Crypto
Regular Member
imported post
That happened almost 2 years ago. Its still not resolved huh. That sucks.
That happened almost 2 years ago. Its still not resolved huh. That sucks.
And at the January WAC show we chatted for 15 minutes or so with a new (like 21 years old) PPD and he was pro OC! He said something like...I wish more people would do it....At the November WAC show, one of the senior patrolmen from PPD came up to my table and asked a LOT of questions about OC and the law. He went away with copies of training bulletins, OCDO flyers, case law from federal and state, and a promise to take it to the dept training officer to try to get a training bulletin issued.
I will inquire next show to find out where we and they stand on it.
Yes, the part of section "I" concerning possession is preempted and repealed. It is invalid, though will not prevent an officer from trying to enforce it.I just found the Local Pierce County Park law:
Chapter 14.08
- PARK CODE
14.08.060 Prohibited Activities.
H. Possess, discharge, set off or cause to be discharged in or into any park, any firecracker, torpedo, rocket, firework, explosive or other substance harmful to the life or safety of persons or property. Legal fireworks as part of a permitted function which are licensed and in compliance with State regulations may be discharged in a manner meeting all safety requirements if authorized by the Director or designee and if handled by a licensed professional;
I. Possess a firearm with a cartridge in any portion of the mechanism, or discharge across, in or into any park a firearm, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal or damaging or destroying any public or private property;
I live on the outskirts of "Puyallup City Limits" which is called Pierce County. So, This local code more applies to me and my family when we go to the park. But it is more restrictive then the state law. So, the preemption law will supersede this. Once again like the Puyallup local code.
Yes, the part of section "I" concerning possession is preempted and repealed. It is invalid, though will not prevent an officer from trying to enforce it.
j2l3 wrote:Yes, the part of section "I" concerning possession is preempted and repealed. It is invalid, though will not prevent an officer from trying to enforce it.
What are you suppose to say to a LEO. If he does try to enforce the local code? I've always wondered this the last few nights I've been studying.
So, what do I do. Just get arrested and taken in. What if I dont have alot of money for a lawyer?You are not likely to educate an officer on the scene. If you want to try, have a copy of the pertinent RCW with you so he can see it for himself.
Better to work with the administration in the police department and with the city council to change the way things are written and enforced.
So, what do I do. Just get arrested and taken in. What if I dont have alot of money for a lawyer?
Are you saying the courts are siding with puyallup right now on there local codes?Puyallup will be easier to work with, because they will know the courts will not side with them.
No, it hasn't been tested with Puyallup yet in court.j2l3 wrote:Are you saying the courts are siding with puyallup right now on there local codes?Puyallup will be easier to work with, because they will know the courts will not side with them.
No, it hasn't been tested with Puyallup yet in court.
j2l3 wrote:No, it hasn't been tested with Puyallup yet in court.
So, if i was to open carry or conceal carry and someone seen the print and a LEO comes to the scence. You are basically Saying,
I am challenging you officer to what your knowledge is on the law. LMAO jesus..
sounds like i should just stay home.
thats GREAT news trigger doc, It still dosnt make right what they did to me....
thats GREAT news trigger doc, It still dosnt make right what they did to me....
Even after watching this video, you are still challenging a officer and if the officers are assholes in Puyallup which I agree with. They will still hold you for as long as possible.
This should always be an OCers method of dealing with LEO. Ask for the Seargant or Captain. Once you do I believe they are obligated to do so.sudden valley gunner wrote:Absolutely, positively correct! And you ask the officer, respectfully, to have a supervisor come to the scene and ask them also to bring a copy of Revised Code of Washington 9.41.290 with them. Hopefully, the supervisor will either show up and set things straight, or take care of it over the radio and tell the beat cop to go away.Carry anyway. If you get hassled hold your ground stick by your rights, Politely and respectfully. Every encounter were we stay in the right, makes it easier for the next person to carry.