• 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.

Local codes brought in line with state law

R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I

Izzle

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
157
Location
, ,
imported post

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

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.>
 
I

Izzle

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
157
Location
, ,
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
 
R

Richard6218

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

Whatcom County Code 9.32.085.A is not a problem because the term "in plain view" which I questioned earlier turned out to refer only to a weapon abandoned in city park property. However, Sub-section 9.32.085.B is a significant problem because unlike the RCW, it bestows the right to carry but then requires "the defendant" to prove the right to do so.

I have written a letter to two county council members on recommendation of the county prosecutor, and advanced my calendar about a month for a reply.


<Edited forsemantic accuracy>
 
R

Richard6218

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

I received a phone call Wednesday (28) from Greg Young,the City Administrator of Ferndale informing me that the (Judicial?) Committee reviewed the guns-in-parks ordinance and written a repeal into the consent agenda for next Monday's City Council meeting. This means that it's all but a done deal :) I'm going to that meeting just to say a few words of thanks.

They are also activating a firearm lockbox system for the muni court, as required by RCW.
 
jbone

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

Richard6218 wrote:
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...
Click to expand...

Whatcom County and other areas like itseem the places groupmeets should be held. Not places were we know we can carry with out hassle.If the State law is our friend then why not, only those who restrict us are breaking the law. Would a group meet an area like these be in our favor? I see on the forum folks are doing this successfully around the nation with media attention.

Add: According to below thread Whatcom hasn’t change much in 2+ years, they are due for a meet!! They’ve been left in the back forty way to long.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/264.html
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

jbone wrote:
Whatcom County and other areas like itseem the places groupmeets should be held. Not places were we know we can carry with out hassle.If the State law is our friend then why not, only those who restrict us are breaking the law. Would a group meet an area like these be in our favor? I see on the forum folks are doing this successfully around the nation with media attention.

Add: According to below thread Whatcom hasn’t change much in 2+ years, they are due for a meet!! They’ve been left in the back forty way to long.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/264.html
Click to expand...
I think much of what you see from Whatcom County is just a few individual officers. Richard has also posted (or perhaps he just told me) that Bill Elfo, the sheriff, is totally on our side on this one and will be speaking to the deputy involved in the phone conversation. The heads of Blaine, Ferndale, and the chief lawyer for Whatcom County have all agreed that we are right and are taking steps to resolve the issues. Bellingham repealed their ordinance (although accompanied by stupid comments) but they did the right thing.

We will keep having meets in Whatcom County, but it isn't the oppressive dictatorship that it might seem at first glance.

That being said, it's probably time to get together again.

I'll start a new thread.
 
R

Richard6218

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

heresolong wrote:
jbone wrote:
Whatcom County and other areas like itseem the places groupmeets should be held. Not places were we know we can carry with out hassle.If the State law is our friend then why not, only those who restrict us are breaking the law. Would a group meet an area like these be in our favor? I see on the forum folks are doing this successfully around the nation with media attention.

Add: According to below thread Whatcom hasn’t change much in 2+ years, they are due for a meet!! They’ve been left in the back forty way to long.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/264.html
Click to expand...
I think much of what you see from Whatcom County is just a few individual officers. Richard has also posted (or perhaps he just told me) that Bill Elfo, the sheriff, is totally on our side on this one and will be speaking to the deputy involved in the phone conversation. The heads of Blaine, Ferndale, and the chief lawyer for Whatcom County have all agreed that we are right and are taking steps to resolve the issues. Bellingham repealed their ordinance (although accompanied by stupid comments) but they did the right thing.

We will keep having meets in Whatcom County, but it isn't the oppressive dictatorship that it might seem at first glance.

That being said, it's probably time to get together again.

I'll start a new thread.
Click to expand...

Bellingham repealed their ordinance (although accompanied by stupid comments) but they did the right thing.

Heresolong: It is true that Bellingham repealed their ordinance but they "did the right thing" only grudgingly. The second resolution they passed was to lobby the Legislature to "change the preemption law", or similar language. So they only repealed the ordinance in order to comply with the RCW for the moment. I would characterize their attitude as being in lock step with Greg Nickels but a bit less aggressive.
 
J

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

Heard back from Algona (prohibit carry in parks- City Code 9.24.160)


I wanted to let you know our City Attorney is working on a code amendment that would be in compliance with State law.

Its dedicated citizens like yourself who help make Algona a great city to live and work in!

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
 
R

Richard6218

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

jddssc121 wrote:
Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief.
Click to expand...

If this is the result of your efforts, congratulations.

Next step: approach the City Manager, or City Attorney, whichever may be appropriate, and ask that they repeal the code. This should only consist of a contact (a formal letter is best) outlining what the Chief has already said and citing the code and the RCW preemption section, 9.41.290. Point out the conflict and request that they enact a change to conform to the state law. Pretty straightforward. Good luck.
 
J

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

Richard6218 wrote:
jddssc121 wrote:
Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief.
Click to expand...

If this is the result of your efforts, congratulations.

Next step: approach the City Manager, or City Attorney, whichever may be appropriate, and ask that they repeal the code. This should only consist of a contact (a formal letter is best) outlining what the Chief has already said and citing the code and the RCW preemption section, 9.41.290. Point out the conflict and request that they enact a change to conform to the state law. Pretty straightforward. Good luck.
Click to expand...
We had a few emails back and forth. He was very helpful. The city attorney is now trying to fix the code itself.
 
R

Richard6218

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

jddssc121 wrote:
Richard6218 wrote:
jddssc121 wrote:
Here is the memo issued by the Liberty Lake Police Chief.
Click to expand...

If this is the result of your efforts, congratulations.

Next step: approach the City Manager, or City Attorney, whichever may be appropriate, and ask that they repeal the code. This should only consist of a contact (a formal letter is best) outlining what the Chief has already said and citing the code and the RCW preemption section, 9.41.290. Point out the conflict and request that they enact a change to conform to the state law. Pretty straightforward. Good luck.
Click to expand...
We had a few emails back and forth. He was very helpful. The city attorney is now trying to fix the code itself.
Click to expand...
The City Attorney doesn't have the authority to change a code. He can recommend a change to the City Council, who are the legislative branch of the city government. What he can do, and usually does,is write the revision of the code and submit it to the city council for consideration. If they agree, they will pass a resolution adopting the revision, and it's done. So what you need to do is ask the city attorney to start that process. From the tone of the Chief's letter it sounds like they are rather agreeable folks, so this should be fairly easy to do. But plan on it taking probably two months, just because it's government.
 
R

Richard6218

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

Ferndale code 12.26.040 Firearms in city parks was repealed in the City Council meeting last night, Feb. 2. So that is a done deal.

Whatcom County code 8.12.020 about "use" of firearms in the county dump is a questionable issue. (I can remember shooting rats in the Walla Walla dump about 45 years ago :D) I read the word "use" to mean "discharge" as opposed to "carry", and that regulation would give the county jurisdiction to regulate under 9.41.300. I seriously doubt they would prosecute simply for carrying in the dump.
 
R

Richard6218

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

I just spoke with Sam Crawford, Whatcom County Councilman, regarding the firearms in parks prohibition (WCC 9.32.085) in response to my letter to him of Jan. 19. He agrees with the point I made and has drafted a resolution to delete the restrictive language. He is running it by Sheriff Bill Elfo and Prosecutor Dan MeEachran as well as the Parks Director and barring any strong reaction from them will submit it to committee. Unless it gets put off because of other priorities it is possible it will come to the full County Council in the meeting of Feb. 24. I have already discussed it with the Sheriff and the Prosecutor and their response was quite positive.

Sooo ..... good for a "green" coding at this point, possibly "blue" by the 24th. :)
 
Gene Beasley

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

I'm about to adress Des Moines. Topic for discussion before I get started:
Des Moines 9.36.040 Council Chambers (meets in municipal court…)
Click to expand...
Does anyone have any thoughts on multiple use of courtrooms? The court venue is used for city council meetings and from my memory could be used for any number of non-court related meetings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top