Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: City of Kirkland Municipal Code

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    I was just looking over the Kirkland code and there are some provisions that don't appear to be consistent with state preemption.

    For example in this one, there is no exemption for CCW holders:

    (S)11.41.055 Dangerous weapons.

    (a) Every person who has in his possession any instrument, martial arts weapon or other weapon of the kind usually known as blackjack, slingshot, nunchaku, throwing star, sand club or metal knuckles or spring blade knife or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens or falls or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward or centrifugal thrust or movement;
    who shall furtively carry with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol or other dangerous weapon; or who uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a serious crime.

    This one seems to contradict state law which specifically says that only the age-restricted portion of an establishment is off-limits for carrying; and also with state law about possession at schools, which specifically allows CCW holders to have guns in a vehicle when picking up or dropping off students, or to keep gun locked in a car when conducting business at the school:

    11.41.060 Weapons banned in certain places.

    Notwithstanding Section 11.41.020, it is unlawful for any person to possess a firearm in any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, in public parks, on public or private school grounds, in the Kirkland City Hall, or in the Kirkland Police Department, except the public entrance area thereto; provided that RCW 9.41.270 (3) is adopted as exception to this section. (Ord. 2768 § 2 (part), 1983)


    There may be others.

    Are these things anything to worry about? The way I read this, the right to CC in Kirkland is denied.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    They don't attempt to restrict CC in Kirkland but rather carrying furtively with the intent to conceal. Most people do not furtively carry a firearm.

    Besides that both of those codes are repealed by 9.41.290 and are unenforceable unless they want to end up in litigation. You only need to concern yourself with the RCW's.

    There is some work going on that may put an end to all these pre-empted local codes once and for all.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the reply...

    I'm trying to imagine what "furtive" carry would actually mean. Carry it in secret somehow that's separate from concealment?

    These statues all seem to be part of laws enacted in 1983 -- perhaps they are just hold-overs from before state preemption took effect.

    In any case the city has no authority to ban either OC or CC in public parks or in City Hall, does it? Doesn't even appear that they can do that in the police station except for the jail portion -- so for example if you CC while sitting at a detective's desk, it should be legal.

    Is it worth writing a letter to the city attorney or the city council asking for clarification?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    I have already taken care of the second part that you mentioned, you can read up on it here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/10856.html

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    Wow -- that's great!

    The other thread you pointed to does not specifically address the unenforceable "public and private schools" clause in the Kirkland Code, but I assume that will be taken care of as part of the general rewrite that is discussed there.

    I'm still curious as to what "furtively carry with intent to conceal" means and how that interacts with a CCW permit.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    I'm still curious as to what "furtively carry with intent to conceal" means and how that interacts with a CCW permit.
    I would imagine that it means makeing suspicious movement, trying to adjust the gun or grabbing it to make sure it is still there, and intending for the gun to be concealed. Basically these are movements that have been found to be done by people that do not use a holster and usually are not allowed to possess a firearm. I think they were just trying to get some verbage in there that gave them more power then the state does with the warrants alarm for the safety of others portion of the RCW's.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    I'm saying this half-jokingly, because it's sort of true, I wouldn't really think I would need to carry in Kirkland. It is a very nice place, a long shot from Rainier Ave./MLK way by far.

    I know, I know, everyone has the right to carry in any city. I just think it's a very nice city, crime wise, that's all. Not that there isn't or couldn't be any crazies there.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    tai4de2 wrote:
    I'm still curious as to what "furtively carry with intent to conceal" means and how that interacts with a CCW permit.
    I would imagine that it means makeing suspicious movement, trying to adjust the gun or grabbing it to make sure it is still there, and intending for the gun to be concealed. Basically these are movements that have been found to be done by people that do not use a holster and usually are not allowed to possess a firearm. I think they were just trying to get some verbage in there that gave them more power then the state does with the warrants alarm for the safety of others portion of the RCW's.
    Upon a bit further research, I see that this KMC language came verbatim from RCW 9.41.250. So clearly "furtively carry with intent to conceal" is not the same as plain old "conceal." It's not just Kirkland making up something more restrictive.

    I think your explanation makes a lot of sense.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    bluer1 wrote:
    I'm saying this half-jokingly, because it's sort of true, I wouldn't really think I would need to carry in Kirkland. It is a very nice place, a long shot from Rainier Ave./MLK way by far.
    ...and you'd be right. The main scenario that drove CC for my wife and I is that she is SE Asian and the grocery stores she likes to go to are in neighborhoods in Seattle and elsewhere that, well, don't quite fit your description.

    Once we started to get into it, however, the fact that crime is low here and we're unlikely to be victimized in Kirkland has become besides the point (as you guessed). I support the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms and detest the notion of some elite class of people who are granted this (or any other) right while it is denied to the general population.

    All I can say is that I'm glad to have happened to wind up in Washington where our rights are generally upheld... I cna only imagine how I would have felt if I had settled in and put down roots in, say, Illinois all those years ago (when gun rights meant nothing to me)?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Anybody remember George Russell? Back when Mercer Island was a safe haven he was out burglarizing and killing. I know it was said all in the name of mockery but just hearing it makes my skin crawl.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    Upon a bit further research, I see that this KMC language came verbatim from RCW 9.41.250. So clearly "furtively carry with intent to conceal" is not the same as plain old "conceal." It's not just Kirkland making up something more restrictive.

    I think your explanation makes a lot of sense.
    Furtive, in the way our laws are written, are more like the second definition here:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/furtive

    And the whole reason KMC has the same language as the RCW is so Kirkland gets the money, instead of the state.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    RCW 9.41.290 State premption

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, ...
    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 9.41.810 Penalty

    Any violation of any provision of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly.
    ------------
    Isn't Kirkland (and others) violating a provision of this chapter?









  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law

    Kirkland copied the RCW word for word. That's perfectly legal. How wouldn't it be? All Kirkland is doing is enacting their own laws, mirroring the RCW's, so they can keep the money.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    This is what I was referring to from Kirkland:
    11.41.060 Weapons banned in certain places.

    Notwithstanding Section 11.41.020, it is unlawful for any person to possess a firearm in any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, in public parks, on public or private school grounds, in the Kirkland City Hall, or in the Kirkland Police Department, except the public entrance area thereto; provided that RCW 9.41.270 (3) is adopted as exception to this section. (Ord. 2768 § 2 (part), 1983)



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    Right. There's almost not a single word of that section that is not preempted. The only one that might make some sense is the part about the police dep't.

Posting Permissions

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