Firearms Prohibited

XD45PlusP · Mar 16, 2008

imported post

SMC 18.12.140 Firearms prohibited -- Exceptions.

http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=18.12&s2=&S3=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CODE1&d=CODE&p=1&u=%2F%7Epublic%2Fcode1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=L3%3B1%3B18.12.140.SNUM.

It is unlawful to carry a firearm in any park; provided, that this
section shall not apply to police officers or to Department of Parks
and Recreation employees acting pursuant to and in accordance with
rules and regulations of the Superintendent; and provided further,
that this section shall not apply at shooting, trap-shooting and
skeet-shooting ranges.

Took a picture of this sign;

What is the appropriate step now?

XD45PlusP

sv_libertarian · Mar 16, 2008

imported post

Write a letter. Get a lawyer. OC. Get cited. Sue.

I would start with a letter campaign.

Euromutt · Mar 16, 2008

imported post

Yeah, that sign looks a little too new to predate 1994, so it's not like they just forgot (or couldn't afford) to replace the sign after state preemption was enacted. SMC 18.12.140 being a "preempted and repealed" law under RCW 9.41.290, the sign is essentially illegal.

On a related note, I took my kid to Rainier Vista park in Lacey today and took another look at the signs they have posted there. The signs don't specifically speak about firearms, but about "weapons" and "devices capable of launching projectiles" or somesuch. Since that encompasses things like slings, slingshots, crossbows, trebuchets, what have you--stuff other than firearms--and since state preemption only applies to firearms, I guess it's not an issue.

TechnoWeenie · Mar 17, 2008

imported post

Euromutt wrote:

The signs don't specifically speak about firearms, but about "weapons" and "devices capable of launching projectiles" or somesuch.

No model rockets at a park? WTF!?

Gray Peterson · Mar 17, 2008

imported post

I already sent a message to Seattle Parks and Rec about 4 days ago. They said they need two weeks for a response. Once that has expired, I'll start making phone calls.

j2l3 · Mar 17, 2008

imported post

Greenlake has a similar sign. Just one on the north end of the lake.

kparker · Mar 17, 2008

imported post

So does Carkeek park (at the bridge going over the tracks to the beach.)

just_a_car · Mar 18, 2008

imported post

That being the case, I intend on making a point of OC'ing at both Carkeek and Greenlake between next Sunday and the Sunday after that (within a 7-day period while I'm off school).

I don't expect anyone but myself, but if anyone is interested in joining me and is available, I'd be happy to give 'em a call; just PM me.

I'll probably walk around Greenlake at least once, if not more, since I'm overweight and could use the exercise.

As for Carkeek, I went there with my Marine Biology class this last summer and had a blast. As such, I'll likely bring along my hip-waders and check out the fauna at the beach... while OC'ing (It's okay... I've got a GLOCK).

Also, due to this being a public forum... this is an open invitation to any LEO's to infringe on my civil rights in violation of RCW 9.41.290... I carry a number of a civil rights lawyer on my person. Have a nice day... I know I will!

XD45PlusP · Mar 18, 2008

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

I already sent a message to Seattle Parks and Rec about 4 days ago. They said they need two weeks for a response. Once that has expired, I'll start making phone calls.

I also sent some emails off, and I called and talked with someone.

Superintendent Timothy A. Gallaghersaid he would talk with Legal about this.

If anyone else is in Seattle, or just interested in emailing, or calling here is the info.

Superintendent Timothy Gallagher timothy.gallagher@seattle.gov

Deputy Superintendent Christopher Williams Christopher.Williams@seattle.gov

Board of Park Commissioners sandy.brooks@seattle.gov

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/administration.htm

Thanks,

XD45PlusP

XD45PlusP · Mar 18, 2008

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

That being the case, I intend on making a point of OC'ing at both Carkeek and Greenlake between next Sunday and the Sunday after that (within a 7-day period while I'm off school).

I don't expect anyone but myself, but if anyone is interested in joining me and is available, I'd be happy to give 'em a call; just PM me.

I'll probably walk around Greenlake at least once, if not more, since I'm overweight and could use the exercise.

As for Carkeek, I went there with my Marine Biology class this last summer and had a blast. As such, I'll likely bring along my hip-waders and check out the fauna at the beach... while OC'ing (It's okay... I've got a GLOCK).

Also, due to this being a public forum... this is an open invitation to any LEO's to infringe on my civil rights in violation of RCW 9.41.290... I carry a number of a civil rights lawyer on my person. Have a nice day... I know I will!

just_a_car, great idea!! I might be able to join you....

I will let you know sir.

XD45PlusP · Mar 19, 2008

imported post

Well, got several replies. Don't know what to think...... :cuss:

Thank you for your message about laws pertaining to guns in Seattle parks.

Chapter 9.41 RCW does limit enforcement of SMC 18.12.140. The Municipal Code provision must be interpreted and applied in a manner that is consistent with RCW 9.41.290 and 9.41.300. Accordingly, a person who carries a firearm in a park in a manner that is lawful under all applicable federal, state, and local laws would not be in violation of SMC 18.12.140. A person with a valid concealed pistol license would not violate SMC 18.12.140 simply by carrying the pistol concealed on his person in a Seattle park. However, all other federal, state, and local laws would apply (see, for example, RCW 9.41.270 regarding carrying a firearm in a manner warranting alarm for the safety of others).

The signs are designed to set forth the general rule, but do not purport to specify all possible exceptions, such as persons carrying a concealed pistol pursuant to a concealed pistol license, or police officers carrying their firearms, etc. City ordinances are always subject to state statutes, and are enforced accordingly.

AND ANOTHER

Parksigns are designed to set forthgeneral rules, but do not purport to specify all possible exceptions, such as persons carrying a concealed pistol pursuant to a concealed pistol license, or police officers carrying their firearms, etc.City ordinancesare always subject to state statutes, and are enforced accordingly.

Ok, but how is a police officer, or park employee going to interpret this? Arrest, issue citation, and then you can fight it in court. So you end up with a record anyway? OMFG One screwed up system? Or they just don't want to waste money putting up new signs?

XD45PlusP

Ajetpilot · Mar 19, 2008

imported post

They just want to intimidate law abiding citizens who do not know their rights or the RCW. They don't want people carrying firearms in their parks, so they put up signs to intimidate. Why not? There is NO penalty against them for doing that! Yes, it is a screwed up system. I've been fighting the same problem in Kitsap County for four months. I don't think that there is an answer.

Gray Peterson · Mar 19, 2008

imported post

I got a similar response. I sent back a response and CC'd Mr. Gallagher, advising them that their response seems to suggest that they are under the mistaken belief that open carry is illegal and violative of 270 (with appropriate links to training bulletins dispelling that myth) and that Parks Department runs the serious risk of being held partially responsible for any false arrest or unlawful detainment claim, along with any police agency who enforces it.

I also reiterated to them that this is dead letter law, does not legally exist, and for them to make the implication that one's concealed pistol license exempts for concealed carry makes for a false assumption that the law is still valid in any way, when it hasn't been since 1985 (when most of the current language of RCW 9.41.290 was passed by the state legislature).

I will be following up with another email containing the State Supreme Court ruling in Cherry v. Muni. of Metropolitan Seattle.

Believe me folks, I'm not backing down from these guys. Library is next on the list too.

XD45PlusP wrote:

Well, got several replies. Don't know what to think...... :cuss:

Thank you for your message about laws pertaining to guns in Seattle parks.

Chapter 9.41 RCW does limit enforcement of SMC 18.12.140. The Municipal Code provision must be interpreted and applied in a manner that is consistent with RCW 9.41.290 and 9.41.300. Accordingly, a person who carries a firearm in a park in a manner that is lawful under all applicable federal, state, and local laws would not be in violation of SMC 18.12.140. A person with a valid concealed pistol license would not violate SMC 18.12.140 simply by carrying the pistol concealed on his person in a Seattle park. However, all other federal, state, and local laws would apply (see, for example, RCW 9.41.270 regarding carrying a firearm in a manner warranting alarm for the safety of others).

The signs are designed to set forth the general rule, but do not purport to specify all possible exceptions, such as persons carrying a concealed pistol pursuant to a concealed pistol license, or police officers carrying their firearms, etc. City ordinances are always subject to state statutes, and are enforced accordingly.

AND ANOTHER

Parksigns are designed to set forthgeneral rules, but do not purport to specify all possible exceptions, such as persons carrying a concealed pistol pursuant to a concealed pistol license, or police officers carrying their firearms, etc.City ordinancesare always subject to state statutes, and are enforced accordingly.

Ok, but how is a police officer, or park employee going to interpret this? Arrest, issue citation, and then you can fight it in court. So you end up with a record anyway? OMFG One screwed up system? Or they just don't want to waste money putting up new signs?

XD45PlusP

nathan · Mar 19, 2008

imported post

I open carry in this park on a regular basis without any problem thus far.

just_a_car · Mar 19, 2008

imported post

nathan wrote:

I open carry in this park on a regular basis without any problem thus far.

Hey nathan, they just didn't put the "whole" rule on the sign as is on their website: http://www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/parks-recreation/parks_trails/rules.htm

They prohibit the "Discharge of Firearms"... so either they just wanted to save space (likely) or are being intentionally subversive to prevent anyone from carrying a firearm in the park.

nathan · Mar 19, 2008

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

nathan wrote:

I open carry in this park on a regular basis without any problem thus far.

Click to expand...

Hey nathan, they just didn't put the "whole" rule on the sign as is on their website: http://www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/parks-recreation/parks_trails/rules.htm

They prohibit the "Discharge of Firearms"... so either they just wanted to save space (likely) or are being intentionally subversive to prevent anyone from carrying a firearm in the park.

The website was newly updated. The county law is still a problem.

9.04.190 Firearms. No person shall, at any time, bring into or upon the properties of the county, nor have in their possession, nor discharge a revolver, pistol, shotgun, rifle, bow and arrow, crossbow, slingshot, spring or gas propelled b-b and pellet guns, spears or javelins, or any other weapon, except in designated target range areas. (Ord. 1976-05-43 (part), 1976)
http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/clarkcounty.html

carhas0 · Mar 21, 2008

imported post

As I'm sure those of you working on this have noticed, the parks department is focusing on their very general signs, arguing that it does not specify exemptions to the rule, but are ignoring the fact that the municipal code specifically prohibits possession of firearms. I think the target needs to be the city council, since they're the ones that can change the code, which is the only thing that can completely prevent the police from enforcing it.

Ajetpilot · Mar 21, 2008

imported post

nathan wrote:

I open carry in this park on a regular basis without any problem thus far.

Sure, you OC here with no problem. But, that is not the point. The point is that this sign intimidates other law abiding citizens, who are gun owners but are not members of this board, and who are therefore not familiar with the RCW, from carrying in the park. They look at the sign and have to make a choice. "Do I avoid this park that I support with my tax dollars? Or, should I carry concealed to protect myself, thus "breaking the law" and risk being arrested?" Surely, I can't OC as is my right in a free society!"

It is about governmental intimidation, folks. The "authorities" know the RCW and therefore will not enforce the local firearms ban, but in the mean time, they have intimidated the uninformed public from exercising their rights!

Phssthpok · Mar 21, 2008

imported post

Perhaps we should hold our first SW Wa, BBq (when the weather becomes appropriate) at Klineline Park. It seems like it's ALWAYS teeming with folks when it's warm out, and they even list a 'large, non-reservable group shelter', and lifeguards on duty.....a surefire guarentee that we'll be seen by TPTB. And if (when) we are approached, then there will be plenty of people around to have a chance at educating, while we stand our ground against any unlawful attempts to force us to leave.

Euromutt · Mar 21, 2008

imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:

Chapter 9.41 RCW does limit enforcement of SMC 18.12.140. The Municipal Code provision must be interpreted and applied in a manner that is consistent with RCW 9.41.290 and 9.41.300.

Prevarication. Obfuscation. Horsecrap.
RCW 9.41.290 does not merely limit enforcement of SMC 18.12.140. The RCW states:

Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Emphasis mine. Since SMC 18.12.140 applies only to firearms (basically all it says is "It is unlawful to carry a firearm in any park" with some exceptions), it is bereft of any legal status whatsoever. RCW 9.21.290 "limits enforcement" of SMC 18.12.140 in the same way that being decapitated limits one's ability to run a marathon. The Municipal Code provision cannot be "interpreted and applied" because, according to RCW 9.41.290, the Municipal Code provision no longer exists.

Firearms Prohibited

Regular Member

Attachments

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Attachments

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member