Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bellingham Taser ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    New user to this group and have a question / view point on the ban on tasers in bellingham city limits.

    Could a lawyer argue that RCW 9.41.290 is in effect since:

    RCW 9.41.010

    (1) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

    (2) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.


    States that because tasers fire a projectile (such as compressed air in an explosive decompression) from a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.

    Also can anyone find me a law that states that I can not carry a stun gun in a bar because I can not find a law or a definition in the RCW that states that it is a firearm or a dangerous weapon and thus subject to the ban.

    I have tried to do my homework on this and well it seams the state AG, firearms div. of the State Patrol, and the auditors office all say its not thier job.

    --Richard Sperry


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    State Premption - If you can carry a gun in said place you can carry a stungun. Maybe, i dunno.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Tasers are not defined as firearms under state law. They use compressed gas, not a burning propellant.

    Tasers are not specifically banned from bars, therefore they are legal.

    In Washington (and pretty much everywhere else) if something is not specifically prohibited, it is taken to be legal.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    nofoa wrote:
    State Premption - If you can carry a gun in said place you can carry a stungun. Maybe, i dunno.
    Preemption has nothing to do with non firearms, only defined firearms.

  5. #5
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    It’s amazing how the nuts cry overlethal protection, than take away a means of no-lethal protection (in most cases). Does Bellinghamban MASE? If so what would an 18-20 yr old student use forself protection at theUniversity? Sure would hate to tell my kidtheycan't attend next year because no means of protection islegal there.
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    They did ban mase but it was repealed due to RCW 9.91.160 (2). They city police are not happy.

    The Problem with pepper sprays is that when you have an asthmatic child you risk killing them. Combined that most women carry thier sprays on thier keychains, which children love to play with, you get a deadly situation. Its right up thier with leaving a loaded firearm in the kids toy box. Its easy to lock up my firearm, but its hard to remind myself to lock up my keys.

    The reason for the "electronic weapon ban" is that according to the police dept, "we would have to shoot you if you pointed one at us." When I was told this I asked why we had such violent officers where they needed to protect us from them.

    The bigger issue I am after is that untill a state preemption and controll is formed, cities have the right to strip our rights with idiotic bans. Soon enough some douch bag will figure out that there is no ban and will cause havoc great enough for state legistators to make a complete ban.

    I dont't know about you but I carry to protect myself and those who cannot protect thier self. I would hope to use any non-leathal method before having to take a life. Having the right to carry a small stun gun is in my opinion a violation of my right to bear arms and the spirit of why it was written.

    I have never had to draw, but as I live in low income I have had too many times where in service had to put a round in the chamber before walking out the front door to assist my neibors. .The law leaves me no choice to use a non leathal weapon when assessing anothers safety or being the protector.

    As to your children attending Western, tell them to stay off of the trails and out of the parks. The police seam to think alot of girls lie about getting raped, so the rape stats are wrong. butI cantell you thatthey are not safe at all. This area seam to beof the idea that you can talk an evil person good. If they are republicans theywont like it here at all.



    --Richard Sperry


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Tasers are not defined as firearms under state law. They use compressed gas, not a burning propellant.

    Tasers are not specifically banned from bars, therefore they are legal.

    In Washington (and pretty much everywhere else) if something is not specifically prohibited, it is taken to be legal.
    But the law does not stippulate burning accelorant, says explosive. Could this gray area be enough to get someone from the state thinking and talking. I would much rather that the state did the laws on this instead of poeple who "choose to leave this on the books" and "not enforce it" as they did with the city parks ban of firearms. (see Dec 15 city counsil, Bellingham)



  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    RSperry79 wrote:
    They did ban mase but it was repealed due to RCW 9.91.160 (2). They city police are not happy.

    The Problem with pepper sprays is that when you have an asthmatic child you risk killing them. Combined that most women carry thier sprays on thier keychains, which children love to play with, you get a deadly situation. Its right up thier with leaving a loaded firearm in the kids toy box. Its easy to lock up my firearm, but its hard to remind myself to lock up my keys.

    The reason for the "electronic weapon ban" is that according to the police dept, "we would have to shoot you if you pointed one at us." When I was told this I asked why we had such violent officers where they needed to protect us from them.

    The bigger issue I am after is that untill a state preemption and controll is formed, cities have the right to strip our rights with idiotic bans. Soon enough some douch bag will figure out that there is no ban and will cause havoc great enough for state legistators to make a complete ban.

    I dont't know about you but I carry to protect myself and those who cannot protect thier self. I would hope to use any non-leathal method before having to take a life. Having the right to carry a small stun gun is in my opinion a violation of my right to bear arms and the spirit of why it was written.

    I have never had to draw, but as I live in low income I have had too many times where in service had to put a round in the chamber before walking out the front door to assist my neibors. .The law leaves me no choice to use a non leathal weapon when assessing anothers safety or being the protector.

    As to your children attending Western, tell them to stay off of the trails and out of the parks. The police seam to think alot of girls lie about getting raped, so the rape stats are wrong. butI cantell you thatthey are not safe at all. This area seam to beof the idea that you can talk an evil person good. If they are republicans theywont like it here at all.



    --Richard Sperry
    Ok....I don't agree with your post on several thoughts....

    1. Because some children are allergic to mace or have asthma isn't a good reason to ban it the survivablity is probably still greater than a bullet wound, and we haven't outlawed peanut butter or bees and many children die every year from these.

    2. ..some ****** bag......well there will always be ****** bags and we need to stop making laws because of ********** and idiots. There will always be abuses of freedoms that shouldn't mean we give them up.

    3. small stun gun carrying violates right to bear arms......I have to say "what?" it shouldn't effect that right at all and should be included in the right in my opinion.

    4. stay off trails and parks......why should they? Its their parks and trails to we need to advocate a means of self protection and many who don't feel comfortable with guns would with mace or a stun gun.

    This isn't meant to be combative but just my thoughts on the issues you brought up.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    RSperry79 wrote:
    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Tasers are not defined as firearms under state law. They use compressed gas, not a burning propellant.

    Tasers are not specifically banned from bars, therefore they are legal.

    In Washington (and pretty much everywhere else) if something is not specifically prohibited, it is taken to be legal.
    But the law does not stippulate burning accelorant, says explosive. Could this gray area be enough to get someone from the state thinking and talking. I would much rather that the state did the laws on this instead of poeple who "choose to leave this on the books" and "not enforce it" as they did with the city parks ban of firearms. (see Dec 15 city counsil, Bellingham)
    The USDOT and IATA lists gunpowder as an explosive (UN0027 Class 1.1D) and ammunition (properly: Cartridges for a weapon, small arms) also as explosive (UN0012 Class 1.4S). Anything that is in Class 1.* is considered an "explosive", including flares and fireworks.

    I highly doubt you could get it listed as "not an explosive" with this precedent well-set in the transportation industry.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •