• 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.

Opinion sought on guns at county parks

Red Ryder

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, ,
imported post

It's been a busy day for me. I thought I would try to post my perception of how the Snohomish County council hearing wentfor the proposed revision to bring the parks law in compliance with state law. I took the time off from work so I could testify. It wasn't a good day for me to go. My workplace was in crisis mode but attending this hearing was important.

A staff member was first up. He talked about state law, pre-emption and the county law. I was thinking that this guy almost made the whole case for us.

The first two to testify were a couple of nice little old ladies who wanted to keep parks safe for kids. Some of the usual misguided arguments were made. Children and guns don't mix. This isn't the Wild West. Then we started getting into the pro-gun side. Most of us were a little nervous but did a good job making points on why this law should be changed to reflect state law. Many stated their unhappiness with this law. Quite a few shared that they were CHL holders. Some were NRA members.

I was one of the last public speakers to testify. I cited the relevant segment of the RCWs that pertain to this issue as well as article 24 of our state constitution which allows us to "bear" arms in defense of ourselves and the state. Rather than present my pro-gun leanings, I stressed the fact that I was a parent, lived in Snohomish county, had 4 kids,named a couple of parks we have used, indicated friends who had issues in the parksand that I had no problem with anyone who legally possessed a gun in a county park. One of the ladies had talked about how there would be shoot outs in the parks if sports teams had disputes. During my 3 minutes I countered with the safety records of over 200,000 CHL holders in this state.

After the public testimony was taken. The motion was made by Councilman John Koster to vote on this measure. Do I hear a second? . . . . .visualize council members staring at the ceiling. . . . . . checking the time on their watch . . . .. checking their manicure. . . . .almost reminded me of that old statuette of the 3 monkeys except for there was a fourth one, perhaps poised with a digit up their posterior . . . . . not one word. "The motion fails." Some one in the back muttered out, "cowards!". There was couple of young students in the back, there with their mother to observe the proceedings. After the motion failed, I told them that's how government works.

My perception from an article in the Everett Herald was that the other 4 councilmen would not be favorable to gun rights. I was right. I had testified at another public hearing before most of these same councilmen and they haven't changed. The theory of the dirty diaper really applies to these 4 and they need to be voted out.

John Koster chastised the rest of the council for their failure to act on this law revision. Hedismissed the Wild West argument relevant to when these laws were enacted. He also addressed the pro-gun folks stating that we really haven't lost anything as state law has already ruled this irrelevant. It was obvious he wasn't happy with his fellow council members, especially their tactic of not offering a second to bring this to a vote.

It must be a really lonely job being the only Republican on the county council. I'm glad he's there or we would have no voice to represent us. If any of you do have the time to contact these council members, perhaps drop a kind word to Councilman Koster and thank him for his effort. He did his part bringing this revision up for a vote. We need to support him by showing up as many pro-gun citizens did. There is strength in numbers. More numbers would beeven better.

I rode the elevator down with the pro-gun crowd. Since this website is where I first learned of this hearing and some folks here said they were going, I was hoping to perhaps make some connections. A few said they had been to this websiteto visit but none were really from this group. Maybe next time.

The question is: Where do we go from here?
 

Trigger Dr

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

I would suggest flooding their e-mail and snail mail with letters stressing theirdereliction in not following the wishes of their constituency as well as intentional violation of state law.

Each letter should be addressed to the individual and not sent as a form letter to one person with cc to the others. Stress the voting ability of the people they are elected to SERVE. Reminding them that the power to govern comes from the people to the leaders, not, from the leaders to the people.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
imported post

Would it do any good to mention in the letters thatnow that they areaware that their law is not legal and prempted that lawsuits may follow illegal arrests. The arresting officers would likley not be sued but the County I would think could be.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
imported post

Here's the article in today's Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010787268_gunban14m.html

<snip>
Koster said he was dismayed that he couldn't get a second for "a law that puts our code in compliance with state law."
But Councilman Brian Sullivan said, "I think it's prudent to see how the Seattle case falls out. The epicenter of the gun issue is not a place we want to be." </snip>
 

n16ht5

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
187
Location
, ,
imported post

Arghhh I wanted to go.. didn't realize it would be set for the middle of a workday go figure...


NavtLT very nice .. anyone have the sherriffs email?
 

Trigger Dr

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

Bran Sullivan's comment does just what he does not want....Puts them in the epi- center of the gun control issue.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

Great Damage Control work going on by everyone!



Don't take this wrong but where were all the big guns and idea's other than (They can't do that) while this was brewing.This Snohomish issue has beenon OCDO radar since Mar 09. See the threadsand reminders.Darn shame how the interest grew the day before, and day of hearing.I maybe whining ( I am whining) but it seems more attention is given toSeattle, picnics, or BS OT posts, and the very issues we should be paying attention too and organizing get lost. IMO, did we cause it to fail?

Snohomish got away it shouldn't have, Snohomish should have been setting the stage for Seattle, not the other way around. Done Whining!


http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/20339.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/34494.html

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/36196.html


Add: Sorry brewing since Jan 09.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
How about this to the Snohomish County Sheriff:

Dear Sheriff Lovick,

Sir, as I am sure you are well aware, Snohomish County Code 22.16.090, Park Code - Miscellaneous Use Rules - Weapons and Fireworks, contains an illegal prohibition of the possession of firearms in county parks as follows:

"No person shall possess or discharge any firearm, bow and arrow, air or gas weapon, slingshot, fireworks or explosive in any county park except at times and in areas specifically designated by the parks division and posted for such use."

The prohibition of the possession of firearms noted above is in violation of RCW 9.41.290 - State Preemption as follows:

"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."

As I am sure you are well aware, the possession of firearms in county parks is NOT included in the authorizations contained in RCW 9.41.300.

In addition, the prohibition of the possession of firearms contained in 22.16.090 violates the Washington State Constitution, Article I, Section 24 as follows:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Sheriff Lovick, I would hope that you were also aware of the Snohomish County Commissioners meeting which occurred today, January 13, 2010. During this meeting, a motion was made by Councilman John Koster to revise 22.16.090 to become in compliance with RCW 9.41.290. Four other Councilmen - Dave Gossett, Dave Somers, Mike Cooper and Brian Sullivan failed to act on the motion and as a direct result of their failure to acknowledge Councilman Koster's motion allowed the illegal ordinance to remain in place.

Sir, the actions of these four councilmen to block the correction of 22.16.090, under color of law, deprives individual citizens the right to bear arms on county park property in direct violation of RCW 9.41.290 and Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution.

Sir, the deprivation of an individual of a lawful right or privilege by a public servant is a violation of RCW 9A.80.010 - Official misconduct as follows:

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

Not only is 22.16.090 an intentional act to deprive persons of a lawful right, but the inaction of the four councilmen to correct a clear violation of RCW 9.41.290 is an intentional refraining of performing their duties.

Sheriff Lovick, these four councilmen have not only publicly thumbed their noses at the laws of Washington State and the Washington State Constitution, they have also committed a criminal act: a gross misdemeanor violating RCW 9A.80.010. Sir, as the chief law enforcement officer of your county can you allow this criminal act to go unnoticed? Does ignoring this act uphold the core values of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office of INTEGRITY, COMMITMENT, DIGNITY and PRIDE?

At a minimum, Sir, may I respectfully request that an opinion be sought from the Washington State Attorney General regarding whether or not the four councilmen in question have, in fact, violated RCW 9A.80.010?

Thank you, Sheriff Lovick for your time, attention, and your dedication to duty,
Very Respectfully,
John H.....

Navy:

VERY well stated and thoroughly detailed. But I wonder why you addressed this message to the Sheriff instead of to the County Attorney (or whichever his title). The sheriff has power of arrest, true, but charges would have to be brought by the Attorney, and any referral to the State level would likely be done by the Atty. as well. Comment?
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

jbone wrote:
Here are the four criminals;

Chair Dave Gossett, District 4;Vice-Chair Dave Somers, District 5;Councilmember Mike Cooper, District 3; Councilmember Brian Sullivan, District 2

Just saw the new story on King 5, thefourcriminals give him the cold shoulder. The story also said even the County Prosecutor said the ban was illegal.
I sent this message to all of the four individually today, and yesterday to the general email address for the council:

Dear Councilman Xxxxxxx:


I was shocked to learn yesterday of your inaction in the matter of the proposed compliance with Washington state law. Your failure to enact the amendment proposed by Councilman Koster is unconscionable. The concept of preemption stated in RCW 9.41. 290 is clear: you have NO RIGHT to violate state law in this manner. RCW 9.41.270, 9.41. 050, and Article I, Section 24 of the State Constitution all state the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in self-defense.

This is not a matter of what any politician thinks is politically expedient. Self-defense is a God-given right, as are the rights to speak freely, the right to worship or not as we may choose, the right to due process, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to redress grievances to the government, the right to own property and to dispose of it as we see fit. The government cannot bestow any of these upon us, nor can it take them away because they are part of our humanity. The Founding Fathers memorialized these concepts in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States. They are also well defined in Washington law and constitution.

You have no choice in this matter. Other counties and municipalities in our State have acted appropriately to bring their codes into compliance. You must do likewise.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
I edited the letter to address Mark Roe and sent it to him.

However, it would appear as if the sheriff was the correct official to send it to in the first place:

The Prosecuting Attorney's Office is responsible for prosecuting all adult and juvenile felony cases referred by county law enforcement agencies, and all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases referred by the County Sheriff, the State Patrol, all state agencies, and some cities who have contracted with the county for misdemeanor prosecution services.
Got it
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
Jesus Christ himself could have shown up there and those four boneheads would still have remained silent. And you are whining, by the way.
Eyes have dried.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

I just figured those guys out:idea::idea:

They're counting on the AWB to pass. Then this whole issue will become MOOT :banghead:

These statists aren't dumb, they're just being statists. Straight out of the Alinsky playbook.
 
Top