Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Snoqualmie

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Training Bulletin (TB09-001) was prepared on 01/20/09 regarding this topic which cites the ordinance and provides directive with extract as follows:personnel are hereby advised not to arrest or cite individuals for violations based solely on the mere possession of a firearm(s) in a city park. This does not, however, preclude personnel from reasonably detaining and identifying individuals in order to determine their legal basis for possession of a firearm(s).”

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    jddssc121 wrote:
    SNIP This does not, however, preclude personnel from reasonably detaining and identifying individuals in order to determine their legal basis for possession of a firearm(s).”
    Hmmmmm.

    I thought you fellas had pre-emption. If an ordinance is pre-empted, then the above-quoted sentence isout of bounds according to my understanding.

    No RAS = no basis for a detention, I should think.

    Its the age-old question of first needing reasonable suspicion that the carrier is a prohibited possessor, as opposed to detaining someonefor fishing expedition tocheck if there are any violations occurring.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    We do have pre-emption.....but some cities are slow in informing there LEO's. Overall though I have seen a lot progress even when its baby steps like this with small towns like this one. Some lawmakers just have a hard time letting go.
    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)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    We do have pre-emption.....but some cities are slow in informing there LEO's. Overall though I have seen a lot progress even when its baby steps like this with small towns like this one. Some lawmakers just have a hard time letting go.
    Thanks.

    Maybe some 4A-savvy Washington resident can explain 4A case law to the author of that Training Bulletin and get it corrected.

    (Assuming there isn't something else in the state law that might allow it, like inspecting the chamber for unloaded or something.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    wrote back

    Thank you Captain,

    The last statement is a bit puzzling. Could you let me know what "determine their legal basis for possession of a firearm" means? Suspicion of a crime is needed to detain someone, correct? Even for a Terry Stop. If a person were in the park, and no complaints came in that lead to investigation of violation of RCW 9.41.270, what would be the basis for being detained?

    Also, during the stop, what would be checked? ID? Serial #? There is no RCW that states a person in possession of a firearm (not concealed) is required to have any type of paperwork/ID with them.


  6. #6
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    We do have pre-emption.....but some cities are slow in informing there LEO's. Overall though I have seen a lot progress even when its baby steps like this with small towns like this one. Some lawmakers just have a hard time letting go.
    (Assuming there isn't something else in the state law that might allow it, like inspecting the chamber for unloaded or something.)
    There isn't. There is nothing in our state law that allows any government body to restrict the loaded status of firearms. Preemption allows one, and only one exception to loaded status, and that is in a vehicle without a CC permit.

    Loaded or not, open carry or not, they cant regulate it in public places beyond placing the restrictions on the discharge of the weapon.

Posting Permissions

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