RCW 9.41.0975

imported post

RCW 9.41.0975 effective 07/26/2009

Is this an open season for agencies to revoke a CPL without repercussion? Can they know drum up a reason to revoke and have nothing to worry about. Other disturbing parts in this new RCW.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.0975

Add: Several new 9.41's taking affect on July 26th, happy reading. MoreGovernment :X

imported post

someone crashed the server allready



*** CHANGE IN 2009 *** (SEE 1052-S2.SL) ***

(1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:

(a) For failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful;

(b) For preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm;

(c) For issuing a concealed pistol license to a person ineligible for such a license;

(d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license to a person eligible for such a license;

(e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license;

(f) For errors in preparing or transmitting information as part of determining a person's eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or eligibility for a concealed pistol license;

(g) For issuing a dealer's license to a person ineligible for such a license; or

(h) For failing to issue a dealer's license to a person eligible for such a license.

(2) An application may be made to a court of competent jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus:

(a) Directing an issuing agency to issue a concealed pistol license wrongfully refused;

(b) Directing a law enforcement agency to approve an application to purchase wrongfully denied;

(c) Directing that erroneous information resulting either in the wrongful refusal to issue a concealed pistol license or in the wrongful denial of a purchase application be corrected; or

(d) Directing a law enforcement agency to approve a dealer's license wrongfully denied.

The application for the writ may be made in the county in which the application for a concealed pistol license or to purchase a pistol was made, or in Thurston county, at the discretion of the petitioner. A court shall provide an expedited hearing for an application brought under this subsection (2) for a writ of mandamus. A person granted a writ of mandamus under this subsection (2) shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.


[1996 c 295 § 9; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 413.]


Notes:




Finding -- Intent -- Severability -- 1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.

Effective date -- 1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.

imported post

jbone wrote:

RCW 9.41.0975 effective 07/26/2009

Is this an open season for agencies to revoke a CPL without repercussion? Can they know drum up a reason to revoke and have nothing to worry about. Other disturbing parts in this new RCW.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.0975

Add: Several new 9.41's taking affect on July 26th, happy reading. MoreGovernment :X

Click to expand...

Well, one of the changes is good, removes the "class C felony" for a nonimmigrant alien who has a valid passport and visa showing he or she is in the country legally.

I'm not entirely sure how you think 9.41.0975 allows revocation of a CPL without repercussion. That list grants immunity to the for issuing to one who shouldn't have a CPL, or for failing to give one to a person who should have one. Any such case that results in needing to attend court to show you should not have been excluded from being issued a CPL where you're shown to be correct results in your attorney fees and reasonable costs for attending court being paid. I don't see how anything in that section allows revoking a CPL that has been issued.

imported post

Are we outgunned?The forum is awesome for debating,spreading the word, andaffecting change at local levels with code problems that are not consistent withcurrent state laws. But, we are hurting on the state level, I've heard and have mentioned myself and failed in not pursinglegislation that would hold authoritiesaccountable for theirill actions, and now we have the opposite. Legislationallowing ill action, and condones by virtue of no repercussions.They have learned well from the federal side.

So where do we go, do we move this forum from keyboard strokes to face-to-face groups brainstorming legislation ideas,passing rough ideas/bills intoa Washington OCDO committee for draft and sponsorship seeking, and bill introduction.I know it sounds too easy, because I'm common folk and that's the way I think. All the more important we need those who know the ways of the Capital, have political networks, strong knowledge of law, and of course the backbone, those with the plain desire and willingness to preserve.

imported post

It looks to me like the only change to that section was adding 'alien firearms license' to the list of things the government was not accountable for?

Since the whole bill was about allowing alien firearms licenses again, I'm not sure how I see that this is a backward step.

imported post

MrGray wrote:

It looks to me like the only change to that section was adding 'alien firearms license' to the list of things the government was not accountable for?

Since the whole bill was about allowing alien firearms licenses again, I'm not sure how I see that this is a backward step.

Click to expand...

RCW 9.41.0975 has nothing to do with alien's

imported post

+1, I don't see anything in there too alarming. I would rather they allow for local gov to make minor mistakes so that the good guys can get their CWP and other license without being hassled or overly scrutinized. Some criminals will always fall through the cracks, sucks yes, but that's what LEO is supposed to be mopping up (instead of mopping up you and me.). We fought hard for more relaxed restrictions, so of course they gonna expect same on the state side.

- As for permanent resident alien changes, I am very happy about this, and was one of the guys that constantly wrote them to effect a change. My wife is from Japan and we been concerned about the state of affairs for a while now. Finally, we can treat her relatively the same as me or you in regards to arms. after the 26th, we gonna go get her CWP - sexy.:celebrate

- Bat.

imported post

jbone wrote:

MrGray wrote:

It looks to me like the only change to that section was adding 'alien firearms license' to the list of things the government was not accountable for?

Since the whole bill was about allowing alien firearms licenses again, I'm not sure how I see that this is a backward step.

Click to expand...

RCW 9.41.0975 has nothing to do with alien's

Click to expand...

Go to the document that describes the changes at http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Session Law 2009/1052-S2.SL.pdf

search forward through that document for the second occurrence of '0975'. There, you will find the entirety of 9.41.0975, with the CHANGES underlined.

Note that the only changes to 9.41.0975 are adding alien firearms license to the list of licenses covered. That's all. Nothing more.

imported post

This the only part I refer too:

(1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:

(d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license to a person eligible for such a license;

(e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license;

All i'm saying is (d) & (e) worries me, this may allowofficialswith personal views/bias, a dislike for you, orjust playing GODall thereason they needto playwith your CPL, becuasethey havenothing tofear.

If i'm reading it wrong then so be it, I can except. I'm taking this last shot at trying to concey my concern over what I think can happen.

imported post

Sure, I understand.

With the exception of the amendment to include alien firearms licenses, that section of the RCW has been in that form since 1994.

I have not heard of anyone being wrongfully and maliciously refused a CPL and then having the person responsible for the refusal hiding behind that section of the RCW to avoid repercussions, and that section has been there for 15 years.

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying that after 15 years of this state of affairs, you probably don't need to worry. I imagine the bit about 'acting in good faith' might be what keeps it from being abused.

And, of course, if you apply for a CPL and are wrongly refused, section 2 details exactly how to use the court system to remedy that problem. So it would seem to be self correcting, although doubtless mistakes are made and those mistakes are frustrating. And of course, if you're forced to go the writ of mandamus route as detailed there, if you prevail the state pays reasonable costs, so again that seems fair.

Again, I'm not saying that section of the RCW can't be abused. But it's been there a while, and abuse doesn't seem rampant, and section 2 details how to get abuses corrected and stipulates that if you have to go that route, your costs are covered when you prevail.

imported post

jbone wrote:

This the only part I refer too:

(1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:

(d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license to a person eligible for such a license;

(e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license;

All i'm saying is (d) & (e) worries me, this may allowofficialswith personal views/bias, a dislike for you, orjust playing GODall thereason they needto playwith your CPL, becuasethey havenothing tofear.

If i'm reading it wrong then so be it, I can except. I'm taking this last shot at trying to concey my concern over what I think can happen.

Click to expand...

As somebody else pointed out, the only way someone gains that immunity is if they are acting in good faith. That is, if they have a good reason to believe it's okay for you to gain a CPL, or have a check come back that says you are not eligible. They can't do it for personal reasons, because that would violate the good faith clause and lose immunity. It's the same kind of immunity that applies to any law enforcement officer who is operating in good faith/without malicious intent.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

As somebody else pointed out, the only way someone gains that immunity is if they are acting in good faith. That is, if they have a good reason to believe it's okay for you to gain a CPL, or have a check come back that says you are not eligible. They can't do it for personal reasons, because that would violate the good faith clause and lose immunity. It's the same kind of immunity that applies to any law enforcement officer who is operating in good faith/without malicious intent.

Click to expand...

That's part my argument ladies and gents,how many officials are acting in good faith these days, but will claim it every time when they screw the pooch. Did'ntwe just see it for personnel reasons in Orange County, CA. I know there laws arewritten for such there, but she removed for personal reasons, not in good faith. It could happen here is all I'm saying.

Is Congress not the perfect example of this claim it in good faith?, I know different subject.

imported post

In the Orange county case, the sheriff had broad discretion in deciding who would get a permit and who would not.

In WA state, there is no discretion. If you meet all the criteria, they MUST issue the permit within 30 days. If you don't meet all the criteria, they MUST NOT issue the permit. No room for interpretation. No room for judgement calls.

So they run the background check, and if you pass, they issue the permit in 30 days. If you don't pass, they reject your application.

Any deviation from this, and they are not acting in good faith.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for abuse, here.

imported post

MrGray wrote:

In the Orange county case, the sheriff had broad discretion in deciding who would get a permit and who would not.

In WA state, there is no discretion. If you meet all the criteria, they MUST issue the permit within 30 days. If you don't meet all the criteria, they MUST NOT issue the permit. No room for interpretation. No room for judgement calls.

So they run the background check, and if you pass, they issue the permit in 30 days. If you don't pass, they reject your application.

Any deviation from this, and they are not acting in good faith.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for abuse, here.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not communicating well; I know, I mentioned the CA laws were written for her to abuse citizens at her discretion, and mentioned it's a problem we could face here soon enough.

I understand just fine the WA issue procedures, again all I'm trying to say is once the issuing authorities figure out they can hold you CPL from issue over 30 day and call it in good faith, or take way your CPL and call in good faith, due to their bias thenthey will see problems. Posters from our own state have been threatened with CPL removal by LE with anti views, noe they have ammo in writing. Yes we could have an issue when they put "in Good Faith" on their side; a feather in their cap, with no fear of punishment.

Seattle in, dig in and read the other states, I've seen many posters mentioned their CPL's denied due to the bias of one person, and would hate to see it begin here.That's fine if you're OK with one person posing as the "ONE" I feel there is plenty of room for abuse here, as the abuse among local, state and federal is already high. It's cool you have a trusting nature, I only disagree due to governmental track records.

imported post

There seem to be many misplaced fears here. RCW 9.41.0975, which has long been in effect,only bars the imposition of monetary damages for certain official violations of Washington state firearm laws. It does not deny (and in fact clearly provides for) a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of firearm licenses or transfer approvals. Therefore, if you are wrongfully denied a CPL, AFL, dealer's license, firearm transfer, or certain other rights under state law, you still have a remedy to compel the appropriate officials to follow the law, but you will not get monetary damages on top of that.

The 2009 amendments to this section add "or alien firearm license" after "concealed pistol license" in every place it appears, as part of the general rewrite of the AFL law, and did not substantively alter the statute regarding the other covered acts.

imported post

They cannot hold a CPL for over 30 days and make up a good faith reason they did. They actually have to be acting in good faith according to the laws that bind them on issuing a CPL.

Because they do not like you, wanting to act as god, they are anti-gun are not good faith reasons and they will be liable for not issuing within the law for the these or similar reasons.

imported post

Uncle!

Looks like Imissed the boat here.