• 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.

City of Puyallup

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

Got this back from the city

One of our city attorneys has researched your question and has the following response: The Puyallup Police Department confirms that it will not arrest or cite someone for mere open possession of a firearm in Puyallup's parks or cemetery.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

jddssc121 wrote:
Got this back from the city

One of our city attorneys has researched your question and has the following response: The Puyallup Police Department confirms that it will not arrest or cite someone for mere open possession of a firearm in Puyallup's parks or cemetery.
Well that's a good thing. After all Zombies do start from the the cemetery. :celebrate
 

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

...another example of an incomplete answer, they say they won't arrest for "mere open carry", in the park or cemetary... what about the rest of the city?:banghead:
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
imported post

this has been brought to their attention several times. i did it at a city council meeting in 2004, the minutes of which are here: http://www.cityofpuyallup.org/files/library/6d9caef8a5f06d92.pdf pages 116 and 117.

excerpt: "Bobby Williams, read from a handout that he gave Council, regarding
the Puyallup Municipal Code 9.20.050 Fireworks, firearms, and weapons; and the RCW
9.41.290 State preemption. “The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and
preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state. Such
laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I,
Section 24 of the state constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; restricting the
possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town,
county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to: Any pistol
in the possession of a person licensed under RCW or exempt from the licensing
requirement of the RCW.” He explained that the state ruling overrides the municipal
code and asked Council to repeal that portion of the PMC addressing this issue.
"

they have taken no action at all to remove this ordinance.

Puyallup PD also has a track record of harassing open carriers.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=16105&forum_id=55&highlight=puyallup+police

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=13588&forum_id=55&highlight=puyallup+police

Bobby

edit: Jarhead, what ever happened with your case?
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

bugly wrote:
...another example of an incomplete answer, they say they won't arrest for "mere open carry", in the park or cemetary... what about the rest of the city?:banghead:
Not an incomplete answer but rather a post without the question. I believe the question was involving a municipal code that attempts to restrict carrying a firearm in city parks or in cemeteries within the city. If they will not arrest or cite for breaking a municipal code then they more than likely won't at all unless it is in violation of state law.
 

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

bugly wrote:
...another example of an incomplete answer, they say they won't arrest for "mere open carry", in the park or cemetary... what about the rest of the city?:banghead:
not an incomplete answer. I had emailed them asking about those two places as their code was incorrect
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

One of our city attorneys has researched your question and has the following response: The Puyallup Police Department confirms that it will not arrest or cite someone for mere open possession of a firearm in Puyallup's parks or cemetery.


So the next natural question is: Will they use the trespass law to eject open carriers from parks/cemeteries?

The issue of trespassing people from public property is not settled law, thus the police are free to leverage the uncertainty to solve the "problem" on the street.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

deanf wrote:
One of our city attorneys has researched your question and has the following response: The Puyallup Police Department confirms that it will not arrest or cite someone for mere open possession of a firearm in Puyallup's parks or cemetery.


So the next natural question is: Will they use the trespass law to eject open carriers from parks/cemeteries?

The issue of trespassing people from public property is not settled law, thus the police are free to leverage the uncertainty to solve the "problem" on the street.
Deanf, I think you may make a valid point. The only way you can be trespassed from city property (as far as I'm aware in my non-attorney knowledge) is by violating a law or lawful rule/regulation. Since this isn't a lawful rule or regulation, then you shouldn't be under fear of trespass, but an LEO certainly could cite the city's law to trespass you and they haven't technically cited you for "mere open possession of a firearm", but instead cited you with trespass for violating the illegal rule/regulation and now, if you don't leave, I would imagine you'd be violating the (though, in my opinion, illegal and unenforcable) trespass notice and might face arrest.

Certainly something to bring up to whomever it was that responded to that... make sure you point out that until the wording is changed, there is still potential for abuse and misconception from the public. Also, it could unnecessarily increase 911 calls regarding a man with a gun when they see that the sign says no firearms allowed.
 

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
imported post

I already wrote back asking for a training memo to PD, logged a request with the city to changes the codes, and also asked about the trespass nonsense :)
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
deanf wrote:
One of our city attorneys has researched your question and has the following response: The Puyallup Police Department confirms that it will not arrest or cite someone for mere open possession of a firearm in Puyallup's parks or cemetery.


So the next natural question is: Will they use the trespass law to eject open carriers from parks/cemeteries?

The issue of trespassing people from public property is not settled law, thus the police are free to leverage the uncertainty to solve the "problem" on the street.
Deanf, I think you may make a valid point. The only way you can be trespassed from city property (as far as I'm aware in my non-attorney knowledge) is by violating a law or lawful rule/regulation. Since this isn't a lawful rule or regulation, then you shouldn't be under fear of trespass, but an LEO certainly could cite the city's law to trespass you and they haven't technically cited you for "mere open possession of a firearm", but instead cited you with trespass for violating the illegal rule/regulation and now, if you don't leave, I would imagine you'd be violating the (though, in my opinion, illegal and unenforcable) trespass notice and might face arrest.

Certainly something to bring up to whomever it was that responded to that... make sure you point out that until the wording is changed, there is still potential for abuse and misconception from the public. Also, it could unnecessarily increase 911 calls regarding a man with a gun when they see that the sign says no firearms allowed.


*Ahem*....*cough*;)
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

Phssthpok wrote:
just_a_car wrote:
Deanf, I think you may make a valid point. The only way you can be trespassed from city property (as far as I'm aware in my non-attorney knowledge) is by violating a law or lawful rule/regulation. Since this isn't a lawful rule or regulation, then you shouldn't be under fear of trespass, but an LEO certainly could cite the city's law to trespass you and they haven't technically cited you for "mere open possession of a firearm", but instead cited you with trespass for violating the illegal rule/regulation and now, if you don't leave, I would imagine you'd be violating the (though, in my opinion, illegal and unenforcable) trespass notice and might face arrest.

Certainly something to bring up to whomever it was that responded to that... make sure you point out that until the wording is changed, there is still potential for abuse and misconception from the public. Also, it could unnecessarily increase 911 calls regarding a man with a gun when they see that the sign says no firearms allowed.
*Ahem*....*cough*;)
I didn't say the officer wouldn't be breaking the law, I just said you might face arrest.
 
Top