Puyallup Parks

imported post

I called the Puyallup Parks Director Ralph Dannenberg today and asked if I could get written permission to carry my pistol in puyallup parks. He told me that I would have to talk to the police chief. So I read the Puyallup Municipal code to him.

9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons.
It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any fireworks, firecrackers, torpedos or explosives of any kind or to carry any firearms, air guns, bows and arrows, B-B guns, or use any slingshot in any park unless a written permit has been obtained from the parks director.

He says " well I'm not going to give written permission for that. Is this a permitted weapon we are talking about?"

So I tell him that there is not a permit process for obtaining a firearm in Washington. I also read the part of RCW 9.41.290 that says:

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with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

He said that he will check with the city attorney and police chief and I can call him back later today.

I'm not quick on my feet with rcw's and such like a lot of you are so I don't oc in places that would get me in a pickle, but I'm thinking about going for it in this situation. I do however cc in Puyallup parks regulary.

imported post

Written permission? Why would you ask him for that? I’m not at all surprised he refused. If you want to carry anywhere it’s lawful, Article 1 section 24 is the only written permission you will get. I would and do ignore the park signs as they carry no legal weight and were repealed by WA’s preemption. As long as you know what to ask the responding officer and how to behave during an encounter you should be fine.



“Am I being detained?” “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” “Would you please call a sergeant out here?”

imported post

cc27 wrote:

9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons.
It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any fireworks, firecrackers, torpedos or explosives of any kind or to carry any firearms, air guns, bows and arrows, B-B guns, or use any slingshot in any park unless a written permit has been obtained from the parks director.


This is part of the Puyallup code, and from a former post, I believe he was trying to get the parks director to acknowledge the RCW.

imported post

I asked for written permission to lead into the fact that the law is unenforceable. If you read the wording in the code it state that written permission is required, so I used that fact to start the conversation. I know that I do not need permission. I didn't want to just call and bombard him with rcw this and stat preemption that.I gave him the opportunity to tell me no. Then I pointed out that this was his responsibility. I feel by going about it this way encouraged him to take matters further.

imported post

Good on ya let us know how this goes! I agree that by taking this indirect aproach you force his hand to dig further than if you were to bulldog him.

imported post

OK,just got off the phone with Park Director Ralph Dannenberg. The city attorney was in court so he could not get a definite answer. But, he said he did do some checking around and I was right about the state preemption.He also added that more than likely the signs will be corrected. I will know more in a few day's.

imported post

CC27 wrote:

9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons.
It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any fireworks, firecrackers, torpedos or explosives of any kind or to carry any firearms, air guns, bows and arrows, B-B guns, or use any slingshot in any park unless a written permit has been obtained from the parks director.

Click to expand...

I think this is a result of sloppy code writing. If you compare parks code from an jurisdiction that doesn't violate .290, they merely reference fireworks, bows and arrows. For that, a director'spermit is logical.

Nobody is reinventing the wheel out there; the codes vary little from one to the other. Some bonehead along the way thought that this would be a good place to sneak in a firearms restriction and the exact same language gets picked up by other jurisditions. I think the action taken with these should be to point out the language from a jurisdiction that has changed from violation to proper (and has been subsequently published). Show that to them and they won't feel like they're being picked on - that correcting this problem is a trend and they don't want to be the last to correct their error.

imported post

this was brought to the city council's attention in 2004 by yours truly at a city council meeting.  the minutes of which are here: http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/page.php?id=756

click on 2004, on page 118.  the excerpt is:

"Bobby Williams, 813 4th Street NE, read from a handout that he gave Council, regarding
the Puyallup Municipal Code 9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons; and the RCW
9.41.290 State preemption. “The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and
preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state. Such
laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I,
Section 24 of the state constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; restricting the
possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town,
county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to: Any pistol
in the possession of a person licensed under RCW or exempt from the licensing
requirement of the RCW.” He explained that the state ruling overrides the municipal
code and asked Council to repeal that portion of the PMC addressing this issue.

Click to expand...

the city attorney pretty much just mocked me and gave me the "p'shaw" at the council meeting.  i see they did nothing about it.


i don't live there any more so don't try to stalk me.

Bobby

imported post

CC27 wrote:

I asked for written permission to lead into the fact that the law is unenforceable. If you read the wording in the code it state that written permission is required, so I used that fact to start the conversation. I know that I do not need permission. I didn't want to just call and bombard him with rcw this and stat preemption that.I gave him the opportunity to tell me no. Then I pointed out that this was his responsibility. I feel by going about it this way encouraged him to take matters further.

Click to expand...

Ok, I get it now. I missed the part about them issuing ‘permits’. That’s a funny approach! I would be willing to bet you were the only one to ever ask.

I think they know their sign isn’t enforceable due to preemption; however, they keep the language on the sign because very few people know the law. This is the letter I sent to Pierce County about their park signs. Notice that I’m harping not about rights and freedoms, but concerns for safety and liability. Those are concepts they understand and appreciate. By informing them of a danger, it’s at their peril if they choose to ignore it.

Dear sir or ma’am

I would like to bring to your attention a very dangerous situation that has the potential to put Peirce County Park visitors at serious risk of injury or death. I visited the Narrows Beach Park in Gig Harbor recently and noticed a large sign that forbids firearms carry in the park. It further lists RCW 36.68 as authority for this prohibition. While the RCW listed is dubious as to what it allows, it is nonetheless moot on the issue of firearms carry because of Washington’s firearms preemption laws.

This misinformation creates a situation whereby one park visitor, seeing the sign and later observing another park visitor carrying a firearm, will mistakenly call the police to report the alleged violation. The police do not write law; they can only enforce it to the best of their abilities. Since we cannot predetermine the manner or method of a responding officer, there is certainly the potential for a dangerous confrontation between the officer, mistakenly trying to enforce the inapplicable RCW, and a park visitor who is otherwise behaving lawfully.

Imagine an officer, believing your sign is accurate, confronts a park visitor with his duty weapon drawn and pointed at the visitor. The visitor, who has done nothing to warrant this behavior, is now at risk of severe injury or death in the event of an accidental or negligent discharge of the officer’s weapon. This is not a farfetched scenario; in fact situations similar to this have occurred recently in other states, some with videos of the events shown on the internet.

The County, by posting this erroneous firearms information, is putting the public at risk. I am requesting that all reference to firearms be removed from the signs at Pierce County Parks as soon as possible.

Click to expand...

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

I would be willing to bet you were the only one to ever ask.

Click to expand...

According to him I was.

BTW, good work in regards to Pierce County Parks.

imported post

he wasn't the only one. i asked the chief in via email in '04 and was denied. thats what prompted me to go to the council meeting and let them know about 9.41.290

Bobby

p.s. if they say they were unaware, use the link above to let them know it HAS been brought to their attention and they chose to do nothing about it so if something happens or happened that the city is or was liable for regarding their municipal code, you have proof that they knew dang well about it before.

imported post

Your link is not working.

imported post

fixed it. guess you can't link directly to their PDF's. thanks for letting me know.

Bobby

imported post

Bobarino wrote:

he wasn't the only one. i asked the chief in via email in '04 and was denied. thats what prompted me to go to the council meeting and let them know about 9.41.290

Click to expand...

Why did you give up?

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

CC27 wrote:

Dear sir or ma’am

I would like to bring to your attention a very dangerous situation that has the potential to put Peirce County Park visitors at serious risk of injury or death. I visited the Narrows Beach Park in Gig Harbor recently and noticed a large sign that forbids firearms carry in the park. It further lists RCW 36.68 as authority for this prohibition. While the RCW listed is dubious as to what it allows, it is nonetheless moot on the issue of firearms carry because of Washington’s firearms preemption laws.

This misinformation creates a situation whereby one park visitor, seeing the sign and later observing another park visitor carrying a firearm, will mistakenly call the police to report the alleged violation. The police do not write law; they can only enforce it to the best of their abilities. Since we cannot predetermine the manner or method of a responding officer, there is certainly the potential for a dangerous confrontation between the officer, mistakenly trying to enforce the inapplicable RCW, and a park visitor who is otherwise behaving lawfully.

Imagine an officer, believing your sign is accurate, confronts a park visitor with his duty weapon drawn and pointed at the visitor. The visitor, who has done nothing to warrant this behavior, is now at risk of severe injury or death in the event of an accidental or negligent discharge of the officer’s weapon. This is not a farfetched scenario; in fact situations similar to this have occurred recently in other states, some with videos of the events shown on the internet.

The County, by posting this erroneous firearms information, is putting the public at risk. I am requesting that all reference to firearms be removed from the signs at Pierce County Parks as soon as possible.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That is a awesome letter. If things take a wrong turn with Puyallup do you mind if I use it? I'm not talking about plagiarizing the whole thing. Just maybe paraphrasing a little.

imported post

The point of asking and getting denied gives you legal Standing for a complaint. Sort of like Heller, when he applied to DC for a permit that they don't issue

imported post

well, it wasn't so much a matter of giving up as a matter of other things in life taking precedence over the parks issue at the time. (women. can't live with 'em, that's all. need i say more?) i went to the city council and plead my case and was more or less mocked by the city attorney. i sent a few follow up emails to my district rep on the council, none of which were answered. i just carried concealed anyway like i always do.

if a cop had stopped or harassed me, i would have had plenty of ground to stand on since i advised the council of the worthless PMC. i told them in my whopping 3 minutes that i was allowed that if an officer tried to enforce this code, i would go as far as legally possible against the city and it was in their best interest to strike the code from the books before it led to a lawsuit. they obviously didn't take me seriously.

it never came down to that but it may one day and its on the record books that they have been warned. there wasn't much else i could do.

Bobby

imported post

I just got off the phone with Ralph Dannenberg. The city attorney and the Puyallup police department acknowledged that stat preemption prohibits the enforcement of the firearms portion of municipal code 9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons. He said that the wording in the code will be changed along with the signs. he added that the signs will take awhile to get changed so I mentioned using tape to cover up the firearms portion in the meantime. he stated that he will get someone on that asap.

imported post

i guess my jedi mind tricks are far less powerful than they should be. i went face to face with them in a public forum and they didn't do anything. i must need to work on my persuasion skills.

Bobby

imported post

CC27 wrote:

I just got off the phone with Ralph Dannenberg. The city attorney and the Puyallup police department acknowledged that stat preemption prohibits the enforcement of the firearms portion of municipal code 9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons. He said that the wording in the code will be changed along with the signs. he added that the signs will take awhile to get changed so I mentioned using tape to cover up the firearms portion in the meantime. he stated that he will get someone on that asap.

Click to expand...

CC27, since Dannenberg seems so cooperative, maybe you could get him to write something up that could be shown to some of the more difficult counties/cities. That could be very helpful, especially for Agent 47 right now.