Snoqualmie

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).”

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).”

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

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.

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.

Click to expand...

(Assuming there isn't something else in the state law that might allow it, like inspecting the chamber for unloaded or something.)

Click to expand...

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.