• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Proposed Bill In The Legislature

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

"NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

surfj9009 wrote:
You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

"NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
surfj9009 wrote:
You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

"NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.
I'm not having any problem understanding this, but I can see how it might be a bit confusing. The issue here seems to revolve around the old discussion of "causes alarm" vs. "warrants alarm" as it's stated in Section 270. I agree that the language could be clarified with the emphasis on intent and in defining what actions "cause alarm" for the safety of others.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Richard6218 wrote:
joeroket wrote:
surfj9009 wrote:
You have my full support with this. I will contribute and follow his thread as well, especially considering the training our officers are receiving because of the Spokane Trainng Bulletin.

"NOTE: Citizens have recently contacted the City to argue that they can carry guns
in city parks, because Washington Law does not automatically ban guns carried
under “circumstances that warrant concern for the safety of others”. Regardless
of the carrier’s lack of intent to intimidate others, the carrier can be ordered to
immediately remove the gun from the park and/or face criminal charges, if the
circumstances warrant. R.C.W.9.41.270 and SMC 10.11.048A."
Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.
I'm not having any problem understanding this, but I can see how it might be a bit confusing. The issue here seems to revolve around the old discussion of "causes alarm" vs. "warrants alarm" as it's stated in Section 270. I agree that the language could be clarified with the emphasis on intent and in defining what actions "cause alarm" for the safety of others.
That is exactly what the issue is. The cities and officers are left to decide for themselves what "warrants alarm for the safety of others." That is something that should not be left open to as broad of interpretation as it is now.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

jddssc121 wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.
42 USC 1983
Keep the feds out. Enact Washington law and watch the anti-liberty nanny-staters squirm.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
jddssc121 wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.
42 USC 1983
Keep the feds out. Enact Washington law and watch the anti-liberty nanny-staters squirm.
What on earth do the feds have to do with this thread? This is about re-writing State law.
 

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
imported post

Ok, here it is. Been working on it, but have also been on vacation. So it might need some help.

Let me know what you guys think.

In PDF as well:

[align=left]AN ACT Relating to Firearms Preemption; adding a new[/align]
[align=left]section to chapter 9.41.290 RCW; creating a new section;[/align]
[align=left]BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF[/align]
[align=left]WASHINGTON:[/align]
[align=left]NEW SECTION.
Sec. 1. The intent of this act is to provide[/align]
[align=left]uniform firearms laws in the state; to declare all[/align]
[align=left]ordinances, rules, laws, executive orders, policy, and[/align]
[align=left]regulations null and void which have been enacted,[/align]
[align=left]established, or enforced by any cities, towns, counties,[/align]
[align=left]municipalities, executive orders, government regulations,[/align]
[align=left]or jurisdictions other than the Washington state[/align]
[align=left]legislature and, by which regulates firearms, ammunition,[/align]
[align=left]or components thereof; to prohibit the enactment,[/align]
[align=left]establishment, and enforcement of any future ordinances,[/align]
[align=left]rules, laws, regulations, executive orders, policy or any[/align]
[align=left]other government regulations relating to firearms,[/align]
[align=left]ammunition, or components thereof unless specifically[/align]
[align=left]authorized by the legislature in this section or general[/align]
[align=left]law; as in RCW 9.41.300, and to require local jurisdictions[/align]
[align=left]to enforce state firearms laws. The individual right to[/align]
[align=left]keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right[/align]
[align=left]under Article I Section 24 of the Washington constitution[/align]
[align=left]the legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and[/align]
[align=left]criminal firearm laws throughout the state.[/align]
[align=left](1) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the[/align]
[align=left]state except where the legislature specifically delegates[/align]
[align=left]responsibility to local authorities or state entities.[/align]
[align=left]NEW SECTION.
Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter[/align]
[align=left]9.41.290 RCW to read as follows: (1) When a person’s rights[/align]
[align=left]pursuant to the protection of the preemption provisions of[/align]
[align=left]this section have been violated, the person shall have the[/align]
[align=left]right to bring a civil action against the persons,[/align]
[align=left]municipalities, cities, towns, counties, government[/align]
[align=left]entities, and or political subdivision jointly and[/align]
[align=left]severally for injunctive relief or monetary damages or[/align]
[align=left]both.[/align]
[align=left](2) Any government official, municipal actor, or peace[/align]
[align=left]officer violating the provisions of RCW 9.41.290 shall be[/align]
[align=left]guilty of a gross misdemeanor.[/align]
[align=left](3) Any government official, municipal actor, or peace[/align]
[align=left]officer who prevents the possession of a firearm of a[/align]
[align=left]person who may lawfully possess such firearm in a place not[/align]
prohibited by law shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
 
Top