• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Lousy timing on my letter to Federal Way Attorney

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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Ok, Estes is not citable, unpublished, and not enforceable.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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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 It, being unpublished, does not create common law--it is supposedly just a ruling based on already established common law.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The heart of the unpublished opinion, which if it actually became common law would be bad is: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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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?
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

UPDATE

Buried deep within the City of Federal Way council packets for 12/02/2008 is the first reading of FWCC Amendments to Criminal Law. On page 196 is this little gem. No communication from the legal department or any city staff that this was taking place.

Ordinance 08-____ [relevant portions]
Section 13: Rewords 6-138 to narrow the carry prohibition in an establishment where liquor is sold by the drink to "in that portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under 21 years of age."

Section 14: From 6-139 of the FWCC, Firearms prohibited in certain places, strikes "The council chamber of the city council"

Section 32: Rewords 11-72 of the FWCC removing all references to firearm possession (parks).
In other words, everything I asked them to change. Expect that this will pass sometime in January as the regular council meetings for the rest of the year were cancelled.
 

carhas0

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
161
Location
, ,
imported post

That's interesting...wasn't Federal Way citing the same cases and using the same reasoning as Seattle, and refusing to amend their code?
 
Top