Shoved off by Bothell

imported post

Go slowfolks and get more information in order.

Lake Forest Park PD has already received training in the form of a bulletin reviewed by every officer in 2007. That bulletin was based on the Fed Way and KCSO bulletins and the language mirrored it. OC is understood and most officers have no issue with it, so long as it is not done in a manner to intimidate (such as brandishing)or in a manner to make one look like a jackass (not that it has never happened in the gun owner/lawful carrier community, noooo).

That being said, you will find the incorrect language on the park signs. You will find the incorrect language in the city ord for the parks on the books. The PD won't enforce the city rule and has already addressed it with the city folks. It's in their hands whether they will change the signs or not.

The shooting of any FIREARM is prohibited in the city save legitimate need for self defense, training or to put down critically injured animals. Air rifles and pellet guns, which are not RCW identified as a firearm, are allowed and not restricted in anyway (some kids like to play Airsoft in some of the canyons and hills of the city).

For the record, the Burke Gilman Trail is a King County park, not a park belonging to Seattle, LFP, or Kenmore.

By all means, address the LFP council but I am not sure you will get anywhere. Theer is a gulf between the PD and the city side on understanding the law.

imported post

Morris wrote:

Go slowfolks and get more information in order.

Lake Forest Park PD has already received training in the form of a bulletin reviewed by every officer in 2007. That bulletin was based on the Fed Way and KCSO bulletins and the language mirrored it. OC is understood and most officers have no issue with it, so long as it is not done in a manner to intimidate (such as brandishing)or in a manner to make one look like a jackass (not that it has never happened in the gun owner/lawful carrier community, noooo).

That being said, you will find the incorrect language on the park signs. You will find the incorrect language in the city ord for the parks on the books. The PD won't enforce the city rule and has already addressed it with the city folks. It's in their hands whether they will change the signs or not.

The shooting of any FIREARM is prohibited in the city save legitimate need for self defense, training or to put down critically injured animals. Air rifles and pellet guns, which are not RCW identified as a firearm, are allowed and not restricted in anyway (some kids like to play Airsoft in some of the canyons and hills of the city).

For the record, the Burke Gilman Trail is a King County park, not a park belonging to Seattle, LFP, or Kenmore.

By all means, address the LFP council but I am not sure you will get anywhere. Theer is a gulf between the PD and the city side on understanding the law.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the vast majority of LEO in Washington know that city ordinances like these are bogus and will refuse to enforce them, BUT that doesn't mean that these ordinances should not be taken off the books to keep ANY "accidental" enforcing of them from occurring.

I'm not really liking the idea that a LEO may pull this out of his hat then say "whoops" later in a court of law, pointing to the ordinance that he used to harass me, arrest me, take away my firearm or have my CPL revoked. I may win in the end, but its a hassle that I shouldn't have to go through.

Is that likely to happen? No. The fact that it CAN happen is what bothers me.
Plain and simple...if its not on the books, they can't use it, then go OPS! later.

imported post

Morris wrote:

Go slowfolks and get more information in order.

[snip]
By all means, address the LFP council but I am not sure you will get anywhere. Theer is a gulf between the PD and the city side on understanding the law.

Click to expand...

I agree, this is something that you should go into with your ducks in a row. Where I part company is letting it go, trusting that the PD may do the right thing.

I would bet that you've seen someone lateral from the east coast, such as NY, NJ, MA, CA, where laws and ingrained perceptions are much different. Now it might work out that if an attitude were to happen, a senior officer or Sgt would come along and correct the situation. Or not.

This problem is systemic. It includes public, CJTC, dispatch, officers, and prosecutors. More likely an issue for OC. You have a situation created by the cities where the general public is informed of the rules of the road at the entrance. Someone, who actually read the sign, notices an OC'er and calls 911. The dispatcher may or may not know the law, but is now stuck between a rock and a hard spot if they do know that the law is preempted and the sign has no meaning. Of coarse, screen the call to be sure that the person isn't a n'er-do-well. Ultimately it will have to be dispatched. Most 911 centers are larger, combined and almost always the dispatcher never talked to the original caller. They are dependent on how much and how accurately the call receiver entered the details into CAD. Each link in the chain of events introduces an opportunity for the call to go bad. New CR, new dispatcher, new or new to area officer. This is why I've been pressing this issue in my neck of the woods. I've been on both sides of the mic for 30 years and on the wrong end of a drawn gun (this year), reviewed many complaint incidents (including my own) and know full well; if it's predictable, it's preventable.

And the last step where this can be salvaged (from the perspective of a person getting jacked) is the prosecutor. If the legal staff is going to dig its heels on rectifying an issue like this, I am not very optimistic that they will come to the right conclusion on filing charges.

imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:

I agree, this is something that you should go into with your ducks in a row. Where I part company is letting it go, trusting that the PD may do the right thing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that this problem should be let go. Izzle's efforts to get the City to see reason are commendable and there obviously needs to be more effort expended toforce the City toobey the lawnow that they have determined to be obstinate. However, the disconnect between the City politicians and the Police Department needs to be recognized...if only to give credit where it is due. The Bothell PD (for example) has given every indication that they understand the law and will obey it.

Best regards,

AR

imported post

American Rattlesnake wrote:

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that this problem should be let go. Izzle's efforts to get the City to see reason are commendable and there obviously needs to be more effort expended toforce the City toobey the lawnow that they have determined to be obstinate. However, the disconnect between the City politicians and the Police Department needs to be recognized...if only to give credit where it is due. The Bothell PD (for example) has given every indication that they understand the law and will obey it.

Best regards,

AR

Click to expand...

Several of you seem to be getting the wrong idea. This is not, and never has been directed at Bothell PD. I have had my bad experiences with them, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have nothing to do with the enactment of an ordinance like this. An LEAs job is the enforcement of laws, not the creation of them. Please stop trying to hint that this is some sort of "crusade" against Bothell PD.

I have no intention of going into the city council meeting "guns blazing" as it were. The point is to reach more than the addle brained city attorney about the issue. Bring it to the attention of the ENTIRE city council and see where it goes from there. We have plenty of information to get started with. Hell, how much can you get out in three minutes anyway and still be coherent?

I get the distinct feeling from the letters Izzle got back from the city attorney, that the attorney just turned up his nose, responded with his own opinion, and that's as far as it went. Lets make sure we are not being stonewalled by an army of 1 lawyer. I want the city council on record stating that they KNOW that the BMC is unlawful and they don't care, OR that they are sorry for the confusion and will correct the issue.

That is why I am pursuing this.

imported post

Send them a copy of the recent AG opinion.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Send them a copy of the recent AG opinion.

Click to expand...

Um, Mike, I'd like to point out that the first post referenced said AGO and they still brushed him off. They just don't care.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

American Rattlesnake wrote:

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that this problem should be let go. Izzle's efforts to get the City to see reason are commendable and there obviously needs to be more effort expended toforce the City toobey the lawnow that they have determined to be obstinate. However, the disconnect between the City politicians and the Police Department needs to be recognized...if only to give credit where it is due. The Bothell PD (for example) has given every indication that they understand the law and will obey it.

Best regards,

AR

Click to expand...

Several of you seem to be getting the wrong idea. This is not, and never has been directed at Bothell PD. I have had my bad experiences with them, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand that they have nothing to do with the enactment of an ordinance like this. An LEAs job is the enforcement of laws, not the creation of them. Please stop trying to hint that this is some sort of "crusade" against Bothell PD.

I have no intention of going into the city council meeting "guns blazing" as it were. The point is to reach more than the addle brained city attorney about the issue. Bring it to the attention of the ENTIRE city council and see where it goes from there. We have plenty of information to get started with. Hell, how much can you get out in three minutes anyway and still be coherent?

I get the distinct feeling from the letters Izzle got back from the city attorney, that the attorney just turned up his nose, responded with his own opinion, and that's as far as it went. Lets make sure we are not being stonewalled by an army of 1 lawyer. I want the city council on record stating that they KNOW that the BMC is unlawful and they don't care, OR that they are sorry for the confusion and will correct the issue.

That is why I am pursuing this.

Click to expand...

Then we are in full agreement.

imported post

I appreciate everyone's effort on this and attending the city council meeting. I was going to do that as my next step but I will not be in town for there next couple meetings. Again thank you everyone who is participating.

imported post

joe456 wrote:

http://www.ci.bothell.wa.us/dept/council/projected/projected.html

November 25, 2008 6:00 pm 3 minutes of presentation time per visitor.

My thought is to have some pages of the relevant codes and AG opinion to hand out, and since the city attorney is likely to be there, simply state the problem, and ask that the council, consider amending the Municipal code to reflect a straight forward, plain interpretation of RCW 9.41.290. Since they represent the people of Bothell, and the people of Bothell are unlikely to be interested in funding an innovate way of circumventing a state law with expensive lawyers.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anything about a meeting on November 25th. Dec 2nd is the next one according to the page given.

Also, does anyone have a bit more experience on what is required to get speaking time at these meetings? Is it necessary to pre-register and give an agenda, or can you just show up and get your 3 min?

imported post

They seem to update that page off sync with the meetings dates. http://www.ci.bothell.wa.us/dept/council/cindex.html this page shows the 25th date still. From what I have heard, about presenting at the state, I expect nothing more than arriving a little early, signing up on a sheet to say I want to say something.

imported post

joe456 wrote:

They seem to update that page off sync with the meetings dates. http://www.ci.bothell.wa.us/dept/council/cindex.html this page shows the 25th date still. From what I have heard, about presenting at the state, I expect nothing more than arriving a little early, signing up on a sheet to say I want to say something.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that!

Show of hands of those planning to attend the meeting on the 25th?
Would you guys like to get together tomorrow and compare notes and ideas?
I figure meeting in downtown Bothell for coffee? My favorite coffee house is Lions Den on main street just across from the post office. Anytime after 1600 is fine for me.

imported post

Well, hope to see one or more of you there.

imported post

Thank you FMCDH, your presentation was succinct and to the point, sorry I wasn't ready to give a presentation to back you up.

imported post

joe456 wrote:

Thank you FMCDH, your presentation was succinct and to the point, sorry I wasn't ready to give a presentation to back you up.

Click to expand...

Most welcome! Thanks for coming to both you and our friendly neighborhood troll who shall remain nameless.

I'm glad the city council got to hear it from someone outside of the obviously biased city attorney. Mayor Lamb seemed genuinely surprised.

I guess now we wait and see. I think allot of it will depend on how things go with Seattle and the type of precedence it creates.

imported post

FMCDH wrote:

joe456 wrote:

Thank you FMCDH, your presentation was succinct and to the point, sorry I wasn't ready to give a presentation to back you up.

Click to expand...

Most welcome! Thanks for coming to both you and our friendly neighborhood troll who shall remain nameless.

I'm glad the city council got to hear it from someone outside of the obviously biased city attorney. Mayor Lamb seemed genuinely surprised.

I guess now we wait and see. I think allot of it will depend on how things go with Seattle and the type of precedence it creates.

Click to expand...

I'm not a "troll", I am/ was a "lurker".

I did some research on the mayor when I got home and although I couldn't find anything firearm specific, I found one article comparing him to a "Dino Rossi style republican". He also worked in 2007 on a commission with the attorney general. He is an attorney here in Bothell when he is not playing mayor.

I agree with Joe. You did a fine job presenting and seemed to have their attention.

imported post

j515 wrote:

I'm not a "troll", I am/ was a "lurker".

I did some research on the mayor when I got home and although I couldn't find anything firearm specific, I found one article comparing him to a "Dino Rossi style republican". He also worked in 2007 on a commission with the attorney general. He is an attorney here in Bothell when he is not playing mayor.

I agree with Joe. You did a fine job presenting and seemed to have their attention.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment, and let me officially welcome you to OCDO, j515 who was until so recently known as..."friendly lurker". (cue dramatic music)

That is great news! Not only has he worked with the AGO, he knows law. I think your right, I think we got their attention.

Next stop... Lake Forest Park! Dec 11th, 1945 hours.

imported post

Be sure to sign in so you can get a turn speaking. It may be busy depending on whether the budget has been passed or still in the comment stage.

PM me for further details.

imported post

Bothell's Mayor is mostly ceremonial and a figure head. The havea City Manager who actually runs the city business. Might eant to contact him as well.



Bob Stowe Bob.Stowe@ci.bothell.wa.us

imported post

j2l3 wrote:

Bothell's Mayor is mostly ceremonial and a figure head. The havea City Manager who actually runs the city business. Might eant to contact him as well.



Bob Stowe Bob.Stowe@ci.bothell.wa.us

Click to expand...

I believe he was there. He was listed on the Agenda, but I didn't know to look for him ahead of time. I handed out packets to everyone on the council (8 in all) and the attorney, so hopefully he got one too. If hes is a thin, tall, white haired man in his 60s, then he was there. Sat 2nd to the right of the mayor I believe. Can't be sure.