AG Opinion On State Preemption RCW 9.41.290

imported post

Good news, I have been told that there will be a (Pro-Gun) Senator asking for an AG opinion in regards to what Greg Nickels is doing in Seattle, and how state preemptionRCW 9.41.290 affects/applies tothis Executive Order.

Just wanted to share that with ya'll.

XD

imported post

Thank you

imported post

The bad part is that Nickels thinks the court ruling, which is an authoritative ruling unlike an AG opinion, that gives him authority to ban firearms on city property. The only thing that I see putting an end to his EO is a lawsuit.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

The bad part is that Nickels thinks the court ruling, which is an authoritative ruling unlike an AG opinion, that gives him authority to ban firearms on city property. The only thing that I see putting an end to his EO is a lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Well, hopefully the AG will cite good caselaw, and interpret it is well.

Here are some previous AG Opinions on Preemption FYI....

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=8140[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=7938[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=10652[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=7872[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=14446[/url]

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=5610

Here are some that are Firearms related....

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinions.aspx?section=topic&topic=FIREARMS

Hopefully Rob McKenna will do a good job.....

imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:

joeroket wrote:

The bad part is that Nickels thinks the court ruling, which is an authoritative ruling unlike an AG opinion, that gives him authority to ban firearms on city property. The only thing that I see putting an end to his EO is a lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Well, hopefully the AG will cite good caselaw, and interpret it is well.

Here are some previous AG Opinions on Preemption FYI....

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=8140[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=7938[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=10652[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=7872[/url]

[url]http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=14446[/url]

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=5610

Here are some that are Firearms related....

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinions.aspx?section=topic&topic=FIREARMS

Hopefully Rob McKenna will do a good job.....

Click to expand...

Typically McKenna is pro 2A but he does seem to shy away from it in his official capacity. Rep. Mike Sells requested an opinion for me about open carrying of a firearm and the applicability of a terry stop based on an exposed weapon. Needless to say his office decided to paraphrase the question when the opinion was written and skated around the open carrying aspect of it.

imported post

I can see that this topic is going to grow legs in many ways. Suppose this scenario develops: (1) Someone files a lawsuit to block Nickels' EO. (2) The lawsuit ends up ruling against Nickels, so Nickels, with some cronies in Olympia and citing other cases like Sequim, moves to change the RCW giving cities the right to limit guns on their properties. Now we have a major escalation. I realize the Sequim case is still pending (?) but nevertheless it could be dragged into the fray.

I realize all of this is speculation at this point, but it worries me that we have the potential here for the anti-gun lobby to act at the state level. Perhaps previous case law and the state constitution would blunt such an attack; I'm no expert on this. But if this comes to pass we could be on the path to California's plight. God help us.

imported post

however...IIRC the Sequim case revolves arund the actions concerning someone under contract to the city...not a normal resident. In this case an EO works because this is the vehicle for a Mayor to get his employees to do something a certain way. An EO is not usually binding on non-city employees as I understand things

imported post

Sean wrote:

however...IIRC the Sequim case revolves arund the actions concerning someone under contract to the city...not a normal resident.  In this case an EO works because this is the vehicle for a Mayor to get his employees to do something a certain way.  An EO is not usually binding on non-city employees as I understand things

Click to expand...

The Sequim case does indeed deal with the use of public property by a private vendor for a commercial enterprise, and a careful read of the opinion reveals that it doesn't appear to address the legal concealed carry (or open carry) of firearms on public property by private citizens at all.

The court, perhaps properly, said a city can regulate a commercial operation that occurs on city property. That's a hell of a lot different than adopting a decree that outlaws a constitutionally protected civil right.

Executive orders should not be binding on private citizens, but this may take a court test.

It may all be rendered moot if the AG comes up with an opinion that cools Nickels' jets. if not, then there's court.

This battle may be fought in the Legislature in January,, too. Don't overlook that. Indeed, that's the place for gun owners to get fired up about anything Nickels does this summer. The last time they tried to push the gun show bill, for example, we had a couple of hundred people there, filling the room and pouring into an overflow room for the hearing.

A lot depends on this November's election. Find out who your legislator is,, maybe who's running against him/her, and help elect a stronger Legislature.

In the meantime, drop a note to your legislator expressing your outrage...no, make that your alarm... that Nickels would have the audacity to cavalierly ignore state statute, and arbitrarily usurp the authority of the Legislature. State lawmakers don't like that sort of thing, even from the Seattle mayor. Especially in the off-months. Rural lawmakers, especially from eastern Washington, REALLY don't like that sort of thing from the Seattle mayor, anytime of the year.

Make it a good letter, polite, to the point, no threats (not even a promise to vote against the schmuck) but just "alarm" and "concern" that Nickels would presume to override the authority of the Legislature.

Greg's really not that popular down in Oly, keep that in mind.

Time is on our side.

But that's just me talking.

imported post

Unfortunately, sending a letter to my legislator would be in vain, as I'm in the 21st Legislative District, as is Lonnie and expvideo. We have good ol' Paull Shin, who supported and co-sponsored gun-control bills for Higher Education while also being the Chairman of the Higher Education Committee.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Unfortunately, sending a letter to my legislator would be in vain, as I'm in the 21st Legislative District, as is Lonnie and expvideo. We have good ol' Paull Shin, who supported and co-sponsored gun-control bills for Higher Education while also being the Chairman of the Higher Education Committee.

Click to expand...

Shin is a sorry excuse for a legislator and a human being. I was at one of his public hearing and he acted like no one had a different view than him. When in reality around 80% of the people present were opposed to his position. He's the reason the system is broke. I'm lucky as I have Tim Sheldon, he listens at least, which is more than Shin does.

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Unfortunately, sending a letter to my legislator would be in vain, as I'm in the 21st Legislative District, as is Lonnie and expvideo. We have good ol' Paull Shin, who supported and co-sponsored gun-control bills for Higher Education while also being the Chairman of the Higher Education Committee.

Click to expand...

Shin is a sorry excuse for a legislator and a human being. I was at one of his public hearing and he acted like no one had a different view than him. When in reality around 80% of the people present were opposed to his position. He's the reason the system is broke. I'm lucky as I have Tim Sheldon, he listens at least, which is more than Shin does.

Click to expand...

Wait... I think we've met. I didn't think we'd met yet. I testified at that hearing as one of two UW students. I was the one with curly hair.

Yeah, Shin's comment/quote of "I'm selfish." made me almost lose it. That jerk doesn't deserve to have support of anyone for anything. I intend on making sure everyone in his district is aware of what his opinion is on whether the public's opinion matters.

imported post

Shin is getting up there in age. Wouldn't surprise me if he retired in 2010 after his term is up.

Lonnie Wilson (D-21) for State Senate? :what:

imported post

just_a_car wrote:
Wait... I think we've met. I didn't think we'd met yet. I testified at that hearing as one of two UW students. I was the one with curly hair.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

Saaaayyyyy, Is this an "eHarmony moment?"


:lol:

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Shin is getting up there in age.  Wouldn't surprise me if he retired in 2010 after his term is up.

Lonnie Wilson (D-21) for State Senate? :what:

Click to expand...

Saaaaayyyyyy, that'd sure keep you out of mischief,, wouldn't it? We'll all register to vote in your district as well as our own. And get our dead relatives to do likewise. And we'll get all the votes tabulated by folks hand-picked by the governor.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Shin is getting up there in age. Wouldn't surprise me if he retired in 2010 after his term is up.

Lonnie Wilson (D-21) for State Senate? :what:

Click to expand...

Too bad I'm out of your district...

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Shin is getting up there in age. Wouldn't surprise me if he retired in 2010 after his term is up.

Lonnie Wilson (D-21) for State Senate? :what:

Click to expand...

Saaaaayyyyyy, that'd sure keep you out of mischief,, wouldn't it? We'll all register to vote in your district as well as our own. And get our dead relatives to do likewise. And we'll get all the votes tabulated by folks hand-picked by the governor.

Click to expand...

In King County, anything is possible! :lol:

I'd vote for ya Lonnie!

imported post

Sent to my congressmen (all three are Republicans):

Distinguished representatives,

You've probably heard about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' brazen
defiance of state law with an executive order banning lawful firearm
carry on city property. It's a typical liberal knee-jerk reaction:
curtailing responsible citizen's rights because of what one
irresponsible idiot did.

Here's a quick summary if you haven't heard about it:
http://www.NRAILA.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4003

Washinton State's preemptive firearms law is very clear and very
specific: cities and counties CANNOT have firearms law more
restrictive than or inconsistent with state law. Actions like Mr.
Nickels' are expressly forbidden. Here's a quick reference on the
state laws:
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile;id=14

Unfortunately this isn't an isolated problem. Montesano's city council
recently tried something similar. Even our own Centralia and Chehalis
(Lewis county, too) have ordinances on the books restricting lawful
carry in parks. Spokane has this problem, too -- and many others.
Again, these more-restrictive and inconsistent laws are in wanton
violation of preemptive state law.

I've been working with Centralia, Chehalis, and Lewis County to bring
their codes into line with state law. But progress is slow and
reluctant, if at all. From Spokane to Seattle, it's a state-wide
problem. It seems local lawmakers with anti-gun agendas think they're
above the law.

The state law is already quite good. But with these local leaders'
willful violations, we still have the same problem of inconsistent
local laws which the state law was designed to avoid in the first
place.

So here's my idea. They may not respect the rule of law, but I'll bet
they do respect (fear) legal liability. We need a state Attorney
General's opinion published, clarifying and reiterating state law. It
should focus on preemption (and hopefully open carry, too). These
rogue local lawmakers need to be put on notice that they are likely to
lose big in any court battle related to enforcement of their illegal
statutes.

It is my understanding your positions afford you standing to request
such an AG opinion. In my estimation, this is a fairly
politically-safe move, considering the existing state law. Please
consider standing up for our God-given civil rights by taking this
action.

Thank you for your time.

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

Unfortunately, sending a letter to my legislator would be in vain, as I'm in the 21st Legislative District, as is Lonnie and expvideo. We have good ol' Paull Shin, who supported and co-sponsored gun-control bills for Higher Education while also being the Chairman of the Higher Education Committee.

Click to expand...

Shin is a sorry excuse for a legislator and a human being. I was at one of his public hearing and he acted like no one had a different view than him. When in reality around 80% of the people present were opposed to his position. He's the reason the system is broke. I'm lucky as I have Tim Sheldon, he listens at least, which is more than Shin does.

Click to expand...

Wait... I think we've met. I didn't think we'd met yet. I testified at that hearing as one of two UW students. I was the one with curly hair.

Yeah, Shin's comment/quote of "I'm selfish." made me almost lose it. That jerk doesn't deserve to have support of anyone for anything. I intend on making sure everyone in his district is aware of what his opinion is on whether the public's opinion matters.

Click to expand...

I was there, signed in but didn't speak as I really wasn't prepared for it. Besides it wouldn't have made any difference.

imported post

Aww crap. As usual I thought of something really great right after I sent that. If you send something like this to your state reps, be sure to mention how local violations of state preemption are an affront to their authority as state lawmakers. Stroke the egos, baby! ;-)

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

Aww crap. As usual I thought of something really great right after I sent that. If you send something like this to your state reps, be sure to mention how local violations of state preemption are an affront to their authority as state lawmakers. Stroke the egos, baby! ;-)

Click to expand...

Okay, I give up.

Were they "congressmen" or "state lawmakers?"
We need to know the difference, and invariably make the distinction.

It was a good letter. I;'m just not certain to whom it was sent. :?