"No-Weapons" sign at Ferndale Library

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Some more reading of Section 300: 9.41.300(2)(b)(i) seems to say that CC is ok in a convention center (Cf 9.41.070) but OC isn't.

Just my un-educated reading of the section

Click to expand...

OC is fine in that scenario. Posting the section:

(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

Click to expand...

So, if you are licensed under RCW 9.41.070 (or are exempt from requiring that license), you may possess a pistol in a stadium or convention center operated by town, city, or other municipality. There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC, so long as you're licensed under 9.41.070.

The interesting bit is that it only states you must be licensed, NOT that you must have the license upon you. This leads to a convoluted scenario if you're 'naked' OC, no license, ID, etc, and an officer approaches you asking for those things.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

Some more reading of Section 300: 9.41.300(2)(b)(i) seems to say that CC is ok in a convention center (Cf 9.41.070) but OC isn't.

Just my un-educated reading of the section

Click to expand...

OC is fine in that scenario. Posting the section:

(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

Click to expand...

So, if you are licensed under RCW 9.41.070 (or are exempt from requiring that license), you may possess a pistol in a stadium or convention center operated by town, city, or other municipality. There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC, so long as you're licensed under 9.41.070.

The interesting bit is that it only states you must be licensed, NOT that you must have the license upon you. This leads to a convoluted scenario if you're 'naked' OC, no license, ID, etc, and an officer approaches you asking for those things.

Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. 9.41.050 is quite unequivocal in its requirement:

"(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or ..."

So regardless of the circumstances, this says that if you conceal a pistol you MUST have your CPL in your immediate possession.

Secondly, I don't see an exception in 9.41.060 that excepts ordinary citizens. That entire section is intended to except LEO's of all categories, both State and Federal, as well as firearms dealers in the course of business, military while on duty, etc. Can you prove a negative in your statement: "There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC"

Maybe I'm missing something.

imported post

If one carries openly in a convention center he needs to be on record as having a CPL but need not have one on his person for display to an officer because he is open carrying. He needs to have a CPL (somewhere) because of the convention center clause. That's how I read it. Practical matter; it makes no difference to me because I always have a concealed pistol. If I have pants on, I'm armed. If I'm open carrying the concealed piece becomes a back-up or New York reload. Whichever, I still need my CPL.

MD

imported post

Machoduck wrote:

If one carries openly in a convention center he needs to be on record as having a CPL but need not have one on his person for display to an officer because he is open carrying. He needs to have a CPL (somewhere) because of the convention center clause. That's how I read it. Practical matter; it makes no difference to me because I always have a concealed pistol. If I have pants on, I'm armed. If I'm open carrying the concealed piece becomes a back-up or New York reload. Whichever, I still need my CPL.

MD

Click to expand...

+1 about CC. No disagreement there. Where I have a problem is this: Section 300 says as follows:

(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

(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

300(2)(b)(i) says that there are two exceptions to the restriction permitted in (2)(b). One of these is the CC provision under -.070, and the other is any of the listed exeptions in .060, which is basically for LE. I think I see what you're saying about OC: the law's silence about OC implies its consent. I don't agree. I think that if the legislature intended to approve OC in a convention center they would have at least written in a reference to 9.41.270.

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

Some more reading of Section 300: 9.41.300(2)(b)(i) seems to say that CC is ok in a convention center (Cf 9.41.070) but OC isn't.

Just my un-educated reading of the section

Click to expand...

OC is fine in that scenario. Posting the section:

(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

Click to expand...

So, if you are licensed under RCW 9.41.070 (or are exempt from requiring that license), you may possess a pistol in a stadium or convention center operated by town, city, or other municipality. There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC, so long as you're licensed under 9.41.070.

The interesting bit is that it only states you must be licensed, NOT that you must have the license upon you. This leads to a convoluted scenario if you're 'naked' OC, no license, ID, etc, and an officer approaches you asking for those things.

Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. 9.41.050 is quite unequivocal in its requirement:

"(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or ..."

So regardless of the circumstances, this says that if you conceal a pistol you MUST have your CPL in your immediate possession.

Secondly, I don't see an exception in 9.41.060 that excepts ordinary citizens. That entire section is intended to except LEO's of all categories, both State and Federal, as well as firearms dealers in the course of business, military while on duty, etc. Can you prove a negative in your statement: "There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC"

Maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

You are The words "that he or she is required by this section" mean that other sections referencing it do not hold the same requirements.

Note the particular wording of 9.41.300: "a person licensed under 9.41.060". The wording in 300 deals with having a license; the wording in 70 deals with concealing the pistol.

As for "proving a negative" - if the law doesn't state something is illegal, it is legal. Law doesn't grand privileges and rights, it takes them away or constrains them.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

Some more reading of Section 300: 9.41.300(2)(b)(i) seems to say that CC is ok in a convention center (Cf 9.41.070) but OC isn't.

Just my un-educated reading of the section

Click to expand...

OC is fine in that scenario. Posting the section:

(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

Click to expand...

So, if you are licensed under RCW 9.41.070 (or are exempt from requiring that license), you may possess a pistol in a stadium or convention center operated by town, city, or other municipality. There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC, so long as you're licensed under 9.41.070.

The interesting bit is that it only states you must be licensed, NOT that you must have the license upon you. This leads to a convoluted scenario if you're 'naked' OC, no license, ID, etc, and an officer approaches you asking for those things.

Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. 9.41.050 is quite unequivocal in its requirement:

"(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or ..."

So regardless of the circumstances, this says that if you conceal a pistol you MUST have your CPL in your immediate possession.

Secondly, I don't see an exception in 9.41.060 that excepts ordinary citizens. That entire section is intended to except LEO's of all categories, both State and Federal, as well as firearms dealers in the course of business, military while on duty, etc. Can you prove a negative in your statement: "There are no qualifiers stating "any concealed pistol ..." so it's legal to OC"

Maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

You are The words "that he or she is required by this section" mean that other sections referencing it do not hold the same requirements.

Note the particular wording of 9.41.300: "a person licensed under 9.41.060". The wording in 300 deals with having a license; the wording in 70 deals with concealing the pistol.

As for "proving a negative" - if the law doesn't state something is illegal, it is legal. Law doesn't grand privileges and rights, it takes them away or constrains them.

Click to expand...

That's a rather negative way to speak of the law, but on thinking about it, yeah, you're right. So now I'm satisfied about this issue. Thanx for the education

imported post

Very Nice, i think we need to do more of this when we can.

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

Click to expand...

As for "proving a negative" - if the law doesn't state something is illegal, it is legal. Law doesn't grand privileges and rights, it takes them away or constrains them.

Click to expand...

That's a rather negative way to speak of the law, but on thinking about it, yeah, you're right. So now I'm satisfied about this issue. Thanx for the education

Click to expand...

Not a negative view of the law at all. That is the whole point of law. Absent laws, anything is legal. It is only when we start passing laws that things become illegal. Hopefully, of course, we only pass laws to protect society from force and from fraud. Murder etc.

imported post

heresolong: Still wondering if you've heard anything back from Haggen about your letter (???)

imported post

VICTORY!!! :celebrate

Just got off the phone with Greg Young, City Administrator of Ferndale. He referred my issue to the City Attorney and the Police Chief and he now says I'm right. (All he had to do was read the law :exclaim

So now he has an issue with how to implement it. His worry is that the library folks are going to freak out. That really isn't my concern, but in order to comply with the law he's going to have to do SOMEthing. We talked about different options, (1) remove the sign completely, as I asked in my letter; or (2)change the wording ofthe sign to something reflecting the law as it applies here. I suggested that if he still wants a sign it couldsay something like "No weapons except as provided in RCW9.41.270(3)(c)" I suppose RCW 9.41.050, conceal carry, could be added to that exception.

Then he's going to have to sit down with the ladies in the library and explain the law to them. Good luck

Anyone have any ideas on how to handle the sign situation? If someone has a good one I'll pass it along.

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

Anyone have any ideas on how to handle the sign situation? If someone has a good one I'll pass it along.

Click to expand...

If they insist on having a sign to make them feel "safe", then your suggestion about a generic sign that just stats the obvious is a very good idea. IMO

I have seen signs in Alaska at library's and few other places that state... "No weapons allowed on premises except where provided by law." Then it gives the state code reference. Generic, warning, and legal.

imported post

I am a really big fan of "No illegal weapons." The hospital where we have "lived" from time to time has a "This is a Violence Free Zone - No Illegal Weapons" sign with a pistol with a line through it. Then it cites the Oregon Statute that pretty much says this does not apply to CCW permit holders or those that are otherwise carrying in conformity with the law.

-adamsesq

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

If someone has a good one I'll pass it along.

Click to expand...

My vote is to take down the sign entirely and explain the law to the librarians. It is what it is, and a sign will not make anyone safe.

However, if the city is willing to let them have a sign, my vote is for the "No Illegal Weapons" sign. If I carry in a library and didn't know the RCWs referenced on the sign off the top of my head, I'd probably err on the side of caution. If I saw a sign that stated that there were no illegal weapons allowed in the building, then I'd know I was OK because I don't have an illegal weapon.

imported post

Palouse wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

If someone has a good one I'll pass it along.

Click to expand...

My vote is to take down the sign entirely and explain the law to the librarians. It is what it is, and a sign will not make anyone safe.

However, if the city is willing to let them have a sign, my vote is for the "No Illegal Weapons" sign. If I carry in a library and didn't know the RCWs referenced on the sign off the top of my head, I'd probably err on the side of caution. If I saw a sign that stated that there were no illegal weapons allowed in the building, then I'd know I was OK because I don't have an illegal weapon.

Click to expand...

Good timing. I just got a call from Greg Young and he reports that Ferndale is the only library in Whatcom County that has such a sign. So they're going to remove it completely. Problem solved.

THEN----- over the weekend I was scanning the City's muni code online looking for anything supporting the sign, and came across a section banning guns in City parks. :exclaim: So I dashed off a quick letter about that and discussed it with him when he called today. I don't think this is going to be a problem. He did say they aren't enforcing it anyway.

imported post

Drove by the library about 4:30 today. The sign is GONE. :celebrate