Local codes brought in line with state law

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Bellingham 8.04.170 Parks;Repealed 12/15/2008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 fromfetchbut 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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:

[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Make sense?[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]He didn't want to change the signage, but I believe Lonnie had some discussion with him and IIRC it was going to happen.[/align]

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.

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.

imported post

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

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.

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows:

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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)

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows: [snipped]

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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).

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.

imported post

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

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

imported post

uncoolperson wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

Click to expand...

I have read the Whatcom County code, as follows:

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.....

imported post

Sent something to Chelan County