Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Legal Community Against Violence

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    They go into great detail regarding Washington (and other states) firearms laws. They imply that open carry is illegal and that possessing a gun at a licensed daycare is illegal (Wash. Admin. Code 170-151-280(11), 170-295-5020(1)(g))).

    What kind of legal authority do WAC's have? I know we don't get into them as much as RCW's here.

    Thanks


    http://www.lcav.org/states/washington.asp

  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Looks like a Brady front to me, the rich always want the rest disarmed for their own safety. The WACs, AFAIK, only pertain to colleges and such, at least that's the only place I've ever heard about them being pertinent. And even then, the worst that can happen to you for breaking them is to be removed from the campus or administrative action if you are a student. Of course, if you are 3.5 years through a 4 year diploma, that can mean a lot.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Wash. Admin. Code 170-151-280(11) says this:
    Ensure no firearm or other weapon is on the premises;


    So if I ran a daycare out of my house I wouldn't be able to keep a firearm in the house. What about steak knives or a baseball bat? I know I'm preaching to the choir.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    They go into great detail regarding Washington (and other states) firearms laws. They imply that open carry is illegal and that possessing a gun at a licensed daycare is illegal (Wash. Admin. Code 170-151-280(11), 170-295-5020(1)(g))).

    What kind of legal authority do WAC's have? I know we don't get into them as much as RCW's here.

    Thanks


    http://www.lcav.org/states/washington.asp
    These WAC's are effectively laws, as are all administrative rules. However, the penalty for violating such rules are sometimes civil, sometimes criminal, and sometimes both, In this particular case (daycares) that website is clearly misrepresenting the administrative code for the carry of firearms in daycares. (However, many of the other codes do seem accurate, but I don't have time to check them all).

    Anyway, the penalty for the daycare rules are all civil penalties for the daycare operator, not criminal penalties for the person who happens to bring a gun onto the premises. The daycare operator is just required to trespass you if they know you have a firearm, failure to do so opens them up to fines and potential loss of their license. There is no penalty for the firearm owner unless they refuse to leave when trespassed.

    However, IANAL, so carry at a daycare at your own risk, there may be other laws that apply and make it illegal.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    Wash. Admin. Code 170-151-280(11) says this:
    Ensure no firearm or other weapon is on the premises;


    So if I ran a daycare out of my house I wouldn't be able to keep a firearm in the house. What about steak knives or a baseball bat? I know I'm preaching to the choir.

    You would not be able to have a firearm in the house during the hours it is open as a daycare. This a requirement for daycare providers and has absolutely no legal applicability to a person carrying a firearm into a daycare.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Although everyone should always check the cites against the actual sources, that website seems like an excellent summary of lots of issues that are constantly debated here.Regardless of its authorship, it seems pretty accurate and thorough. Someone should consider posting a link to the FAQs thread.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    Although everyone should always check the cites against the actual sources, that website seems like an excellent summary of lots of issues that are constantly debated here.Regardless of its authorship, it seems pretty accurate and thorough. Someone should consider posting a link to the FAQs thread.
    Yes but a lot of them seem to be misleading to the less informed.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Right off the bat I found disingenuiness in ther presentation.

    In 2005, 567 people died from firearm-related injuries in Washington. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2005, at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html.
    Why go to 2005? why not use the more recent 2006 figures? Could it be because those figures are LOWER? Using the provided link I ran the numbers for 2004, 5, 6 and came up with 569, 567, and 546 respectively. Looks like the rate is declining without their intervention. I say that's a good thing.

    Also, in order to get that number (567) on much select "all intents' in the request for figures. Since the name of the organization is Legal Community Against Violence, with a sub header of "expertise, information, and advocacy to end gun violence" why wouldn't they concentrate on just the violent causes? It's an option in the checklist you know.

    limiting the search to 'violence-related' would result in a return of only 553, 551, and 529 for 2004-2006 respectively.

    But WAIT! What about all the instances of 'Legal Intervention' Defined by CDC on their site as:

    Legal Intervention - injuries inflicted by the police or other law-enforcing agents, including military on duty, in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and other legal actions. Excludes injuries caused by civil insurrections.
    Despite the fact that even an officer shooting someone involves 'gun violence', I somehow doubt these fine socially concerned lawyerly types would want to appear to desire the disarming of LEO's, and should in all honesty restrict the search parameters to 'Homicide' only as this is the only certifiable 'gun violence' from a societal aspect.

    Such a search would return 122, 144, and 123 for the aforementioned years....a far cry from the numbers they plaster up on the Washington page....:?



    (all of this and I haven't even read past their first paragraph yet......)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Anything that states no firearms in a daycare is inaccurate representation of the rule. My family ran one for many years and the only requirement is that they be locked separated from their ammunition bya separate safe witha different lock. For bringing one onto the premises I would not open carry to any daycare that you to not want to leave for ever. Even if the owners are personally supportive of RTC they will not want the other parents leaving or bringing DSHS around more often.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    What they posted:

    Section 9.91.025 prohibits carrying a firearm or ammunition in a municipal transit vehicle or in or at a “municipal transit station” with knowledge that this conduct is prohibited. “Municipal transit station” is defined as all facilities, structures, lands, interest in lands, air rights over lands, and rights-of-way of all kinds that are owned, leased, held, or used by a municipality or regional transit authority for the purpose of providing public transportation services, including, but not limited to, park and ride lots, transit centers and tunnels, and bus shelters.

    The real deal:

    RCW 9.91.025Unlawful bus conduct.

    *** CHANGE IN 2009 *** (SEE 5513-S.SL) ***

    (1) A person is guilty of unlawful bus conduct if while on or in a municipal transit vehicle as defined by RCW 46.04.355 or in or at a municipal transit station and with knowledge that the conduct is prohibited, he or she:

    (a) Except while in or at a municipal transit station, smokes or carries a lighted or smoldering pipe, cigar, or cigarette;

    (b) Discards litter other than in designated receptacles;

    (c) Plays any radio, recorder, or other sound-producing equipment except that nothing herein prohibits the use of the equipment when connected to earphones that limit the sound to individual listeners or the use of a communication device by an employee of the owner or operator of the municipal transit vehicle or municipal transit station;

    (d) Spits or expectorates;

    (e) Carries any flammable liquid, explosive, acid, or other article or material likely to cause harm to others except that nothing herein prevents a person from carrying a cigarette, cigar, or pipe lighter or carrying a firearm or ammunition in a way that is not otherwise prohibited by law;

    (f) Intentionally obstructs or impedes the flow of municipal transit vehicles or passenger traffic, hinders or prevents access to municipal transit vehicles or stations, or otherwise unlawfully interferes with the provision or use of public transportation services;

    (g) Intentionally disturbs others by engaging in loud, raucous, unruly, harmful, or harassing behavior; or

    (h) Destroys, defaces, or otherwise damages property of a municipality as defined in RCW 35.58.272 or a regional transit authority authorized by chapter 81.112 RCW employed in the provision or use of public transportation services.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, "municipal transit station" means all facilities, structures, lands, interest in lands, air rights over lands, and rights-of-way of all kinds that are owned, leased, held, or used by a municipality as defined in RCW 35.58.272, or a regional transit authority authorized by chapter 81.112 RCW for the purpose of providing public transportation services, including, but not limited to, park and ride lots, transit centers and tunnels, and bus shelters.

    (3) Unlawful bus conduct is a misdemeanor.


    They're wrong and they know it. They're only seeing what they want to see.


    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

Posting Permissions

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