Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Need ammo for RCW 9.41.290

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    So the City attorney is hesitant to come out and say the libraries ban on guns is against the preemption law. I was wondering if anyone has any case law or other legaleese info that would reinforce RCW 9.41.290 applying to public building (rules) and not just city or county laws.

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

    Post imported post

    A, after looking at your post regarding the deprivation of civil rights in public buildings and that such includes public libraries, I can't see how anyone could argue that a gun ban in a public library is legal. You could forget about 9.41.290 and just whip out Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Can we see this letter?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    Letter?

  5. #5
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I take it back, I re-read the RCW and it's specific in applying to denying someone's civil rights on the grounds of "race, creed, or color" and no other reasons specified (Creed meaning religion in this case, I would assume).

    So, unless you could argue that "creed" meant "belief" in the general form and not in the religious form and that your "belief" that you should be allowed to lawfully carry openly was infringed upon, then you might have a case, but it's about as air-tight as a butthole at a chili cookoff.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    570

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    I take it back, I re-read the RCW and it's specific in applying to denying someone's civil rights on the grounds of "race, creed, or color" and no other reasons specified (Creed meaning religion in this case, I would assume).

    So, unless you could argue that "creed" meant "belief" in the general form and not in the religious form and that your "belief" that you should be allowed to lawfully carry openly was infringed upon, then you might have a case, but it's about as air-tight as a butthole at a chili cookoff.
    That is why I am wondering if it Only applies to issues of race creed or color, subsection b seems to indicate that it is the violation of any civil rights and the only time a perpriator can kick anyone out is when the person is violating state law. If it only partained to discrimination based on race creed or color they could deny gays the right to enter a department store or kick you out of a McDonalds because you have a blue shirt on.

  7. #7
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Agent 47 wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    I take it back, I re-read the RCW and it's specific in applying to denying someone's civil rights on the grounds of "race, creed, or color" and no other reasons specified (Creed meaning religion in this case, I would assume).

    So, unless you could argue that "creed" meant "belief" in the general form and not in the religious form and that your "belief" that you should be allowed to lawfully carry openly was infringed upon, then you might have a case, but it's about as air-tight as a butthole at a chili cookoff.
    That is why I am wondering if it Only applies to issues of race creed or color, subsection b seems to indicate that it is the violation of any civil rights and the only time a perpriator can kick anyone out is when the person is violating state law. If it only partained to discrimination based on race creed or color they could deny gays the right to enter a department store or kick you out of a McDonalds because you have a blue shirt on.
    I agree... and it appears to be just that. Subsection (1) gives a bunch of definitions of terms used in Subsection (2). Subsection (2) is where they actually say what's prohibited in regards to denial of civil rights and they only mention those three things.

    Seems they need to expand that list... a lot.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    I would refer the city to the Pierce County Prosecutor, the Bellingham City Attorney, and the Kitsap County Prosecutor, all of whom have agreed that firearms are allowed in parks within their jurisdiction recently under 9.41.290.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    I take it back, I re-read the RCW and it's specific in applying to denying someone's civil rights on the grounds of "race, creed, or color" and no other reasons specified (Creed meaning religion in this case, I would assume).

    So, unless you could argue that "creed" meant "belief" in the general form and not in the religious form and that your "belief" that you should be allowed to lawfully carry openly was infringed upon, then you might have a case, but it's about as air-tight as a butthole at a chili cookoff.
    JAC & Agent47 - are you referring to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law?

    If so, the FBI page on this topic doesn't seem to narrow it down that far. From the 2nd paragraph:
    Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm



  10. #10
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    underthebridge wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    I take it back, I re-read the RCW and it's specific in applying to denying someone's civil rights on the grounds of "race, creed, or color" and no other reasons specified (Creed meaning religion in this case, I would assume).

    So, unless you could argue that "creed" meant "belief" in the general form and not in the religious form and that your "belief" that you should be allowed to lawfully carry openly was infringed upon, then you might have a case, but it's about as air-tight as a butthole at a chili cookoff.
    JAC & Agent47 - are you referring to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law?

    If so, the FBI page on this topic doesn't seem to narrow it down that far. From the 2nd paragraph:
    No, I meant RCW and know what T18, S242 is (I carry a copy on my person when carrying). It was in reference to A-47's post here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/10744.html
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

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

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    No, I meant RCW and know what T18, S242 is (I carry a copy on my person when carrying). It was in reference to A-47's post here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/10744.html
    Thanks, how in the heck did I miss that? Good, more stuff to read.

  12. #12
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    "kick you out of a McDonalds because you have a blue shirt on. "

    They absolutely CAN kick you out of McDonalds for "wearing a blue shirt" or any other reason they like, unless it has been specifically legislated against. Haven't you ever seen that sign:

    "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

    That's the beauty of a free(ish) society. We get to freely associate with anyone or not as we choose, including who we do business with. Your civil rights to equal access only apply to the law and public (government) services.

    Sadly people forget this and think their civil rights trump other people's. Then we endup with crap like the "Fair Housing" act and other "affirmative action" policies.
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

Posting Permissions

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