city property, than they have no control over firearms, unless there is a specific city or country ordance banning it.

Click to expand...

Washington State has full pre-emption when it comes to firearms (except in the case of discharging firearms.) Thus there can be no city or county ordinance banning it. Or if there were, it would be unenforceable.

imported post

So even on the Federal Way training bulletin where it states:

Federal Way City Code 6-163. It is a misdemeanor for anyone to carry in any manner any firearm on or in any premises in the city where alcoholic beverages are dispensed by the drink.

This leads me to believe that places like Applebee's and even Shari's you're prohibited from carrying in cause they serve alcohol. Now, where exactly is this Washington state law that gives state law full control over local ordances? I just want to make sure I'm covering all of my angles.

imported post

State Preemption: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

imported post

Sweet. Thanks, JAC. :celebrate

imported post

G27 wrote:

So even on the Federal Way training bulletin where it states:

Federal Way City Code 6-163. It is a misdemeanor for anyone to carry in any manner any firearm on or in any premises in the city where alcoholic beverages are dispensed by the drink.

This leads me to believe that places like Applebee's and even Shari's you're prohibited from carrying in cause they serve alcohol. Now, where exactly is this Washington state law that gives state law full control over local ordances? I just want to make sure I'm covering all of my angles.

Click to expand...

The only places in WA that are off-limits to firearms as far as alcohol goes is those that are restricted to those over the age of 21. So, for those restaurants that have a "bar" area, you are not permitted to enter the "21 or over only" section, but you are permitted to enter the other areas not posted.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

"(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or"

So, that city code can not be more restrictive than 9.41.300.

imported post

G27 wrote:

I tell ya, wasn't the west built on guns? What happened?!:what::what:

Click to expand...

Liberals!

imported post

amlevin wrote:

G27 wrote:

I tell ya, wasn't the west built on guns? What happened?!:what::what:

Click to expand...

Liberals!

Click to expand...

ZING!!!...

It appears to my backwoods ass that the at least some of them here appear to like guns. If they didn't we'd end up like NYC or Kalifornia.
LIBERALISM: The haunting fear someone, somewhere, can help themselves. --Rightwingpress.com
Note to self: Be sure you tell all your lib friends you stood up for them.

imported post

"I live on Federal property (Naval Base Bangor) and was told by the Master at Arms that the followingrules pretty much apply to any land that isowned by the Federal government; unless specifically noted."

It's easy enough for a base commander to make rules like that, but as for sweeping generalizations like that, I would ask for a cite.

Usually there isn't one.A lot of the time, the problem isn't knowing the rules, it's knowing rules that aren't.

imported post

Military instilations are simple. As far as "other", its worth the time to look it up.