Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: SNO COUNTY: What happens when government ignores the law?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    What happens when governments ignore the law?

    The Snohomish County Council is ignoring the fact that a long-standing state preemption statute has nullified the county's 1971 parks handgun ban. They were made aware of the problem and on Wednesday they failed to act on a housekeeping measure to fix the problem.

    The ordinance is without teeth, it was voided by the 1983 state law, yet they just don't agree with the idea of legally-carried guns in parks.

    Too bad?


    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d14-What-happens-when-governments-ignore-the-law

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/yeyd42j

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    The Democrats on the council want the law left on the books so that they can lobby the state to repeal pre-emption.

    I submit such a tactic could backfire. First of all, the legislature is not likely to accommodate them.

    When the state passed preemption, it flatly stated that all county and municipal laws that were more restrictive than state law were preempted AND REPEALED.

    I submit that since the illegal ordinances HAVE BEEN REPEALED, that should the state ever repeal preemption (not going to happen), these rules would NOT magically go back into effect unless the county or municipality RE-ENACTED them... after all, they have been repealed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    Is it time for a picnic/gathering in Snohomish County?
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Nice article, Dave. I am a little disappointed that "thumbed their noses at state law and the Washington State Constitution" wasn't in there, though! :P
    Pretty hard to thumb your nose with your head up your ass.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Nice article, Dave. I am a little disappointed that "thumbed their noses at state law and the Washington State Constitution" wasn't in there, though! :P
    Pretty hard to thumb your nose with your head up your ass.

    Not after 15 years of Kegels.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    What I would love to see is some teeth added to Washington's preemption law. Penalties for those that violate the law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Within the last year or so, I remember reading about a private citizen who filed criminal charges against someone for an animal related offense. The prosecutor was bypassed, and with the help of a lawyer, criminal charges were filed. The newspaper article mentioned the technique of a private citizen proceeding criminally against another citizen was seldom used, but legal in Washington.

    I can't remember or locate the details. Anyone have any info on this?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    What I would love to see is some teeth added to Washington's preemption law. Penalties for those that violate the law.
    It's right there in the law. RCW 9.41.810.


    [/b]Any violation of any provision of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly.[/quote]

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    That could be used against Nickels, because he actually enacted the ban.
    Yes and I wrote to the King County Prosecutor about it. Here is that exchange:

    From: Dean Fuller[SMTP:]
    Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:10:42 AM
    To: Prosecuting, Attorney
    Subject: Misconduct of Seattle Mayor Nickels
    Auto forwarded by a Rule


    Greetings.

    I'm writing to ask if your office has any plans to investigate Seattle Mayor Nickels for violations of RCW 9.41.810, which criminalizes violations of RCW 9.41. Mayor Nickels has violated RCW 9.41.290 (state firearms preemption) by placing signs prohibiting firearms in certain city facilities which are open to the public at large.

    If your office is not planning to investigate the mayor, why not? Thanks.

    -Dean Fuller



    from Goodhew, Ian <Ian.Goodhew@kingcounty.gov>
    to
    date Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:15
    subject FW: Misconduct of Seattle Mayor Nickels
    mailed-by kingcounty.gov
    hide details 10/22/09
    Dear Mr. Fuller,

    Thank you for contacting the King County Prosecutor's Office regarding the City of Seattle's decision to prohibit guns within certain city owned buildings in county parks and other recreational areas.

    As you know, RCW 9.41.290 preempts local city and county governments from regulating firearms in most instances, granting the primary power to regular firearms to the State. Mayor Nickels has authorized the above prohibition based on a theory that a property owner, including the City of Seattle, can regulate who and what enters into the property owner's property. As you may know, the Washington State Attorney General's Office has issued a legal opinion that contradicts the City's position.

    Because there is a legal dispute as to the reach and scope of RCW 9.41.290, the matter is moving towards civil litigation, which will clarify the reach and scope of RCW 9.41.290.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban14m.html

    This matter actually has arisen beyond the confines of the City of Seattle and Washington State as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to address the general issue of whether governments other than the federal government have the ability to regulate or outright prohibit gun possession.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...tusguns01.html

    Our office has not received a criminal referral from the Seattle Police Department concerning Mayor Nickels and his proposal. Our office does not intend to pursue a criminal charge in this matter unless and until the related legal issue is addressed either by our State Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court. Once the issue is clarified, then the proposed ban's violation of state law can be re-evaluated.

    Sincerely,


    Ian Goodhew
    King County Prosecutor's Office

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Seems like that ought to cut both ways. If they are unwilling to prosecute the ex-mayor because the law is unsettled it would seem consistent that they would not prosecute any citizens for violating the ex-mayor's ban.

  11. #11
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    As I said long ago, the McDonald v Chicago case will be the deciding factor in this parks issue.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    As I said long ago, the McDonald v Chicago case will be the deciding factor in this parks issue.
    And this is McDonald by the way.... The diversity has to be killing the left!



    Meet the plaintiffs: These four Chicago residents (from left), Adam Orlov, David and Colleen Lawson, and Otis McDonald, have sued to repeal the city’s ban on handgun possession. Their case will be heard by the Supreme Court in February.
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lake Stevens, ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    I hope this one is on c span like the Heller one was

  14. #14
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    What I would love to see is some teeth added to Washington's preemption law. Penalties for those that violate the law.
    It's right there in the law. RCW 9.41.810.




    [/b]Any violation of any provision of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly.

    So can the Sheriff cite them, and the County Prosecutor take legal action?

    [/quote]
    I’m proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    jbone wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    What I would love to see is some teeth added to Washington's preemption law. Penalties for those that violate the law.
    It's right there in the law. RCW 9.41.810.





    [/b]Any violation of any provision of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly.

    So can the Sheriff cite them, and the County Prosecutor take legal action?
    [/quote]Ah, thanks for pointing out that RCW! Now I may get to crafting my letters.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Also there is:

  17. #17
    Regular Member kwiebe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Within the last year or so, I remember reading about a private citizen who filed criminal charges against someone for an animal related offense. The prosecutor was bypassed, and with the help of a lawyer, criminal charges were filed. The newspaper article mentioned the technique of a private citizen proceeding criminally against another citizen was seldom used, but legal in Washington.

    I can't remember or locate the details. Anyone have any info on this?
    I found it, it's a Judicial Rule (skim down to Citizen Complaints section):

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules...id=cljcrrlj2.1

    And here's the animal-related case where it was used:

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Bri...us%20brief.pdf



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    We are totally focused on this as a legal issue, which it certainly is. But it's also a POLITICAL issue, and my guess is that the Sno criminals are counting on passage of SB 6396, which would accomplish what they want. The real problem here is to stop that monstrosity of a bill to Californicate Washington. That's not to say we ought to let this distract us from the local issue as well.

Posting Permissions

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