• 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.

Need ammo for RCW 9.41.290

Agent 47

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
570
Location
, Washington, USA
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.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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. :lol:
 

Agent 47

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
570
Location
, Washington, USA
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.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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.
 

carhas0

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
161
Location
, ,
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.
 

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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. :lol:
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
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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. :lol:
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
 

thebastidge

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
313
Location
2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, US
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.
 
Top