Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Purdy Sand Spit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    I was down at the Purdy Sand Spit doing a little bit of fishing a while back, when I noticed that they had put up a "No Firearms" sign.

    I don't recall it being there previously. Sign looks to be fairly new, and it references some park code RCW 36.68. I looked through that whole section and could not find anything relating to firearms or exemptions to preemption.

    I finally remembered to take my camera when going back there and was able to get a shot of the sign:


    Purdy Sand Spit is a part of Pierce County Parks and Facilities and should therefore fall under state preemption.

    I'm preparing a letter to send to them, any input would be appreciated.

    Thanks.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Yup it's illegal and falls under preemption.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Edwall, Washington, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    That's pure B.S. It falls under RCW because I said so.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    The string 'fire' doesn't occur anywhere within RCW 38.68, not as part of 'firearm', not as part of 'fireworks', and not even standalone as the word 'fire'. Therefore, if it is in fact true that counties can regulate the use of fireworks and fire within county parts, that authority doesn't come from RCW 36.68 as far as I can tell.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Am betting their argument will be:




    RCW 36.68.060
    Park and recreation board — Powers and duties.
    [/b]The county park and recreation board:

    (1) Shall elect its officers, including a chairman, vice chairman and secretary, and such other officers as it may determine it requires.

    (2) Shall hold regular public meetings at least monthly.

    (3) Shall adopt rules for transaction of business and shall keep a written record of its meetings, resolutions, transactions, findings and determinations, which record shall be a public record.

    (4) Shall initiate, direct, and administer county recreational activities, and shall select and employ a county park and recreation superintendent and such other properly qualified employees as it may deem desirable.

    (5) Shall improve, operate, and maintain parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities, together with all structures and equipment useful in connection therewith, and may recommend to the board of county commissioners acquisition of real property.

    (6) Shall promulgate and enforce reasonable rules and regulations deemed necessary in the operation of parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities, and may recommend to the board of county commissioners adoption of any rules or regulations requiring enforcement by legal process which relate to parks, playgrounds, or other recreational facilities.

    (7) Shall each year submit to the board of county commissioners for approval a proposed budget for the following year in the manner provided by law for the preparation and submission of budgets by elective or appointive county officials.

    (8) May, subject to the approval of the board of county commissioners, enter into contracts with any other municipal corporation, governmental or private agency for the conduct of park and recreational programs.
    On its surface it appears to give them such authority. Except that you have to know the whole RCW which also includes preemption and nothing here trumps preemption! [/quote]

    -adamsesq


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Adamsesq,

    Thanks, I missed that somehow.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    Sent this letter to Kathryn Kravits, the pierce county parks director and Terry Lee, my district councilman:

    Dear *********,

    It has come to my attention that a sign is posted at the Purdy Sand Spit county park that reads in it entirety, "No Fireworks, Firearms or Open Fires RCW 36.68". Please note that the word "Firearms" needs to be removed from this sign; I have attached an image of the sign.

    Upon reading RCW 36.68 I can only concluded that these regulations were most likely created under RCW 36.68.060(6):

    Park and recreation board — Powers and duties.
    The county park and recreation board:
    (6) Shall promulgate and enforce reasonable rules and regulations deemed necessary in the operation of parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities, and may recommend to the board of county commissioners adoption of any rules or regulations requiring enforcement by legal process which relate to parks, playgrounds, or other recreational facilities.[/i]
    At first glance it would appear that this regulation was created in good faith, however, under RCW 9.41.290 "State Premption":

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

    I have highlighted the pertinent parts. It clearly states that the only governmental body allowed to regulate the carry of a firearm is the state and that the areas that are restricted are listed in RCW 9.41.300. Upon review of RCW 9.41.300 you will find that there is no restriction of the carry of firearms in city, county or state parks.

    Please also note the Attorney General Opinion released in 2008, AGO 2008 No.8, which I have attached in it's entirety, but summarizes as:

    RCW 9.41.290 preempts a city’s authority to enact local laws that prohibit possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities.

    Assuming that this regulation was made in good faith and without prior knowledge of the full law on the subject, I trust that this sign will be changed/removed promptly. The possibility for a lawsuit are high if a law enforcement officer were to see this sign not knowing that it had infact been preempted and tried to enforce it.

    Thank you for your time and effort in this matter.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  8. #8
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    Look like you have the ball rolling.They can regulate no-discharge of firearns, but not A firearms ban altogether.
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Idoubt they can prevent you from carrying but they could probably forbid the discharge of firearms.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    kenshin wrote:
    Sent this letter to Kathryn Kravits, the pierce county parks director and Terry Lee, my district councilman:

    [snip]
    Pierce County 14.08.060 Parks Prohibited Activities

    I. Possess a firearm with a cartridge in any portion of the mechanism, or discharge across, in or into any park a firearm, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal or damaging or destroying any public or private property;

    Any chance of getting this cleaned up at the same time?

Posting Permissions

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