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 It, being unpublished, does not create common law--it is supposedly just a ruling based on already established common law.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The heart of the unpublished opinion, which if it actually became common law would be bad is: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)