imported post
My Name
My Address
My Phone number
May 14[sup]th[/sup], 2008
City of YOURCITY
ATTN: City Manager, Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, et al
P. O. Box 123
Yourcity, WA 98531-0609
Distinguished city officials:
I write to you concerning a section of the YOURCITY Municipal Code, 10.33.080, which states:
RCW 9.41.290 establishes preemption:
I’m not sure about the timing of these respective laws, so this may be a left-over from before preemption. Or perhaps it’s just an oversight. I can imagine how difficult it must be to keep track of all the ever-changing laws at the various levels of government!
In any case, as fellow believers in and respecters of the rule of law, and as officials charged with appropriate, consistent, and especially legal laws for our fair city, I knew you’d want to be made aware of this issue. I’m sure nobody wants to send mixed signals to citizens on a topic so weighty as the law.
Not that I believe for a second that YOURCITY would dismiss what’s right and legal for those reasons alone, but I’m also concerned about the potential cost and liability of attempting to enforce the unenforceable. Or even without enforcement, I don’t think it’s too great a stretch to imagine a scenario where a victim of violent crime brings suit against the city, after following published city disarmament law, and subsequently being unable to defend themselves to the full guarantees of preemptive state law. YOURCITY doesn’t need that, especially with the umbrella of state compliance and protection so readily available.
Thank you for your attention to this, and your public service in general! I’d very much appreciate being informed of your findings and course of action.
Sincerely,
MY NAME
(This letter is being sent via email and postal mail.)
My Name
My Address
My Phone number
May 14[sup]th[/sup], 2008
City of YOURCITY
ATTN: City Manager, Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, et al
P. O. Box 123
Yourcity, WA 98531-0609
Distinguished city officials:
I write to you concerning a section of the YOURCITY Municipal Code, 10.33.080, which states:
No person shall possess, use, or discharge any firearm, airgun, BB gun, slingshot, paintball gun, or any bow and arrow in a public park or use or discharge any such weapon in a public place, unless otherwise authorized as a part of an organized recreation program of the park and recreation department of the city or other public agency. Use of such firearms by law enforcement personnel is exempted.
The firearms possession portion of the above appears to conflict with Washington State’s firearms law preemption, cited below (emphasis mine).
RCW 9.41.290 establishes preemption:
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. 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.
RCW 9.41.300 specifies the extent to which cities may enact firearms law:
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. 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; and
(b) 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:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
(4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law.
Basically, as a city in Washington State, YOURCITY cannot restrict the legal carry of firearms in parks, or most anywhere else for that matter. It’s come to my attention this same issue has arisen and been corrected in several cities around the state recently.(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. 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; and
(b) 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:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
(4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law.
I’m not sure about the timing of these respective laws, so this may be a left-over from before preemption. Or perhaps it’s just an oversight. I can imagine how difficult it must be to keep track of all the ever-changing laws at the various levels of government!
In any case, as fellow believers in and respecters of the rule of law, and as officials charged with appropriate, consistent, and especially legal laws for our fair city, I knew you’d want to be made aware of this issue. I’m sure nobody wants to send mixed signals to citizens on a topic so weighty as the law.
Not that I believe for a second that YOURCITY would dismiss what’s right and legal for those reasons alone, but I’m also concerned about the potential cost and liability of attempting to enforce the unenforceable. Or even without enforcement, I don’t think it’s too great a stretch to imagine a scenario where a victim of violent crime brings suit against the city, after following published city disarmament law, and subsequently being unable to defend themselves to the full guarantees of preemptive state law. YOURCITY doesn’t need that, especially with the umbrella of state compliance and protection so readily available.
Thank you for your attention to this, and your public service in general! I’d very much appreciate being informed of your findings and course of action.
Sincerely,
MY NAME
(This letter is being sent via email and postal mail.)
