• 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.

Purdy Sand Spit

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
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:
033109015.jpg


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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

adamsesq

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
367
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

Am betting their argument will be:


[align=right]

[/align]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
 

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
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.
 

jbone

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

Look like you have the ball rolling.They can regulate no-discharge of firearns, but not A firearms ban altogether.
 

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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?
 
Top