Well, I fired the first salvo last night, in what will likely turn out to be a long and drawn out battle.
The HOA board had a meeting last night, which I attended. I was the sole supporter of removing the "no firearms" rule from the park. I approached the subject from a few different angles:
1) The rule was too vague. It reads "No firearms or dangerous weapons are allowed". While "firearm" is quite clear, dangerous weapon is not defined. Even the term "deadly weapon", defined in Washington State law, covers just about any object you can think of. The difference is that there's no law prohibiting carrying these items, so long as they are not used in an assault (nunchucks, throwing stars, etc. are prohibited, but aerosol cans, knives, pipes, and other everyday household objects are not). To enforce this park rule, the board would have to prevent people from bringing pretty much anything on to park property, including gas grilles, shovels and rakes, steak knives, etc.
2) The rule is unenforceable. If someone is carrying a concealed weapon - gun or otherwise - there's no way for anyone to know. The homeowners have no means to perform a stop or search of a person on the property, and the police have no jurisdiction to perform a search either, since it's (shared) private property. If, by some miracle, someone was actually caught breaking the rule, nobody has any way to detain them so that they can be fined, and if they are not homeowners, they can't be fined at all.
3) The penalty for breaking the rule is not enforced, generally can't be enforced, and isn't a deterrent anyway. Assault with a deadly weapon is already covered by Washington State law and is a Class A, B, or C felony, depending on circumstances. Committing assault with a deadly weapon can result in a $50,000 fine and life in prison. Violating the park's no weapons rule is a $50 fine. Anyone who's willing to risk life in prison is not going to be deterred by a small fine. And, as said above, people who are not members of the HOA can't be fined anyway (homeowners can have a levy put against their house, but it's almost never done because it costs more in paperwork and lawyer fees than it brings in via the fine).
4) Anyone who is legally and lawfully armed should not be denied access to the park, and anyone who wants to come to the park should not be disarmed. For the past three years I've heard nothing but complaints from board members and home owners that "undesireables" hang out in the park at all hours, drinking and doing drugs. One of these people (they're mostly teenagers) was recently caught carrying a pistol while underage. Now, they want to make sure that anyone who goes to the park is not only outnumbered, but is underarmed as well.
5) It may very well be illegal for the board/HOA to prevent me from legally arming myself on property that I jointly own. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to back this up with law or precedent yet, but I may consult a lawyer to see exactly what my rights are in this regard. At the very least, this rule violates the state constitution and my personal civil liberties. That alone should give me some legal ground to stand on.
Even with all of these arguments, very few people were willing to back up my position. Two women, in particular, "gave me the hand" and were basically unwilling to listen to reason and logic. Apparently, all they know is emotion; fear of guns. One woman said that she works in HR and that removing the no firearms rule would open up the HOA to liability. I responded that disarming a legally armed citizen would be just as bad. Another woman asked the classic "why do you need a gun"? I gave her the classic "why do you need seatbelts or smoke detectors" response.
It wasn't ALL bad though. The board president attempted to get a compromise, saying that people with permits should be allowed, and that there may be legal implications involved in barring the use of arms to citizens. I agreed with the latter, but insisted that people don't need a permit to arm themselves, and that no citizen should be denied the right to defend theirself, regardless of whether or not they have a CPL. My neighbor also came through with some support. She knows that I carry a gun and said that while she doesn't own one, she's glad I do, since the Sheriff takes forever to respond, if they do at all. This woman also made the best suggestion of the night: changing the wording of the rule to only prohibit "unlawful weapons". This compromise seems to be the almost perfect solution. It allows the board to maintain their rule, while not preventing me from carrying.
One other thing during the meeting really struck me. The woman I just mentioned was the ONLY person there who knew that I carried a gun. This, despite the fact that I openly carry all around the neighborhood on an almost daily basis. Just a few weeks ago I had a long conversation with the board treasurer, outside her home, while she was having a garage sale. I was there for at least ten minutes, carrying openly on her own property. I talked to her, her husband, and several people who stopped for the garage sale. At last nights meeting she told me she had no idea that I carried. I knew that people were unobservant, but I didn't think they were blind!
Long story short, almost nobody was willing to back me up (certainly not the people that matter - the board members), but I made my case and a potential compromise was reached. I'll continue to research this further and will be speaking to a lawyer (any recommendations for one?), but for now I'll just continue to carry and will stay away from the park as much as possible. During those times that I do need to enter the park, I will remain armed. My life is worth more to me than $50.