Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: How do we get Washington State to adopt laws like this?

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    While visiting Kentucky last week I looked up the gun laws to ensure I was legal in every aspect. I ran across a couple that were very interesting. When I looked up the equivalent Washington laws, I found that we're screwed...... I think this confirms my moving back to Kentucky.

    Actual KRS wording:

    KRS 237.104
    Governments shall not impair rights to weapons during time of emergency
    (1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
    (2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
    (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
    (a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
    (b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law.
    (c) Violating KRS 527.020;
    (d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
    (e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
    (f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS Chapter 150.



    A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 237 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
    KRS 237.106
    Employers not permitted to prohibit weapons on property, if kept in a vehicle on that property
    (1) No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.
    (2) A person, including but not limited to an employer, who owns, leases, or otherwise occupies real property may prevent a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm or ammunition from possessing a firearm or ammunition on the property.
    (3) A firearm may be removed from the vehicle or handled in the case of self-defense, defense of another, defense of property, or as authorized by the owner, lessee, or occupant of the property.
    (4) An employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right guaranteed by this section, and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with this statute shall be liable in civil damages. An employee may seek and the court shall grant an injunction against an employer who is violating the provisions of this section when it is found that the employee is in compliance with the provisions of this section.
    (5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any real property:
    (a) Owned, leased, or occupied by the United States government upon which the possession or carrying of firearms is prohibited or controlled;
    (b) Of a detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010; or
    (c) Where a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes specifically prohibits possession or carrying of firearms on the property.




  2. #2
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    KRS 237.104
    Governments shall not impair rights to weapons during time of emergency
    (1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
    (2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
    Oh so sweet!
    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    There was talk of passing an emergencylaw like that, but of course the Dems ignored it until it went away. Of course state preemption would keep every other government agency in the state from doing it. I believe a number of cities that had emergency gun grab laws had to toss them. Wasn't Spokane one of them? So all we need to worry about is the State and the Feds grabbing our guns.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    That's a good read. It's not enough to make me move to Kentucky, but it would make me feel better about the move if I had to do it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    WA House Bill 1633and Senate Bill 5516 attempted to do the same thing an the Kentucky law, butthey never even made it to a hearing.
    Any chance of getting these bills re-introduced in 2009? The main sponsors for the bills are on the webpages... It looks like Rep. Takkowas supporting the bill from the Democrat's side in the House, but no democrat support for the Senate bill. Maybe it would be a smart idea to re-introduce the billson the heels of the Heller decision and use the momentum.

Posting Permissions

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