joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
I remember the PM's we exchanged about this very well Gene. You can still count me in.
I remember the PM's we exchanged about this very well Gene. You can still count me in.
Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.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."
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.surfj9009 wrote:Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.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."
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.joeroket wrote: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.surfj9009 wrote:Absolutely. We need to make sure that it gets changed so there is no way anyone could misunderstand it.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."
Keep the feds out. Enact Washington law and watch the anti-liberty nanny-staters squirm.Thundar wrote:42 USC 1983Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.
What on earth do the feds have to do with this thread? This is about re-writing State law.jddssc121 wrote:Keep the feds out. Enact Washington law and watch the anti-liberty nanny-staters squirm.Thundar wrote:42 USC 1983Elect6ed officials should loose their qualified immunity for enacting any pre empted legislation or failing to remove pre empted legislation when notified.