Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Wash Dept of Fish and Wildlife

  1. #1
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post



    This year, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, has put in their regs, that you must have a CLP in order to carry while hunting with either a muzzleloader or Archery equipment during their respected seasons. In the past, it was prohibited.

    From the 2007-2008 regulation pamphlet[/i]:[/i][/i]

    “(b) It is illegal to carry or have in possession[/i][/b]

    any firearm while in the field archery hunting,[/i][/b]

    during the archery season specified for that[/i][/b]

    area.”[/i][/b]

    [/i][/b]

    “(d) Muzzleloader hunters can carry a[/i][/b]

    handgun designed to be charged with black[/i][/b]

    powder only. It is NOT legal for hunting or[/i][/b]

    dispatching big game.”[/i][/b]

    [/i][/b]

    [/i][/b]

    From the 2009-2010 Regulation pamphlet:[/i]

    “1. Rules pertaining to all archery:[/i][/b]

    a. It is unlawful for any person to carry or[/i][/b]

    have in his possession any firearm while in[/i][/b]

    the field archery hunting, during an archery[/i][/b]

    season specified for that area, [/i][/b]except for[/i][/b]

    modern handguns carried for personal[/i][/b]

    protection if that person possesses a[/i][/b]

    concealed pistol license as defined by[/i][/b]

    RCW 9.41.070. Modern handguns cannot[/i][/b]

    be used to hunt big game or dispatch[/i][/b]

    wounded big game during an archery, big[/i][/b]

    game hunting season.”[/i][/b][/i][/b]

    [/i][/b]

    [/i][/b]



    While I shouldn’t complain about progress as it were, they are still in violation of state law. I know that Mr. Workman has brought this topic up in his article, and that others are working feverishly to get this changed, but I thought it couldn’t hurt to post it here where it wouldn’t be fought over like children as I have seen it on some hunting sites. I would think that the hunting community would have been all over our right to carry, but it appears that there is a lack of unity here.



    “If you have a gun while archery hunting, you’ll only use it to poach with…….”

    “I’ve been hunting for XX years and never needed to have a pistol…………”

    “If you need to carry a gun to make you feel like a big man, than hunt with a rifle…………”



    These are the arguments you here, and frankly I am embarrassed that they were made by people that I associate with in the hunting community.



    Here is an address to reach the folks at the game department. You guys all know who to beat up for the rest of the state.



    Wildthing.Wildthing@dfw.wa.gov



    Thanks for what you guys have been doing here.

  2. #2
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Sparky508 wrote:
    “If you need to carry a gun to make you feel like a big man, than hunt with a rifle…………”

    Hmm.... too funny, because I can do that "holy-er than thou" attitude too. :quirky

    "If you need to hunt to make you feel like a big man, why don't you act like a realman andhunt withjust a knife?"

    They completely miss the point of course, because they don't see beyondtheir own little world of hunting or personal experience.

    I'm glad one hunter get it at least!

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

    Post imported post

    I just wish the DFW would get it. The state already says it is not unlawful to conceal carry a firearm without a permit if you are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity, like hunting.

    We already have permission to carry and do not need a permit to do it. They are making something unlawful that is already explicitly ruled as lawful behavior in the RCW's.
    "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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Like I've mentioned to others, if anyone has a particular issue with a specific law created by a government agency that may seem to violate Washingtons Legislatures preemption laws, then the first thing to do would be co contact the agency in question. If it doesn't get resolved, contact your legislature with the question and they may be able to either clarify whether or not the other agency is in line, or out of line.

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

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Like I've mentioned to others, if anyone has a particular issue with a specific law created by a government agency that may seem to violate Washingtons Legislatures preemption laws, then the first thing to do would be co contact the agency in question. If it doesn't get resolved, contact your legislature with the question and they may be able to either clarify whether or not the other agency is in line, or out of line.
    Been there and done that.

    I took on the Washington Prison System for violations of the federal privacy act as well as 4th amendment issues and they are in the midst of changing policies and paperwork to reflect these changes.

    If someone wants to step up and call them on this then fine. If not I will do it when I have the time, which more than likely will not be for a couple of months.
    "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 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    I''ve just finished composing a letter to WDFW concerning this new regulation. Before I send it out, I'd like to get some input from members here as to whether or not there needs to be more added or less included.

    Also, aren't we talking about a state entity as far as WDFW goes & therefore, isn't it the old "the state regulating wher we can carry as in 9.41.300?



    I’d like to begin by applauding the changing of the rules to allow the carrying of a modern firearm for protection during archery season, however, I feel that there is a serious discrepancy between the scope of the regulation and State Law:



    From the 2009-2010 Regulation pamphlet:

    “1. Rules pertaining to all archery:

    a. It is unlawful for any person to carry or

    have in his possession any firearm while in

    the field archery hunting, during an archery

    season specified for that area, except for

    modern handguns carried for personal

    protection if that person possesses a

    concealed pistol license as defined by

    RCW 9.41.070. Modern handguns cannot

    be used to hunt big game or dispatch

    wounded big game during an archery, big

    game hunting season.”



    The specific section that I’m referring to is the “except for modern handguns carried for personal protection if that person possesses a concealed pistol license as defined by RCW 9.41.070” part. It is already lawful to conceal carry a firearm without a permit if you are engaged in a lawful outdoor activity; Like hunting. Below, I will copy and paste some of the relative state statutes regarding this issue, all quotes will be edited for brevity, with all pertinent information retained.








    RCW 9.41.060
    Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.


    (8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

    As you can see by subsection (8) of 9.41.060, it is already legal, According to state law, to carry a concealed weapon WITHOUT a permit when engaged in any of the above activities. The regulations pamphlet is in direct violation of State Preemption, a copy of which is below:






    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, 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.

    You will notice that 9.41.290 references 9.41.300 with respect to “laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law. Please see 9.41.300 below:






    RCW 9.41.300
    Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.


    (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

    (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter
    13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;

    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b).

    For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), "weapon" means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW
    70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.

    In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building.

    The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;

    (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public;

    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or

    (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.

    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. 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; and

    (b) 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:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW
    9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

    (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

    (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

    (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.

    (4) Violations of local ordinances adopted under subsection (2) of this section must have the same penalty as provided for by state law.

    (5) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.

    (6) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

    (a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties;

    (b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter
    10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or

    (c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties.

    (7) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW
    9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.

    (8) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.

    (9) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.

    (10) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    (11) "Weapon" as used in this section means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW
    70.74.010, or instrument or weapon listed in RCW 9.41.250.



    If you carefully analyze the above referenced statutes, you will notice that nowhere in the “exceptions” is it listed that one cannot legally carry a modern firearm during archery only or black powder only hunting seasons. By creating such a law, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is in direct violation of 9.41.290.

    I urge you to review the current WDFW regulations and change them to be in compliance with the Revised Code of Washington.



    Jeff Harris

    Mountlake Terrace, WA



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

    Post imported post

    I would shorten it up.

    Also remember this is not the state we are talking about but rather a department of the state. Pre-emption is reserved to the state itself and that is our elected law makers. Not hired directors of a state agency.

    I am glad you are doing this as this post has pissed me off so bad that I decided to do it myself and had written the following, but have not sent it.

    To whom it may concern,

    I am writing this e-mail to inquire about the following hunting regulation that states;

    Archery Regulations
    1. Rules pertaining to all archery:
    a. It is unlawful for any person to carry or have in his possession any firearm while in
    the field archery hunting, during an archery season specified for that area, except for
    modern handguns carried for personal protection if that person possesses a
    concealed pistol license as defined by RCW 9.41.070. Modern handguns cannot
    be used to hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big
    game hunting season.


    What RCW makes this unlawful? What authority does Wa. DFW have to override RCW 9.41.290, State Pre-emption, and RCW 9.41.060 which states:

    The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:

    (8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

    It seems to me that this hunting regulation is in direct conflict with, and is more restrictive than, RCW 9.41.060 which explicitly states that a person who has not been issued a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol may do so if they are engaged in hunting.


    The biggest difference between yours and mine is the length and the fact that I specifically ask them under what authority they are allowed to make the rule. I am not asking them to take action yet but forcing the hand to tell me where they are authorized to make the rule and what RCW makes the rule unlawful.

    We need to make them answer with what gives them authority. Sometimes the answer will open themselves up to be hung out and dried, as was the instance with the prison system and a couple of their prison directors.
    "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 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    go ahead and send yours, I'll send mine...as far as I can tell, the addy we want to send it to is:

    enforcement-web@dfw.wa.gov

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    5jeffro7 wrote:
    go ahead and send yours, I'll send mine...as far as I can tell, the addy we want to send it to is:

    enforcement-web@dfw.wa.gov
    I am going to address the director as he is the one charged with the rule making.
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    damn, no raspberry smileys



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    5jeffro7 wrote:
    damn, no raspberry smileys

    *
    LOL :P
    "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

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Can the state preempt itself?

    The preemption statute deals with municipalities.

    I'm not sure preemption is the correct argument in this case.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Can the state preempt itself?

    The preemption statute deals with municipalities.

    I'm not sure preemption is the correct argument in this case.
    Well you have a point but it seems clear that the legislatures wanted total control over firearms. I do not think they wanted state departments to regulate firearms via rule sets and regulations.
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    I can’t thank you guys enough for your support on this. I have been waiting for years to be the martyr for this one. E-mails have gone largely unanswered, written letters, I am sure unopened. The typical response has been along the lines of, “We are looking into your request…” or some rot.

    I have been carrying my pistol with me while I have been archery hunting for years. More often than not trying to explain to another party that if I were cited, it would be (hopefully) thrown out of court in violation of the RCW.

    So far, I have not had any incident with any enforcement officers that have notbatted an eye. Most of them are down to earth people, and deserve 10 fold the respect that they are given by a lot of the “sportsmen” in this state.



    Gentlemen thank you, the members of this board are Kings among men.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Considering that the Washington State Legislature clearly explained to me that they exempt the Washington State Supreme Court from having to provide a lock box for weapons, and that it only applies to those jurisdictions who have a "local legislative authority" (County/City), so it wouldn't completely surprise me if State Government Agencies are also exempt from Preemption laws. I'm not 100% sure, and I could be completely wrong, but the best thing for you to do is to contact your state rep or senator and ask them. They are usually really good about providing a thorough response. At least they are with my inquiries.

    Good luck.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Here is the response so far from DFW.

    It would appear on the face of it that there are some legal aspects of this rule that either they were aware of or they have just been made aware of by us.

    Thank you for contacting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
    regarding archery hunting and carrying a handgun. Your e-mail has been
    referred to me for a response.

    WDFW is currently reviewing these rules and awaiting legal advice from
    the Office of the Attorney General. The review is not yet complete at
    this time. Please feel free to contact me directly in the weeks ahead
    so that I may update you on any progress.

    Mik Mikitik
    Department of Fish and Wildlife
    Enforcement Program
    Hunter Education Division
    "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

  17. #17
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    While that is the same response I received, to the letter,I have a feeling that this time it is going to go somewhere.:celebrate

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Sparky508 wrote:
    While that is the same response I received, to the letter,I have a feeling that this time it is going to go somewhere.:celebrate
    Believe me, it will go somewhere. My state rep. will not hesitate to have the AG's office contact me directly. He has done it three times in the past for different issues, 2 of which were firearms issues.

    How long ago did you get your response?
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    I got my reply this afternoon about 2:30...the person sending it was william.mikitik@dfw.wa.gov..a direct copy and paste of his reply is as follows:



    Thank you for contacting WDFW regarding black powder hunting and carrying a handgun. Your e-mail has been referred to me for a response.



    WDFW is currently reviewing these rules and awaiting legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General. The review is not yet complete at this time. Please feel free to contact me directly in the weeks ahead so that I may update you on any progress.



    Mik Mikitik

    Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Enforcement Program

    Hunter Education Division





    if nothing else, it appe4ars as though Mr. Mikitik knows how to copy & paste:celebrate

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    As a liong time Hunter Ed instructor, I have come to know Mikitik very well. He will do the best that you can expect to try to get resolution on this question, as it has a direct bearing on what is taught in the H Ed classes as well as the Master Hunter program.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    As a liong time Hunter Ed instructor, I have come to know Mikitik very well. He will do the best that you can expect to try to get resolution on this question, as it has a direct bearing on what is taught in the H Ed classes as well as the Master Hunter program.
    That is very good to know. Thanks for the insight Trigger Dr.
    "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

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    so it wouldn't completely surprise me if State Government Agencies are also exempt from Preemption laws.
    It's not that state agencies are exempt, it's that the preemption statute doesn't apply to them. Review it again. It's not that hard to figure out. It's written at about a 12th grade level.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    A 12th grade/senior level is actually pretty high.. on a side note, I bet most high school seniors would beat most 25+ year olds at any sort of grammar or historical trivial quiz seeing how it's all fresh in their minds, as oppose to post grads who don't always use these skills/knowledge on a regular basis.

    Doesn't apply = "exempt" by the way.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    No, an exemption requires a specific set-aside. That's not in the preemption statute.

    The statute doesn't apply to state agencies because they are not specifically listed as being preempted, whereas only municipalities are, and under our British Common Law system, that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    We're talking about the same thing using different words.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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