• 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.

SNO COUNTY: What happens when government ignores the law?

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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it flatly stated that all county and municipal laws that were more restrictive than state law were preempted AND REPEALED.

I submit that since the illegal ordinances HAVE BEEN REPEALED, that should the state ever repeal preemption (not going to happen), these rules would NOT magically go back into effect unless the county or municipality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 after all, they have been repealed.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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?
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.

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

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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/html/localnews/2010065107_webgunban14m.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/html/politics/2009976877_scotusguns01.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
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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!

C0110_R_Chicago_Handgun_Ban.jpg


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.
 

jbone

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


[align=right]

[/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?[/align]
[/quote]
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
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.



[align=right]

[/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?[/align]
[/quote]Ah, thanks for pointing out that RCW! :monkeyNow I may get to crafting my letters.
 

kwiebe

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
206
Location
Tacoma, Washington, United States
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/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj2.1

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

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/812951%20amended%20amicus%20brief.pdf
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top