Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 89

Thread: Shoved off by Bothell

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    So I sent Bothell an email pertaining to their ban on loaded firearms in city parks and this is what i received back. Way out of line in my opinon.

    Dear Mr. xxxx,

    Thank you for your attached email. I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of state law and its application to Bothell Municipal Code (BMC) 8.60.350. RCW 9.41.300 provides an exemption from state preemption which allows a city to establish no shooting zones. Also, case law differentiates between general firearms regulations (which are fairly clearly preempted unless an exemption from preemption exists) and the right of a city to regulate its own property. See, Cherry v. Mun. of Metro Seattle, 116 Wn.2d 794 (1991) and Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Ass'n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2d 342 (2006). This line of cases makes logical sense. Why should a city be prohibited from banning weapons from its city owned parks while any other property owner has the full right to do the same thing on their property? Another section in BMC Chapter 8 prohibits building fires in the park. These are safety measures enacted by the City to encourage safety in City parks - not criminal statutes which compete with the States legislation in the area of firearms.

    Apparently, many cities share Bothell's position on this issue. A recent article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer indicates that Seattle is moving toward issuing a ban of firearms in City owned parks and buildings. According to the article there are at least 39 cities in Washington that have the same type of restrictions already in place. Clearly, Bothell is not in the minority in its position on this issue. I greatly respect State Law and the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of this City, State and County and I do not believe that Bothell's safety regulations relating to Bothell City Parks in any way conflict with Washington State Law or the Constitution of the United States.




    This is the email i sent them:

    Dear City Attorny, Council, or Manager of Bothell:

    I would like to bring to the city’s attention Bothell Municipal Code 8.60.350 [Firearms, weapons.] and its violation of Washington State Law.
    Currently Bothell Municipal Code 8.60.350 is worded: “No persons except duly authorized law enforcement personnel shall possess a firearm with a cartridge in any portion of the mechanism; nor shall any person discharge across, in or onto any Bothell park area a firearm, bow and arrow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property, except where the department for good cause has authorized special recreational activity upon finding that it is not inconsistent with Bothell park use. (Ord. 1835 §1, 2000; Ord. 1277 §1, 1987).”
    Bothell Municipal Code 8.60.350 is in violation of RCW 9.41.290 [State Preemption]: “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.”
    Bothell Municipal Code 8.60.350 is inconsistent and more restrictive then RCW 9.41.300 when it states: “No persons except duly authorized law enforcement personnel shall possess a firearm with a cartridge in any portion of the mechanism”. There is no exemption in RCW 9.41.300 that stats a city can restrict the right to carry a firearm with a cartridge in any portion of the mechanism onto the grounds of a public park. Under RCW 9.41.290, Bothell Municipal Code 8.60.350 is preempted and repealed. I would also like to direct your attention to the Washington State Attorney General's Opinon AGO 2008 No. 8 which states "RCW 9.41.290 preempts a city’s authority to enact local laws that prohibit possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities."
    I request that you advise the city council and Manager to remove or revise the referenced codein order to prevent and preclude the potential for a lawsuit from illegal citation and/or arrest in violation of state law. Further, I request that you assist the city law enforcement officials to develop a bulletin for officers that will clear up misconceptions caused by the preempted code. I look forward to hearing back from you about this issue.

    Apparently, many cities share Bothell's position on this issue. A recent article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer indicates that Seattle is moving toward issuing a ban of firearms in City owned parks and buildings. According to the article there are at least 39 cities in Washington that have the same type of restrictions already in place. Clearly, Bothell is not in the minority in its position on this issue. I greatly respect State Law and the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of this City, State and County and I do not believe that Bothell's safety regulations relating to Bothell City Parks in any way conflict with Washington State Law or the Constitution of the United States.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Idiots. There is a difference between a no shooting zone and being able to carry a gun. Point out preemtpion law AGAIN and remind them that THE STATE has established where you can and cannot carry.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Amazing how someone can read plain English and be so intellectually dishonest with themselves that they can completely ignore the entire relevant portion and come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with what they just read.

  4. #4
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    What a flagrant disregard for law on the cities part, he says: “I greatly respect State Law and the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of this City, State and County” but then supports a unlawful ban in violation of preemption? This city would rather follow suit with the other 39 violating cities than to uphold our constitution and laws?
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    thewise1 wrote:
    Amazing how someone can read plain English and be so intellectually dishonest with themselves that they can completely ignore the entire relevant portion and come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with what they just read.
    That's how I felt about it. Why is he talking about the discharge of firearms in parks? That was not the issue. He also steers totally clear of the AG opinion altogether. He also seems to think that city owned public parks are afforded the same rights as private property. And lastly he says that Seattle is currently adopting similar rules, so what? they haven't done it yet Mr. Nickles can talk till he is blue in the face but until he actually does something I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

    Any advice on where to go from here is appreciated. I will try reaffirming my points one more time in an email to him then I might try to address the city council.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Well you could get cited for OC in a park and then sue them. Otherwise talk with a lawyer and pay them to write a nasty letter...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Their response is a textbook example of the five D's of politics: Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, and Dodge.

    [With a nod to Patches O'Houlihan.]

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    3/325 wrote:
    Their response is a textbook example of the five D's of politics: Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, and Dodge.

    [With a nod to Patches O'Houlihan.]
    Missed #6. Dumbass.

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    They knew what you were saying, they just didn't want to address their flagrant disregard for state law. They knew if they replied in any "logical" manner to the actual cite, they would be pointing a finger at themselves.

    I suggest we don't let this one go. I live in a neighboring city to Bothell, so this type of thing upsets me no end. This is just another examplefor theidiotic mindset of the "gun free zone". A dangerous mindset to allow city's to get started rolling with.


    Edited for spelling.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Sorry the formatting does not display right so i had to upload it as a word document. Any tips on the draft would be great.

    http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f...db6fb9a8902bda

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    If you respond to them, you might mention the numerous public agencies that have decided to repeal regulations banning guns in order to be in compliance with preemption. I believe Bremerton is the most recent example.

    A few years ago, the State Parks and Recreation Commission changed their rules to allow carry in state parks, in order to be in compliance with state preemption, and there are the numerous public transit agencies that have done the same.

  12. #12
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Izzle wrote:
    Sorry the formatting does not display right so i had to upload it as a word document. Any tips on the draft would be great.
    It looks good to me for the most part.

    I might be inclined to include the fact that the State of Washington is one of the most protective in the union when it comes to its citizens rights to bear arms in uncontrolled public spaces, and any legal action that was taken against Bothell due to any attempted enforcement of their city code would most likely be upheld in King County courts.

    You may wish to re-word that, but the general gist is there.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If you respond to them, you might mention the numerous public agencies that have decided to repeal regulations banning guns in order to be in compliance with preemption. I believe Bremerton is the most recent example.

    A few years ago, the State Parks and Recreation Commission changed their rules to allow carry in state parks, in order to be in compliance with state preemption, and there are the numerous public transit agencies that have done the same.
    If anyone can name cities that have changed their law to conform with state law please let me know so i can include it on my draft. I have Bremerton, Kirkland, and state parks

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If you respond to them, you might mention the numerous public agencies that have decided to repeal regulations banning guns in order to be in compliance with preemption. I believe Bremerton is the most recent example.

    A few years ago, the State Parks and Recreation Commission changed their rules to allow carry in state parks, in order to be in compliance with state preemption, and there are the numerous public transit agencies that have done the same.
    send him a copy of the recent AG opinion too.

  15. #15
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    hehe..

    The old.. 'so, if everyone else is jumping off a bridge, you gonna jump too?' argument works well here.....


    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Guys and Gals, we here in Texas ran in to a similar situation concerning the carrying of handguns in vehicles under the 'traveling' exemption. Seems a few county DAs didn't want to abide by the new law and decided that the courts could sort it out after they arrested anyone with a handgun in their car but no license. We resolved this by hounding our state reps and got an even better law the next session making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that a loaded handgun in your car was legal.

    Get on your state reps, all of them, and make them change the state pre-emption law to remove any and all ability for locals to make a firearms law.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Guys and Gals, we here in Texas ran in to a similar situation concerning the carrying of handguns in vehicles under the 'traveling' exemption. Seems a few county DAs didn't want to abide by the new law and decided that the courts could sort it out after they arrested anyone with a handgun in their car but no license. We resolved this by hounding our state reps and got an even better law the next session making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that a loaded handgun in your car was legal.

    Get on your state reps, all of them, and make them change the state pre-emption law to remove any and all ability for locals to make a firearms law.
    I believe that is probably the next step. Also I see you are from Bedford, great place, I make a trip there probably twice a year to visit relatives.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Finished the response and sent it off. If anyone would like to look over it I posted it here:

    http://www.mediafire.com/?nhnjnjmyvy4

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    No Shooting = No Carry, huh?

    What an idiot.

    Good job with the initial contact, good luck on future encounters.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Izzle wrote:
    According to the article there are at least 39 cities in Washington that have the same type of restrictions already in place. Clearly, Bothell is not in the minority in its position on this issue.
    Interesting. So Washington has fewer than 77 incorporated cities total?

    Using my quick google-fu I find that Washington has in excess of 425 incorporated cities and another dozens of unincorporated cities, several quite large.

    Just on this one faulty point alone, you could righteously write back beginning the letter:

    Dear Dumbass:

    I am in receipt of the letter in which you primarily talked out of your a$$ and made no logical sense. For example, you declare that 39 cities somehow constitute a majority of cities in Washington. Since you are evidently computer illiterate and don't own a map, let me help you out by pointing out that Washington has more than 10 times that many cities and unless you are in line with at least 212 other Washington cities, you can't even see majority from where you are standing.


    Ok, maybe that isn't the best way to approach it, but damn, what a numbskull response they sent you.

    ETA: I realized I left out cities under 1000 persons in my initial comments so amended to include those extra cities in my numbers
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Izzle wrote:
    According to the article there are at least 39 cities in Washington that have the same type of restrictions already in place. Clearly, Bothell is not in the minority in its position on this issue.
    Interesting. So Washington has fewer than 77 incorporated cities total?

    Using my quick google-fu I find that Washington has in excess of 425 incorporated cities and another dozens of unincorporated cities, several quite large.

    Just on this one faulty point alone, you could righteously write back beginning the letter:

    Dear Dumbass:

    I am in receipt of the letter in which you primarily talked out of your a$$ and made no logical sense. For example, you declare that 39 cities somehow constitute a majority of cities in Washington. Since you are evidently computer illiterate and don't own a map, let me help you out by pointing out that Washington has more than 10 times that many cities and unless you are in line with at least 212 other Washington cities, you can't even see majority from where you are standing.


    Ok, maybe that isn't the best way to approach it, but damn, what a numbskull response they sent you.

    ETA: I realized I left out cities under 1000 persons in my initial comments so amended to include those extra cities in my numbers
    I kind of like this approach. Send both letters to the area newspapers as a "letter to the editor". Boy, wouldn't that be interesting if it got printed.

    What is it with our cities. They seem to elect the most intelligence challenged and then they hire even more challenged individuals. What ever happened to the philosophy of electing and hiring the "Most Qualified for the Job"?????

    Heck, the pay isn't all that bad anymore.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Doesn't surprise me at all. I spent a bit of time growing up in Bothell, and there's a damn fine gun store there.
    The cops there are not aware of the 4th Amendment either.

  23. #23
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    Doesn't surprise me at all. I spent a bit of time growing up in Bothell, and there's a damn fine gun store there.
    The cops there are not aware of the 4th Amendment either.
    Bothell PD needs to take some lessons/training from King County.

  24. #24
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I stumbled across this web site today and thought it might be of some use:

    155 city municipal codes available
    27 county codes available

    http://www.mrsc.org/codes.aspx

  25. #25
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    I stumbled across this web site today and thought it might be of some use:

    155 city municipal codes available
    27 county codes available

    http://www.mrsc.org/codes.aspx
    I've posted that here before in its own thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=10749
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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