• 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.

Is WDFW rule on handguns for archers, muzzleloaders in conflict with law?

just_a_car

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

There's an easy answer to this question. (No, I haven't read the article yet... just voicing out to the title question)

Yes, it conflicts with state law.

Is it an illegal law? No, it is a state law in its own right, thus is beholden under preemption.

Does this create confusion about the law, as there are two laws that say two different things? Yes, this is what State Preemption was supposed to prevent, but unfortunately, it has not done so in this case.
 

just_a_car

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

Just finished reading it.

I just wanted to get my initial opinions to the question "down on paper" before commenting on the article.

Good article, especially tying into the WI Federal civil right lawsuit, pointing out that not only Nickles, but also the WDFW commission could face the same if they don't clean up their act.

Something that came to me while reading the article (but before I got to the obligatory quote) was that it does violate the State Constitution in that it prevents the bowhunter or muzzleloader from bearing a specific type of arm that would be necessary for his personal protection from either 4-legged or 2-legged attackers in the wilds.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

Correct me if I am wrong (I am certain someone will), But there is a hierarchy in the laws.

1st The constitution

2nd RCW

3rd WAC

RCW are subservient to the constitution, WAC ( administrative codes that have the force and effect of law) are subservient to the RCW.

It would appear that being a WAC it would be overruled by the RCW. However, the DFWG officer would probably cite and let you fight it out in court.
 

just_a_car

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

Most WAC's are given legal "teeth" by RCW's that give boards of directors and other such bodies permission to make "rules and regulations" on how to run certain things from institutions of higher education to hunting and fishing.

I would wager there is an RCW that does the same thing in this instance.
 

deanf

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

Most WAC's are given legal "teeth" by RCW's that give boards of directors and other such bodies permission to make "rules and regulations" on how to run certain things from institutions of higher education to hunting and fishing.

Exactly. The Fish and Wildlife Commission is acting as the legislature when it makes rules. It has that authority.

As to preemption: 9.41.290 preempts local laws. It does not preempt other state laws or regulations. It does not allow the state to preempt itself. Such a legal concept is absurd on it's face, codified or not.

The only substantive argument here is the constitutional one.
 
Top