Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Change of municipal codes for Spokane Wa.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    http://www.spokanecity.org/services/...?Find=firearms

    The above codes were changed in June 2007. I have not completly read through them, but thay are different. Just type in the word "firearms" or "gun".

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    One of their changes puts them in direct violation of Federal Law regarding the prohibition of weapons during an Emergency. The fed law covers any entity that receives Federal Funds and I'll bet you all a box of empty 9mm cases that Spokane gets their share of Fed funds.

    The Federal Law was enacted right after New Orleans decided to confiscate firearms.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Amlevin,
    Yes Spokane gets its share of fed money, as do a lot of cities. Could you quote the fed law prohibiting confiscation of firearms? Or where I can find it?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    I beleive he is talking about the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013). This bill would have prohibited the confiscation of legally possessed firearms during a national emergency. However,the billwas not considered by the Senate before Congress adjourned and, therefore, was not enacted into law.

    However it would be my guess that State Pre-emption would cover this provision and it should be declared null and void.




  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Here is another provision that would bother me... again pre-empted by state law but that doesn't stop one from being harrased:

    No person may in any park:


    1. possess any dangerous weapon as defined in chapter 9.41 RCW, unless authorized by park department rule, regulation or special permission of the park board, park department or police department; or

  6. #6
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Right Wing Wacko wrote:
    Here is another provision that would bother me... again pre-empted by state law but that doesn't stop one from being harrased:

    No person may in any park:

    1. possess any dangerous weapon as defined in chapter 9.41 RCW, unless authorized by park department rule, regulation or special permission of the park board, park department or police department; or
    Yup, that would be considered "more restrictive than" state law, thus is "preempted and repealed", as per: RCW 9.41.290.

    Carry a copy of that with you and you can laugh in the face of any LEO that tries to enforce that "local" law... it may get you arrested, but you won't have to work for the rest of your life from the ensuing civil rights lawsuit.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    http://www.spokanecity.org/services/...?Find=firearms

    The above codes were changed in June 2007. I have not completly read through them, but thay are different. Just type in the word "firearms" or "gun".
    Sounds as if someone needs to go through this list, compose a letter to the city attorney and for each one that mentions firearms or gun note that it is repealed due to RCW 9.41.290.

    Can anyone take this on?

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    fetch wrote:
    Amlevin,
    Yes Spokane gets its share of fed money, as do a lot of cities. Could you quote the fed law prohibiting confiscation of firearms? Or where I can find it?
    Actually I was referring to HR5441
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Yup, that would be considered "more restrictive than" state law, thus is "preempted and repealed", as per: RCW 9.41.290.
    Some of the local officials are still working under the old principle that allowed for the MORE restrictive law to take precident. The use their "selective reading" skills when interpreting.

    Lots of LEO's on the street are totally unaware that the State Law preempts Local and are adamant that they can enforce their Local Ords.



    Best to carry a copy of appropriate RCW's and then ask for a Supervisor if there is an issue. Do remember however that LEO's only arrest, Prosecutor's, Lawyers, and Judges interpret. Any frustration that causes an incident can lead to another charge that will not go away.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Thanks to those who replied.
    I have read through the Spokane Municipal codes and one thing that struck me was the complete ignoring of the Washington State Constitution, though it does have weasel words it is still clear.

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    I underlined the portion that shines. I will get information together to send to the city att. and I think I will speak to the city councel about this.
    Thanks Again.

Posting Permissions

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