University Place's response to rcw violation

imported post

I sent a letter to the city attorney of UP about a week ago pointing out their violation of state law. I hope you don't mind Izzle, I am not a very good writer and I thought your letter got the point across pretty well so I just filled in the blanks with the University Place codes and sent it in. Here it is.



Dear City Attorney of University Place:

I would like to bring to the city’s attention University Place Municipal
Code:15.05.060, section E. Recreational Activities, number (2) Firearms,
and its violation of Washington State Law. Currently University Place
Municipal Code 15.05.060 is worded: “No person shall use, carry, or possess
firearms of any description, or air rifles, spring guns, bow and arrows,
slings or any other forms of weapons potentially inimical to wildlife and
dangerous to human safety, or any instrument that can be loaded with and
fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device. Shooting into park
areas from beyond park boundaries is forbidden.” University Place Municipal
Code 15.05.060 is in clear 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preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or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.” This RCW is
in referance to firearms laws. The whole RCW can be found here
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290 University Place
Municipal Code 15.05.060 is inconsistent and more restrictive then RCW
9.41.300 when it states: “No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms
of any description”. There is no exemption in RCW 9.41.300 that stats a
city can restrict the right to carry a firearm onto the grounds of a
public park. Under RCW 9.41.290, University Place Municipal Code 15.05.060
is preempted and repealed. I would also like to direct your attention to
the Washington State Attorney General's Opinion 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 code in 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. These ordnances are posted at Cirque park and the
Grandview Chambers bay walkway. I look forward to hearing back from you
about this issue.

Sincerely,
Jonathon



and the response



I received your voicemail today asking for a response to the email below
and I wanted to assure you that I had received your email and I will review
it at my earliest opportunity. I am in and out of the office a great deal
the next several weeks, and I wish to coordinate with the County, which is
the City's police department to assure a thorough review and coordinated
enforcement, so it may take a little time to review. You can expect to
hear from me in a few weeks.

Janean Parker
City Attorney
(253)460-5426


Its good to see some people have a decent head on their shoulders and can listen to reason.

imported post

I've pointed out repeatedly in the past that calm, rationale letters like yours will get a better response than chest thumping, soverign flag waving and all of that.

City attorney's are often on contract to a city in addition to their full time lawyer stuff so if you don't get a reply in a couple of weeks, politely say howdy again to remind them you are looking for an answer.

imported post

Good to see that the seed has been planted. I'll be interested to see your outcome. My 'rents still live there, and we visit often. I'll OC there on occasion, and have never had a run-in. And FYI, the UPPD is a contracted departmentwith Pierce County S.D. providing the staffing.

Also, if you don't get a good answer from the City Atty's office, let me know, I'm on a first-name basis withfour of the seven city council members. (is that aMAJORITY?!?) I'm UP-grown. (Not to be confused withgrown-up! haha)

imported post

awsome, I'll keep that in mind

imported post

Sempercarry--

Just a small point but the entire municipal code is not rendered null and void because of State Preemption, just those parts that pertain to the carry of a firearm. If you read the rest of the Municipal Code there is most likely a "severability" clause. This allows for the remainder of the code to remain in effect should any specific portion be declared invalid. It is legal under State Law to restrict the discharge of a firearm in a specified area and also legal to regulate all the other Non-Firearm weapons.

The only portion of the code that is invalid is that pertaining to firearms, not the use of firearms.

imported post

If you read the email a little closer, you will see that I point out the part of the municipal code that is in violation of the rcw is the part restricting the carry of firearms.

University Place Municipal Code 15.05.060 is inconsistent and more restrictive then RCW 9.41.300 when it states: “No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms
of any description”. There is no exemption in RCW 9.41.300 that stats a
city can restrict the right to carry a firearm onto the grounds of a
public park

imported post

sempercarry wrote:

If you read the email a little closer, you will see that I point out the part of the municipal code that is in violation of the rcw is the part restricting the carry of firearms.

University Place Municipal Code 15.05.060 is inconsistent and more restrictive then RCW 9.41.300 when it states: “No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms
of any description”. There is no exemption in RCW 9.41.300 that stats a
city can restrict the right to carry a firearm onto the grounds of a
public park

Click to expand...

My point however is that they CAN prohibit the discharge of a firearm in the city park.

Their ordinance would be OK if it merely prohibited that action, not the carry or possesion. Under Severability, if their ordinance prohibiting the Carry is invalidated, it is still valid for the prohibition of discharging a firearm.

imported post

amlevin wrote:

My point however is that they CAN prohibit the discharge of a firearm in the city park.

Their ordinance would be OK if it merely prohibited that action, not the carry or possesion.  Under Severability, if their ordinance prohibiting the Carry is invalidated, it is still valid for the prohibition of discharging a firearm. 

Click to expand...

Shhhhh.....if they're not paying attention, we may get an open-air range out of the deal when they amend the code.

imported post

Roy,

I know you're just joking, but in reality--the UP city council, having recently gone through a set of hearings result in Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Club gaining a conditional-use (but conforming) land-use status, rather than their previous non-confirming (but grandfathered) status, believe me, something like that won't slip by them unawares!

imported post

Hey,

well....still no response after 3 more emails and a couple calls. G20-IWB24/7mind making a few calls of your own.....I would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible.