Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Lousy timing on my letter to Federal Way Attorney

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

    Finally decided to get off my butt and fire off the letter to Federal Way (Atty, Council and Mayor) regarding both their Muni codes on carry in parks and council chambers.

    Guess I'll sit on it for a few, but not long.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    It sucks when people like that ruin it for us law abiding citizens.

    I dunno, maybe just point out that the gunman obviously ignored the city councils no guns signs... (Probably best verify there were some, first, though)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post


    Ask, and you shall receive:

    Missouri Revised Statutes 571.107. 1. :

    No ... concealed carry endorsement ... or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
    ...
    (5) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government; or any meeting of the general assembly or a committee of the general assembly, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the body holding a valid concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the body which he or she is a member.
    There you have it. (And isn't that sweet? Official Persons(tm) are allowed to carry into meetings if they have a permit, but peons aren't. Bleah.



  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    underthebridge wrote:
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

    Finally decided to get off my butt and fire off the letter to Federal Way (Atty, Council and Mayor) regarding both their Muni codes on carry in parks and council chambers.

    Guess I'll sit on it for a few, but not long.
    This is the perfect time to send the letter.

    When a derangedindividual ignores the law and the signs, the only hope anybody has is to be armed himself or have armed citizen(s) present.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Score another victory for gun free zones! They kept the citizens safe once again! Oh wait, sorry I had a dyslexic moment....

  6. #6
    Regular Member ATCer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Underthebrige,

    Definitely keep us up to date on what you hear. I'm curious as to what they have to say. Hopefully they will be preempted and repealed as the state constitution says it should.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    So, I wasn'tvery speedy in getting that draft mailed, but Federal Way was quick to get a response back. Sorry for the size. The 9.41.300 arguement is way out there, but it is mentioned in the footnoted case citations, so I want to be sure to read them carefully. I'm familiar with Cherry and am reading PNSPA. I haven't been able to find Estes v. Vashon Maury Island Fire Protection Dist. No 13, Not Reported in P.3d, 129 Wash.App 1042, 2005 WL 2417641 (2005).

    Have to work overtime tomorrow and then the next three nights, so it might be a bit before I can put together a draft response. Any pointers or opinions would be appreciated.


    Thanks, -gb
    Attached Files Attached Files

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Here's your missing case: (it is unpublished, hence the note at the top of it... which means NO court may cite it and no attorney may quote it in a courtroom or other official legal pleading, according to RCW mentioned below)


    NOTE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION, SEE RCWA 2.06.040



    Court of Appeals of Washington,
    Division 1.
    David M. ESTES, Appellant,
    v.
    VASHON MAURY ISLAND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 13, a political subdivision of
    the State of Washington, Susan Carleton, David Jennings, Jan Nielsen, Sharon
    Lee Nicholson, and Scott Rice, in their capacity as commissioners of Vashon
    Maury Island Fire Protection District No. 13 and as individuals, and James
    Wilson, in his capacity as fire chief and as an individual, Respondents.
    No. 55950-8-I.
    Oct. 3, 2005.

    COLEMAN, AGID and SCHINDLER, JJ.



    Unpublished Opinion

    PER CURIAM.
    RCW 9.41.290 and his rights under the state and federal constitutions. After answering the complaint, the District filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to CR 12(c). The Superior Court granted the motion and dismissed Estes' suit. Estes appeals.
    Estes raises a question of law that we review de novo. Fondren Klickitat County, 79 Wn.App. 850, 854, 905 P.2d 928 (1995) (equating a CR 12(b)(6) motion Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745, 749-50, 888 P.2d 147 (1995).
    Estes challenges the Vashon Fire District policy on three grounds: statutory preemption of local firearms regulation; the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; and article I, section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. We address each claim.
    RCW 9.41.290 is the section of Washington's Uniform Firearm Act providing for preemption of municipal laws enacted on the subject of firearms regulation:
    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the RCW 9.41.300, which grants limited authority to local agencies to forbid possession of firearms in certain locations. RCW 9.41.300(2) provides in pertinent part:
    Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
    ...;
    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
    (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
    Because fire district buildings and property are not among the enumerated premises for which the Legislature has granted local jurisdictions authority to act, Estes contends that by necessary implication, the Legislature has preempted the District's policy here. This contention depends entirely, however, on the unsupported assumption that the district's "policy" constitutes RCW 9.41.290 and .300.
    The principal case interpreting these statutes is Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794, 803, 808 P.2d 746 (1991). In Cherry, a Metro bus driver was terminated from his job for violation Metro's personnel policy prohibiting drivers from carrying a weapon while on duty or on Metro property. The driver challenged the dismissal, but it was upheld by an arbitrator and the Superior Court on summary judgment. This court reversed, reasoning in a split decision that the preemptive sweep of RCW 9.41.290 was broad and that where the Legislature intended to create an exemption, RCW 9.41.300 demonstrated that it would be stated expressly. Cherry v. Metropolitan Seattle, 57 Wn.App. 164, 167-68, 787 P.2d 73 (1990).
    The Supreme Court granted review and reversed this court. Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794. Finding the statute ambiguous and thus requiring judicial construction, the court noted that it had previously "interpreted the act in light of its penal nature" and concluded that the preemption statute "was enacted to reform that situation in which counties, cities, and towns could each enact conflicting local criminal codes...." Cherry, 116 Wn.2d at 800-01 (citing In re Olsen v. Delmore, 48 Wn.2d 545, 548-49, 295 P.2d 324 (1956)). The Cherry court accordingly held that the Legislature, in enacting the modern version of RCW 9.41.290, "sought to eliminate a multiplicity of Cherry, 116 Wn.2d at 801.
    While the precise issue before the Cherry court was a municipal employee's possession of firearms on the job, rather than the present question regarding visitors to fire district property, we find the Supreme Court's reasoning applicable and controlling here. Because the fire district policy here fall does not fall within the scope of the criminal firearms regulations that the Cherry court viewed as governed by RCW 9.41.290, we reject Estes' claim of statutory preemption.
    City of Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wn.2d 541, 754 P.2d 1241 (1988).
    As for his claim based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Estes fails to cite any authority for his contention that this provision of the Bill of Rights has been made applicable to the states and consequently to entities such as the District that are created by state law. We agree with the authority cited by the District holding to the contrary. Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. City of Columbus, 152 F.3d 522, 539 n. 18 (6th Cir.1998); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.1996); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir.1992); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir.1982).
    Estes' claim that the District's policy violates article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution also fails. Washington courts have "consistently held that the right to bear arms in art. I, § 24 is not absolute, but instead is subject to 'reasonable regulation' by the State under its police power." City of Seattle v. Montana, 129 Wn.2d 583, 593, 919 P.2d 1218 (1996) (quoting Morris v. Blaker, 118 Wn.2d 133, 144, 821 P.2d 482 (1992)). "The scope of permissible regulation must depend upon a balancing of the public benefit to be derived from the regulation against the degree to which it frustrates the purpose of the constitutional provision." Second Amendment Found. v. City of Renton, 35 Wn.App. 583, 586, 668 P.2d 596 (1983).
    In Second Amendment Found., this court rejected a state constitutional challenge to a Renton ordinance prohibiting the carrying of firearms in places where alcoholic beverages are sold by the drink. We reasoned that the ordinance minimally affected the right to bear arms because it prevented the carrying of firearms only in bars and "[t]he benefit to public safety by reducing the possibility of armed conflict by persons under the influence of alcohol outweighs the general right to bear arms in defense of self and state." Second Amendment Found., 35 Wn.App. at 586-87. Similarly, we conclude that the limited effect on the general right to bear arms presented by the District's policy here is minimal in comparison to the obvious benefit to the public of enhancing the safety of firefighters and paramedics on the job.
    Affirmed.
    Wash.App. Div. 1,2005.
    Estes v. Vashon Maury Island Fire Protection Dist. No. 13
    Not Reported in P.3d, 129 Wash.App. 1042, 2005 WL 2417641 (Wash.App. Div. 1)


  9. #9
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I'm sure they're probably aware of all this stuff, but it sounds like this might be the time to contact the CCRKBA and NRA of WA. Both of whom showed and testified at the Senate Higher Ed Committee meetings.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Isn't it interesting that the letter refers to the City's viewing the park as private property and, just like a private property owner exercising the right to bar handguns. Are they not aware that as a government, they are merely custodians of the property which is owned by the PUBLIC! The Citizens of Federal Way, not the Politicians of Federal way own the parks.


    "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?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    The little that I did get a chance to read on the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Ass'n v. City of Sequim seems to be narrowly focused on both the contractual relationship and the provisions of 9.41.300 (2)(b) allowing this restriction, but ignoring the rather specific subsection.

    Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060;

    What strikes me is their broad interpretation of this opinion and Cherry (dealing with an employer/employee relationship) to prop up their position. However, I do need to delve into these deeper because there is some unfortunate language in both of these that lays the groundwork for their argument. It looks like PNSPA pulls from Cherry. I never was too happy with Cherry. I can't for the life of me figure out how they arrived at the Estes/Vashon opinion. Would love to know more about that case.

    The cases aside, the assertion that the Muni codes are Policy codes that would be used to ask the person to leave (aaah, no?) is ludicrous. In the parks section 11-54 (enforcement) and 11-55 (expulsion from the park) seem to be a rather convoluted way of forcing your hand on another violation and away from the specific firearm prohibition. Failure to comply with the provisions of this code is a misdemeanor.

    Section 6-139 specifies that "violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor," so either they're going to tag me with that at a council meeting or criminal trespass which mirrors the RCW's. So much for just asking me to leave.

    I have fired off an email to CCRKBA and am working on NRA-WA -- good idea, I hadn't thought of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member ATCer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Right on! Seems that our rights are taken away too easily, yet it takes an act of congress to get them reinstated/overturned. Keep up the good work!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Why not send a copy of this BS letter to the Washington State AG and see what he thinks of these outlandish interpretations?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    Why not send a copy of this BS letter to the Washington State AG and see what he thinks of these outlandish interpretations?
    I totally agree. It would seem that they are claiming that a policy is not a rule or a law and therefore is OK AND that a subdivision of government is not a part of that government. This is ridiculous semantics and I can't believe that the Appeals Court ruled this or that the Supreme Court didn't overturn it. By this logic any subdivision of any government could ban guns from their facilities merely by naming it a policy so long as the city/town/etc didn't do it directly. Therefore the fire department, the police department, the stadium operating authority, are all free to do anything they want. Any city that wants to ban guns just has to create a subdivision that runs everything and then the subdivision gets to enact a policy that bans guns everywhere.

    Example: The City of Blaine hereby creates the Blaine Public Works Department. The Blaine Public Works Department shall own and operate every public building within the city limits of Blaine. In their policy they ban guns. Perfectly legal according to this ridiculous case.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Correct me if I am wrong but don't all the cases he cites deal with employment and the ability of the employer to have policy that restricts firearms or a gun show?

    What the hell does this have to do with the ordinances banning firearms from a park? Not a damned thing.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Correct me if I am wrong but don't all the cases he cites deal with employment and the ability of the employer to have policy that restricts firearms or a gun show?

    What the hell does this have to do with the ordinances banning firearms from a park? Not a damned thing.
    The unciteable case, which (imho) was incorrectly decided, does not actually deal with employment issues. It, being unpublished, does not create common law--it is supposedly just a ruling based on already established common law.

    That Vashon fired district case dealt with a member of the public entering a fire station.

    The heart of the unpublished opinion, which if it actually became common law would be bad is:

    "While the precise issue before the Cherry court was a municipal employee's possession of firearms on the job, rather than the present question regarding visitors to fire district property, we find the Supreme Court's reasoning applicable and controlling here. Because the fire district policy here fall does not fall within the scope of the criminal firearms regulations that the Cherry court viewed as governed by RCW 9.41.290, we reject Estes' claim of statutory preemption."

    By this court's reasoning, any law restricting firearms possession is legal as long as the city does not charge, specifically, afirearms violation and instead charges a violation of trespassing, violating space use guidelines, etc.... seems totally against any logic...

    I am guessing the court of appeals, div. 1, didn't want to be overruled again like they were in the Cherry case. Or, perhaps their intention with this case was to be overruled and have better common law on preemption created by the WA supreme court... (this court originally decided Cherry in favor of the bus driver and were overturned)





  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    OK that makes a little more sense but if he were correct the city could have an ordinance that restricted firearms damned near everywhere because it is thier policy and they do not have criminal penalty assigned to them but simply you may not enter the city or you will be asked to leave.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    OK that makes a little more sense but if he were correct the city could have an ordinance that restricted firearms damned near everywhere because it is thier policy and they do not have criminal penalty assigned to them but simply you may not enter the city or you will be asked to leave.
    What would they do to you if you refuse to leave?



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Jered wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    OK that makes a little more sense but if he were correct the city could have an ordinance that restricted firearms damned near everywhere because it is thier policy and they do not have criminal penalty assigned to them but simply you may not enter the city or you will be asked to leave.
    What would they do to you if you refuse to leave?

    Charge you with criminal tresspass I presume.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    It's been a bit of a delay in getting this refined. The attached is a draft that has not yet been sent. I would appreciate any feedback. The original correspondence is all in this thread. The PDF's of the case law cited can be found either in this thread (thanks joshmmm) or here.

    [line]
    I have just finished up going through all (most) of Washington municipal and county codes and compiled the results in a Excel spreadsheet. It includes entities with codes on Park (include cemeteries), County/City buildings or council chambers (excluding courts), Alcohol (excluding legal wording from 9.41.300(1)(d)), and executive curtailment of possession right (such as NOPD - no one will be able to be armed, we will take all weapons). There are a few other obscure things I ran across, but save that for the new thread.

    I'm not sure what the best way to disseminate this. Ideally this would be something that everyone would have access to and be able to contribute additional information - who's working what, status, success!!! I will at the very least start that in a different thread. Any thoughts on this? I'm thinking of linking to a Google document, but you lose some functionality in doing that.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Ok, Estes is not citable, unpublished, and not enforceable. The cities and counties do not have unlimited trespass authority like a person's private home does. The best way to attack this determination is to attack their right to trespass. There's plenty of that in the state courts and in the 9th circuit.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joshmmm wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Correct me if I am wrong but don't all the cases he cites deal with employment and the ability of the employer to have policy that restricts firearms or a gun show?

    What the hell does this have to do with the ordinances banning firearms from a park? Not a damned thing.
    The unciteable case, which (imho) was incorrectly decided, does not actually deal with employment issues. It, being unpublished, does not create common law--it is supposedly just a ruling based on already established common law.

    That Vashon fired district case dealt with a member of the public entering a fire station.

    The heart of the unpublished opinion, which if it actually became common law would be bad is:

    "While the precise issue before the Cherry court was a municipal employee's possession of firearms on the job, rather than the present question regarding visitors to fire district property, we find the Supreme Court's reasoning applicable and controlling here. Because the fire district policy here fall does not fall within the scope of the criminal firearms regulations that the Cherry court viewed as governed by RCW 9.41.290, we reject Estes' claim of statutory preemption."

    By this court's reasoning, any law restricting firearms possession is legal as long as the city does not charge, specifically, afirearms violation and instead charges a violation of trespassing, violating space use guidelines, etc.... seems totally against any logic...

    I am guessing the court of appeals, div. 1, didn't want to be overruled again like they were in the Cherry case. Or, perhaps their intention with this case was to be overruled and have better common law on preemption created by the WA supreme court... (this court originally decided Cherry in favor of the bus driver and were overturned)



    I was under the impression that fire districts are just like transit districts. The are government over seen by elected officials, at least mine is. I know this because I'm married to one of those elected officials. They tax the public and serve the public like every government agency is suppose to. But then we are talking about Vashon Island, the hippie refuge ofNW Washington. Liberalism is rampant there.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    Ask, and you shall receive:

    Missouri Revised Statutes 571.107. 1. :

    No ... concealed carry endorsement ... or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
    ...
    (5) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government; or any meeting of the general assembly or a committee of the general assembly, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the body holding a valid concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the body which he or she is a member.
    There you have it.* (And isn't that sweet?* Official Persons(tm) are allowed to carry into meetings if they have a permit, but peons aren't.* Bleah.


    What does a Missouri statute have to do with Washington state statute and its application?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Dave,

    The whole thread started with a reference to the MO shooting incident, and the #2 commenter indicated an assumption, rather than actual knowledge, that carrying a weapon into that council meeting was prohibited, so I supplied the reference showing that it was indeed. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    Dave,

    The whole thread started with a reference to the MO shooting incident, and the #2 commenter indicated an assumption, rather than actual knowledge, that carrying a weapon into that council meeting was prohibited, so I supplied the reference showing that it was indeed.* Sorry if that wasn't clear.
    *
    Okay, gotcha.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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