Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 222

Thread: Local codes brought in line with state law

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    As you can see, it is a rather unweilding list. It's a work in progress. I just needed to get something to start with. I know there are answers to many of these on the board (maybe even this thread).

    Legend
    • Resolved
    • Pending
    • Checking status from board or process started (member name)
    • Problems
    Aberdeen 9.02.020 City Hall; Council will amend code. LE informed not to enforce
    Aberdeen 2.86.020 Emergency Powers
    Airway Heights 12.04.010 Parks
    Algona 9.24.160 Parks; Council to amend code per this post and resolved
    Asotin 12.20.070 Parks
    Auburn 9.34.020 Alcohol by the drink
    Auburn 2.75.080, 9.04.010 Emergency Powers
    Bainbridge Island 12.20.060 Parks
    Bainbridge Island 9.10.040 City Hall
    Bainbridge Island 8.20.010 Emergency Powers
    Battle Ground 2.74.090 Emergency Powers
    Bellevue 3.43.320 Parks; Scheduled for next code revision per this thread
    Bellingham 8.04.170 Parks;Repealed 12/15/2008
    Benton County 7.28.020 Parks
    Blaine 12.32.060 Parks
    Bonney Lake 12.12.140 Parks
    Bonney Lake 9.86.020/9.86.030 Public Meetings
    Bothell 8.60.350 [lookup]
    Bremerton 13.04.060 Parks; Amended 11/19/2008
    Brewster 9.40.060 Parks
    Brewster 9.36.010 Alcohol by the drink
    Buckley 10.84.185 Parks
    Buckley 2.96.090 Emergency Powers
    Burien 9.50.220 Council Chambers; revision being drafted per this post
    Burien 9.50.210 Alcohol by the drink; revision being drafted per this post
    Burlington 2.72.040 Parks
    Camas 12.32.150 Parks; amended 09/08/20009 perpost on wa-ccw list (Yahoo Group).
    Cathlamet 9.20.010 Alcohol by the drink
    Centralia 10.33.080 Parks; per this thread (Chehalis 7.04.150 per this post)
    Chelan 9.22.020 Parks; per this post
    Chelan 9.18.040 Alcohol by the drink; per this post
    Chelan County 7.24.010 Parks; per this post
    Chelan County 7.22.020 Alcohol by the drink
    Clark County 9.04.190 Parks
    Connell 9.28.020/9.28.040 Drinking and carry; Leave your firearm with the bartender!
    Covington 8.40.240 Parks; Council will amend code. LE informed not to enforce
    Deer Park 9.12.020 City Hall/Municipal Building
    Des Moines 9.36.040 Council Chambers (meets in municipal court…)
    Des Moines 9.36.030 Alcohol by the drink
    Douglas 13.08.190 Parks
    DuPont 10.03.060 Parks
    East Wenatchee 12.12.040 Parks
    East Wenatchee 9.20.040 Alcohol by the drink
    East Wenatchee 9.12.020 Emergency Powers
    Eatonville 12.20.120 Parks
    Eatonville 2.60.040 Emergency Powers
    Elma 9.34.020 Alcohol (close but no cigar)
    Ephrata 9.20.010 CC permission granted by Chief; language will be amended on Jan 21 to correct
    Ephrata 9.40.040 Parks
    Ephrata 14.08.050 Cemetery
    Ephrata 9.22.010 Alcohol by the drink
    Everett 9.02.020 Emergency Powers
    Everett 10.78.080 Public Conveyance
    Federal Way 11-72 Parks; Amended 01/06/2009
    Federal Way 6-139 Council Chambers; Amended 01/06/2009
    Federal Way 6-138 Alcohol by the drink; Amended 01/06/2009
    Ferndale 12.26.040 Parks; Repealed 02/02/2009
    Fife 12.22.020 Parks
    Fircrest 10.12.050 Parks
    Forks 9.05.150 Parks
    Gig Harbor 9.12.020 Emergency Powers
    Grandview 2.48.160 Cemetery
    Grandview 12.28.070 Parks
    Grandview 9.36.110 Schools (exceeding RCW 9.41.300)
    Island County 9.40.320 Parks; has been reviewed by counsel and will be changed per this post
    Issaquah 9.10.040 Alcohol by the drink
    Kelso 12.20.190 Parks
    Kelso 13.12.130 Airport
    King County 12.52.030 Emergency Powers
    Kirkland 11.41.060 Parks, City Hall, School grounds; City attorney reworking code. PD informed not to enforce, per this thread.
    Kitsap County 2.04.020 Emergency Powers
    Kitsap County 10.12.080 Parks
    Kittitas 9A.20.010 Alcohol by the drink; repealed 02/24/2009
    Kittitas 9A.20.020 Any business in the city; repealed 02/24/2009
    Lake Forest Park 12.08.050 Parks; City attorney reworking code - brought to city's attention by PD.
    Lakewood 8.76.530 Parks
    Lakewood 9.34.020 Alcohol by the drink; under the influence
    Langley 9.04.050 Alcohol being served (public accommodation)
    Langley 9.04.030 Carry concealed enumerated and declared to be disorderly person
    Lewis County 12.05.050 Parks; County prosecutor giving runaround per this post
    Liberty Lake 8-1A-5 Parks and city facilities; PD working with city council to amend code (check on city facilities)
    Long Beach 8-4-2 Parks
    Longview 10.60.020 Emergency Powers
    Maple Valley 7.05.050 Parks; will not be enforced pending official change per this post
    Marysville No Code (or unknown); GFZ signs at city hall removed, no local code relating to them (per this thread)
    Mason County 9.44.090 Parks
    McCleary 12.12.030 Parks
    Medina 12.24.010 Parks
    Mercer Island 9.40.020 Emergency Powers
    Mill Creek 12.12.110 Parks
    Milton 12.16.040 Parks
    Monroe 9.28.070 Parks; to be changed per this thread
    Moses Lake 12.36.090 Parks
    Mount Vernon 2.40.070 Emergency Powers
    Newcastle 12.55.550 Parks
    Oak Harbor 6.14.070 Parks; awaiting verification per this post
    Ocean Shores 9.01.080 Parks; Council will amend code. LE informed not to enforce
    Ocean Shores 8.36.020 Emergency Powers
    Olympia 12.60.050 Parks; City attorney reworking code. PD informed not to enforce
    Olympia 02.04.090 Emergency Powers
    Orting 8-6-4 Parks
    Pasco 9.48.090 Parks
    Pasco 2.04.020 Emergency Powers
    Pierce County 14.08.060 Parks
    Port Angeles 2.48.210 Parks
    Poulsbo 12.30.060 Parks
    Puyallup 13.20.010 Cemetery
    Puyallup 9.20.050 Parks and public facilities
    Quincy 9.13.020 Alcohol by the drink
    Raymond 9.80.050 City Hall
    Redmond 9.12.020 Emergency Powers; under review with probable repeal per this thread
    Richland 9.22.070 Parks; per this thread
    Richland 9.27.020 Alcohol by the drink; appears not yet resolved?
    Roy 8-4-3 Parks
    SeaTac 15.20.045 Homeless encampment permit approval requirements…
    Seattle 18.12.140 Parks; Repealed - Ordinance 122789 Signed 09/25/2008
    Seattle 10.02.020 Emergency Powers
    Sedro-Woolley 2.40.040 Emergency Powers
    Selah 1.58.010 Emergency Powers
    Sequim 12.24.010 Parks
    Sequim 9.36.010 Alcohol served (at all)
    Shoreline 8.12.490 Parks
    Skagit County 9.41.190 Parks County Attorney will notify LE not to enforce. Will amend code
    Snohomish 13.04.070 Parks
    Snohomish County 22.16.090 Parks
    Snohomish County 15.08.205 Airport
    Snoqualmie 12.12.350 Parks; may or may not be amended, but PD advised not to enforce per this thread
    Soap Lake 9.36.010, 9.36.030 Alcohol by the drink
    Spokane 10.10.040 Parks; Addressed with City Attorney on 12/22/2008, not changed yet
    Spokane 10.10.050 City public assembly building; Addressed with City Attorney on 12/22/2008, not changed yet
    Spokane 2.04.030 Emergency Powers; Code was updated in 2008 with input from
    fetchbut still needs work
    Spokane Valley 6.05.090 Parks
    Sultan 9.32.010 Alcohol (close, but real confusing)
    Sumner 12.60.040 Parks
    Sunnyside 12.04.020 Parks
    Sunnyside 9.20.030 Alcohol (way off on this one)
    Tacoma --no code-- Cheney Stadium; Taking Cherry Stance per this thread
    Tacoma 8.96.030 Emergency Powers
    Thurston County 10.76.290 Parks
    Toppenish 2.80.020 Parks
    Union Gap 2.88.030 Emergency Powers
    University Place 15.05.050 Parks; to be amended and not enforced per this thread, signs removed
    Vancouver 15.04.060 Parks; changed on website, no sign change
    Vancouver 2.12.040 Emergency Powers
    Wenatchee 6A.18.240 Parks; amended 01/22/2009 and has been republished
    West Richland 12.12.030 Parks
    West Richland 9.36.012 Alcohol by the drink
    Whatcom County 9.32.085 Parks;being reviewed by outside counsel, expect April 2009 before resolved.
    Yakima 13.16.120 Parks; amended in June, looking at new signs
    Yakima 7.04.090 Cemetery; amended in August
    Yakima 6.06.030 Emergency Powers; amended 10/20/2009 removing firearm references per this post
    Yakima County 11.04.500 Parks
    Yakima County 5.16.090 Circuses, Carnivals, Rodeos, Animal Shows and Rides, and Other Occasional Amusements, Sporting Events, or Shows
    Yakima County 9.46.040 Snowmobile (basically considered as hunting from vehicle)
    Yelm 9.68.040 Parks
    Zillah 13.24.150 Parks
    Zillah 2.04.200 Emergency Powers
    Zillah 5.32.060 Banquets (yes, banquets)

    Port of Seattle General Rule 16.a Possession in non-sterile area; Taking Cherry Stance

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    I think the first small town was Montesano: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4027. Unless I'm mistaken, it wasn't that they repealed a bill that already existed, but the mayor vetoed it before it could be put into effect.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    Richland's law has fallen:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/19000.html

    I need to make sure they actually updated the code, but the city attorney informed me they were removing signs and changing the law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    I wrote a letter to the City Administrator of Ferndale on November 22 about their parks ordinance and followed up with a phone call last week. They are "working on it" and he assured me they will enact a repeal "shortly". They are also working on a lockbox system at the municipal court in order to comply with RCW 9.41.300. I invited myself to the City Council meeting when these bills are brought up.

    I will post reports as developments warrant.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    Good idea.

    I've gotten Centralia and Chehalis to repeal their firearms in parks bans. I believe both city codes are consistent with state law now.

    Lewis County still has a ban on "display" of firearms in parks. The country prosecutor gave me the runaround so my next move is go directly to the county commissioners.
    Chehalis code was not on the MRSC site, but I found the Code Publishing from their web page. I din't find anything for firearms with them. It seems for the most part they have adopted RCW's by reference for their criminal code and I didn't find a seperate parks code.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Ground, Washington, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    Vancouver changed the rules listed on the Parks & Recreation website to read "discharge of firearms" as prohibited rather than simple possession. This was in Sept. 2007. Here is a snip from an email I received back from Brian Potter with Vancouver Parks& Recreation:

    Long story short, your research is correct... only the State can determine where one can "possess" a firearm. Therefore, any local code is invalid if it attempts to regulate possession beyond that regulated by RCW.


    However, local jurisdictions do have authority to regulate where one can "discharge" a firearm. Therefore, while you may opening possess or conceal a firearm, you may not discharge the firearm while on park property.


    Make sense?


    He didn't want to change the signage, but I believe Lonnie had some discussion with him and IIRC it was going to happen.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows:


    9.32.085 Unlawful firearms and/or weapons in parks.
    A.It is unlawful within a county-owned park for any person to:

    1.Display, exhibit or draw any firearm or dangerous weapon; or

    2.Leave any firearm or dangerous weapon unattended and unsecured, or exposed to public view; or

    3.Discharge or propel across, in, or into any county-owned park a firearm, bow and arrow, spear gun, harpoon, or air or gas weapon, or any similar dangerous device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property.

    A violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor.

    B.The following are affirmative defenses to a violation of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence:

    1.The activity constituting the violation was authorized by the Whatcom County parks and recreation director as a special recreational activity upon a finding that the activity is consistent with parks use.

    2.Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person. (A direct copy of RCW 9.41.270(3)(c))

    3.Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commissionof a felony. (A direct copy of RCW 9.41.270(3)(d))


    4.Any properly licensed hunter during an applicable hunting period or season, who is entering or leaving an approved hunting area, or who traverses park property while entering or leaving an approved hunting area.

    5.If otherwise exempted by either RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) or (6) as currently enacted or hereafter amended or by Section 9.32.090 (C), (D), or (G) as currently enacted or hereafter amended.

    C.Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of an individual licensed under RCW 9.41.070 to carry a concealed weapon in a county-owned park. (Ord. 99-007).

    C.Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of an individual licensed under RCW 9.41.070 to carry a concealed weapon in a county-owned park. (Ord. 99-007). (Allows CC)


    I see no problem with most of this ordinance, except these:

    9.32.085.A.2 I see no reason to challenge most of this subsection, but the phrase "exposed to public view" could be construed negatively if it is applied to an individual openly carrying. If it can be so applied, then it should be challenged. Legal opinion is solicited.

    9.32.085.B This section gives us defenses against the prohibition set forth in the lead section, in the manner of the RCW (9.41.270) but then takes it away by requiring a defendant to prove his/her right to carry. This phrase ("defendant must prove...")probably warrants challenge. Again, legal opinion is solicited.

    These are just my own interpretations. If someone can confirm my reading of them I will start a challenge with the county attorney, or whoever turns out to be the person responsible for maintaining the County Code.




  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    Oak Harbor 6.14.070 Parks
    The copy of the municipal code in the city library states that a firearm can be carried for the purpose of lawful self defense, but the online version doesn't state this. I have E-mailed the city attorney to get verification.
    WTT: Glock 27 for Glock 26

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Great list this will help me with sending my letters to different cities.

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

    Post imported post

    I am just going to post here now to let people know what cities i have contacted. I just sent a letter to Bellevue pertaining their weapons in parks.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows:
    I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not inline with state code, as it allows and exemption by RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) or (6)

    which is

    " (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

    (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms"

    so it cancels itself out, and provided for the possibility that state law would cancel it out.

    also allows for exemption by 9.41.060 (x2 county and state level), which off the top of my head most county parks could be considered legit outdoor activities.

    and with 9.41.060 saying
    "The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:", which kinda creates an exemption because it states that you only need the exemptions of 9.41.060 when you do something covered by 9.41.050. So a county park is okay if you abide by 9.41.060, which you are inline with if you are not doing something covered by 9.41.050.

    I don't think anyone would charge you...

    however, I'd like it to be removed because it does provide for the possibility.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    dt wrote:
    Vancouver changed the rules listed on the Parks & Recreation website to read "discharge of firearms" as prohibited rather than simple possession. This was in Sept. 2007. [highlight mine for thread clarity] -gb
    I have been reading council and commission minutes from late September to date trying to find something else. I didn't recall finding any ordinance changing their park code. Do you know if the actual code was changed? I read the minutes (okay, searched for 'parks') from 09/01 to 11/10. Their muni code is self published on the web and it has not been changed.

    Section 15.04.060 Firearms and fireworks.


    Firearms, fireworks, bows, arrows, and sling shots are prohibited in any park. It is unlawful to shoot, fire, or explode any firearms, fireworks, firecracker, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to carry any firearms or to shoot or fire any air gun, bows, and arrows, BB gun or use any slingshot in any park; provided, the director of parks may issue permits for use of safe and sane fireworks in specified areas where fire hazards will not be increased and where the use of the fireworks will be under proper supervision, and fireworks displays may be permitted upon securing of a proper permit pursuant to state law; provided further, this section shall not prevent establishment in any park of a properly designed archery course. (Ord. M-1072 § 7, 1969)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows: [snipped]
    I went back and reviewed the comments that are in my spreadsheet. They're kind of cryptic.
    While it appears not to be expressly forbidden, (A)(1) and (A)(2) Display… and exposed to public view could be open to interpretation. In (C) mention of need for concealed carry…
    A. It is unlawful within a county-owned park for any person to:
    1. Display, exhibit or draw any firearm or dangerous weapon; or
    2. Leave any firearm or dangerous weapon unattended and unsecured, or exposed to public view; or ....
    C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of an individual licensed under RCW 9.41.070 to carry a concealed weapon in a county-owned park. (Ord. 99-007).
    I think it has to be taken into context of the title 9.32.085 Unlawful firearms and/or weapons in parks.

    I think the way it is written is to clearly discourage OC in their parks under the guise of 9.41.270. Why duplicate the .270 language for parks? At that, it only partially takes language from .270 while leaving out the pertinent portion "...in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." This leaves display open to interpretation exceeding 290/300. If I am OC'ing, my weapon is displayed.

    Also found this:

    8.12.020 Use of firearms restricted.
    The use of firearms on county dump property is prohibited and the county engineer is directed to post appropriate signs. (Prior code § 3.08.030).


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North of Seattlle, South of Canada, Washington, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Gene, just a clarification:

    In Lake Forest Park, it was the PD that told the city they would not enforce. Officers found the discrepancy some time ago and brought it to the city's attention.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Sent a letter to Kittitas concerning both of the listed municipal codes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Just a thought here - all these codes that we are worried about would all of a sudden become legal again if the state legislature decided to remove preemption. That would be a very easy thing for them to do. I think that it would be easy to take preemption for granted and believe that we should be just as worried about loosing that as we are focussed on each of these small burbs.

    -adamsesq



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    Richard6218 wrote:
    I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows:
    I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not inline with state code, as it allows and exemption by RCW 9.41.300(2)(b) or (6)

    9.32.085.A.2 I see no reason to challenge most of this subsection, but the phrase "exposed to public view" could be construed negatively if it is applied to an individual openly carrying. If it can be so applied, then it should be challenged.
    Andy: read the subsection again. The phrase "exposed to public view" is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted by LE to apply to anyone OC'ing. My question was whether we should challenge the phrase as part of a request that the County re-word the subsection, eliminating that phrase. The rest of the subsection seems OK to me: abandoning a weapon in a park would be a rather stupid thing to do and probably should carry penalties.

    9.32.085.B This section gives us defenses against the prohibition set forth in the lead section, in the manner of the RCW (9.41.270) but then takes it away by requiring a defendant to prove his/her right to carry. This phrase ("defendant must prove...")probably warrants challenge.
    This section is a paraphrase of .270 except that it puts the burden on the "defendant" (assuming one has been arrested under the Code) to prove the right to carry. The RCW places no such burden, and therein is the conflict between the County Code and the RCW. Right to carry under .270 is absolute, and it was my intention to use this issue to make a case with the County to change the ordinance. By posting this I was only seeking confirmation of my analysis. Do you agree, or disagree?

    I don't think anyone would charge you...
    I called yesterday and spoke to a Whatcom County sheriff's deputy who came unglued at the mention of my walking down the street with a gun on the hip. He claimed I could be charged with "brandishing", an assertion that I rebutted with pointing out that there is no such word in the RCW. I won't go into further detail because it has been pointed out to me that Whatcom County Sheriff's Dept. policy is more in line with state law. I am dealing with the issue of that deputy's response to my question privately. So until the issue is resolved with the Sheriff there is a very good chance of being hassled, at least by this particular Deputy. Just a word of caution.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    I think that it would be easy to take preemption for granted and believe that we should be just as worried about loosing that as we are focussed on each of these small burbs.

    -adamsesq

    Actually one of the advantages of getting these codes cleaned up is that a loss of preemption would not automatically take away our local rights. The local governing bodies would then have to propose, debate, and vote on a restriction of rights. That gives citizens the opportunity to argue against the restrictions and have a campaign issue to defeat anti-Second Amendment politicians at the local level since they would then be on record.

    This is good and positive work with long term benefits.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    CONTACT REPORT: DAVID MCEACHRAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, WHATCOM COUNTY

    I just got off the phone with the prosecuting attorney of Whatcom County. This was a most positive discussion and encouraging for us on a number of fronts. I addressed the two issues in the County Code that are discussed in this thread, namely (1) the issue of "exposed to public view", and (2) the "defendant must prove" language in 9.32.085.B.

    He said with regard to the first that "exposed to public view" refers to an abandoned weapon and under no circumstances at law could be applied to a weapon carried in a holster. So that resolves that one.

    He conceded that the "defendant must prove" phrase is more restrictive than the RCW and could be changed to be more compliant with state law. He referred me to two county council members who could best handle such a change. So I will shortly be contacting them about this issue.

    We discussed another question that came up in another thread, about the video of the Bellingham City Council meeting. For those who haven't followed that thread, the Council first resolvedto repeal the City's guns-in-parks ordinance, and in the next breath passed another resolution to "lobby the Legislature to enact a change in the preemption law". Mr. McEachran's opinion of that is that it will have no effect whatever on the Legislature, who have too many other priorities anyway. So we can disregard that resolution as an empty gesture.

    Onward and upward.....

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Sent something to Chelan County

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Izzle wrote:
    Sent something to Chelan County
    Chelan County Sheriff is researching. I spoke with him on the phone

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    Actually one of the advantages of getting these codes cleaned up is that a loss of preemption would not automatically take away our local rights. The local governing bodies would then have to propose, debate, and vote on a restriction of rights. That gives citizens the opportunity to argue against the restrictions and have a campaign issue to defeat anti-Second Amendment politicians at the local level since they would then be on record.

    This is good and positive work with long term benefits.
    Another very good point.

    Of course we have to be careful that our efforts don't provoke more cities and counties to request the state to remove the preemption, as with Bellingham. If enough of 'em did that, I suspect it would make an impact on the state lawmakers.
    I'm not trying to minimize the issue, but as David McEachran said, unofficially but from an informed viewpoint, the Legislature has a lot of very pressing issues right now, relating to the State's financial mess and other BIG problems. So gun control is not a real priority with them. It's something that has been around for a long time and hasn't really changed a lot. Bellingham and Seattle both carry a lot of weight relatively, but they are two of the most liberal cities in the state. I personally don't see a lot of them doing what Bellingham is doing, and in any case, as McEachran said, the Legislature isn't going to act on it. My own city, Ferndale, has been one example going in the other direction, and I think they are more typical. So let's not panic --- I'm usually one to take the pessimistic view, but this doesn't look to me like time to pull the fire alarm --- at least, not yet.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Sent something to Monroe about the parks ban and Burien about their by the drink policy and council chambers.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    Actually one of the advantages of getting these codes cleaned up is that a loss of preemption would not automatically take away our local rights. The local governing bodies would then have to propose, debate, and vote on a restriction of rights. That gives citizens the opportunity to argue against the restrictions and have a campaign issue to defeat anti-Second Amendment politicians at the local level since they would then be on record.

    This is good and positive work with long term benefits.
    Another very good point.

    Of course we have to be careful that our efforts don't provoke more cities and counties to request the state to remove the preemption, as with Bellingham. If enough of 'em did that, I suspect it would make an impact on the state lawmakers.
    Spoke today with a staff assistant to State Sen. Dale Brandland (R) about my question about the lobbying by Seattle and Bellingham. The Senator appointed a staff attorney who is knowledgeable on Title 9 issues tolook intomy inquiry. Her opinion was that Nickels' move will have NO effect on the Legislature and only litigation can strike it down. Evidently Nickels asked the Legislature's legal staff for an opinion, and got an answer essentially the same as the AGO issued last October. As to Bellingham, again the effect is nil. As Mr. McEachran said yesterday, the legislature has too many other pressing priorities to get into gun control issues in this session. (And that's the catch.It may come back and bite us next year, but a lot can happen in that time.) She (the Assistant) assured me that Sen. Brandland is well aware of our concerns and will contact me if anything new develops.

    <Edited to insert the sentence in italics.>

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    Got this little email back from Burien:

    Thank you for your message. It will be included in the Council’s Correspondence for the Record.

    L. Clausen
    City Manager’s Office


Page 1 of 9 123 ... 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
  •