Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: would this preempt some no shooting zones?

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188



    Rob Mckenna
    wrote:






    Ballsmider, 71 Wn. App. at 162–163 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court concluded that this reading of RCW 9.41.300(2) was consistent with RCW 9.41.290. According to the Court, the preemption language in RCW 9.41.290


    applies to the entire range of firearms regulation, including “registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms . . .” (Emphasis added). RCW 9.41.300(2) and its “[n]otwithstanding RCW 9.41.290” language merely give local governments authority, without penalty or other restrictions, to enact laws regarding the discharge of firearms in areas where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. This limited exception does not swallow or render meaningless the general preemption statute which, as noted above, applies to much more than the regulation of the discharge of firearms.
    Seems some counties just enact broad stroke no shooting zones. Part of Galbraith in Bellingham comes to mind.
















    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    It would seem that counties and cities must still justify that the no shooting areas present a"reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized".

    I would think that any County that were to declare a wide area such a no shooting zone without justification would still be running afoul of "State Preemption".

    What I would like to see is the Legislature apply some meaningful penalty to violation of State Preemption. Making the officials that push for violations, such as Former Mayor Nickels in Seattle's park ban on firearms, personally liable for their actions. Ditto for those on City and County Councils that vote FOR ordinances that they know full well violate preemption. They do so for two reasons. One is they know there is no personal penalty and second, they feel that once these ordinances are enacted they hope they will be able to convince the Legislature to "exempt" them.

    It's just like raising kids. Tell them that certain actions are not acceptable but don't punish them when they break the rules, then see what you get in the end.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    It would seem that counties and cities must still justify that the no shooting areas present a"reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized".

    I would think that any County that were to declare a wide area such a no shooting zone without justification would still be running afoul of "State Preemption".

    What I would like to see is the Legislature apply some meaningful penalty to violation of State Preemption. Making the officials that push for violations, such as Former Mayor Nickels in Seattle's park ban on firearms, personally liable for their actions. Ditto for those on City and County Councils that vote FOR ordinances that they know full well violate preemption. They do so for two reasons. One is they know there is no personal penalty and second, they feel that once these ordinances are enacted they hope they will be able to convince the Legislature to "exempt" them.

    It's just like raising kids. Tell them that certain actions are not acceptable but don't punish them when they break the rules, then see what you get in the end.

    And I thought I remembered some folks in Snohomish talking about some areas that seemed to fit that description.

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    It would seem that counties and cities must still justify that the no shooting areas present a"reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized".

    I would think that any County that were to declare a wide area such a no shooting zone without justification would still be running afoul of "State Preemption".

    What I would like to see is the Legislature apply some meaningful penalty to violation of State Preemption. Making the officials that push for violations, such as Former Mayor Nickels in Seattle's park ban on firearms, personally liable for their actions. Ditto for those on City and County Councils that vote FOR ordinances that they know full well violate preemption. They do so for two reasons. One is they know there is no personal penalty and second, they feel that once these ordinances are enacted they hope they will be able to convince the Legislature to "exempt" them.

    It's just like raising kids. Tell them that certain actions are not acceptable but don't punish them when they break the rules, then see what you get in the end.

    And I thought I remembered some folks in Snohomish talking about some areas that seemed to fit that description.
    The last time I looked at the shooting zone map it seemed to be in good compliance with the law. I do not recall seeing an area that I thought no shooting was out of line on the part of the county.
    "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

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    It would seem that counties and cities must still justify that the no shooting areas present a"reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized".

    I would think that any County that were to declare a wide area such a no shooting zone without justification would still be running afoul of "State Preemption".

    What I would like to see is the Legislature apply some meaningful penalty to violation of State Preemption. Making the officials that push for violations, such as Former Mayor Nickels in Seattle's park ban on firearms, personally liable for their actions. Ditto for those on City and County Councils that vote FOR ordinances that they know full well violate preemption. They do so for two reasons. One is they know there is no personal penalty and second, they feel that once these ordinances are enacted they hope they will be able to convince the Legislature to "exempt" them.

    It's just like raising kids. Tell them that certain actions are not acceptable but don't punish them when they break the rules, then see what you get in the end.

    And I thought I remembered some folks in Snohomish talking about some areas that seemed to fit that description.
    The last time I looked at the shooting zone map it seemed to be in good compliance with the law. I do not recall seeing an area that I thought no shooting was out of line on the part of the county.
    I am pretty sure parts of the Galbraith were though, is there a map for that area online I can look? I tried to look for one before and asked Sheriff for it. Because there are no shooting signs at the bottom of the hills behind Galbraith (Lookout mt.) They were not sure about Galbraith but told me I am fine on look out which is great because I just walk out my door and I am practically there.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    FWIW: Here's the site for shooting area info for Spokane County:

    http://www.spokanecounty.org/enginee...nt.aspx?c=1501

    And here's the actual map:

    http://www.spokanecounty.org/data/en...mapOct2009.pdf


    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    FWIW: Here's the site for shooting area info for Spokane County:

    http://www.spokanecounty.org/enginee...nt.aspx?c=1501

    And here's the actual map:

    http://www.spokanecounty.org/data/en...mapOct2009.pdf

    Looks like to me that covers mostly urban and higher populated areas, But I am not very familiar with Spokane. Other than it was that large city, we would go to every once in awhile when we lived in Colville briefly.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    The Spokane County no shooting areas look very sensable to me. There is one section in the north east part of the map that looks a little odd but other than that I would say if anyone is shooting inside of the no shooting areas they better have a good backstop.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Orphan wrote:
    The Spokane County no shooting areas look very sensable to me. There is one section in the north east part of the map that looks a little odd but other than that I would say if anyone is shooting inside of the no shooting areas they better have a good backstop.
    The sheriff here told me as long as I am outside city limits not near houses or a body of water and have a backstop I am fine. But there seems to be no shooting areas that don't meet the criteria.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Here is the no shooting map for Sno Co. If you really want to get down to a nats ass you can look in the county codes for specific street to street areas of no shooting.

    ftp://ftp.snoco.org/Planning_and_Dev...58x36_1109.pdf
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575

    Post imported post

    I used to live about a mile outside of the no shooting area, I had one Sheriff stop by to see what I was shooting at. Turned out he lived just down the road and was just curious, must have been a slow day.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I am in Whatcom and the sheriff's don't care if I am outside of city limits. I was looking at this not to be pushy in where I am going to shoot, I don't plan on pushing the issue but was looking out of curiosity. Because City limits to shooting looks to be preempted to if they can't prove certain scenarios.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    One issue to consider is that of CHANGE. What is a "Shooting OK" area today may well become a NO Shooting area tomorrow. What I am noticing is that developments in the formerly wide open spaces are becoming more and more. As people move in, shooters are forced out. Second is that of DNR managed land. Some of the land is owned by the State and managed by DNR. Target shooting is supposed to be allowed if it is considered safe. No shooting across roads, within so many feet of roads, occupied areas, campgrounds, etc. Now we get to land that may also be managed by DNR but is privately owned. Perhaps lumber company or railroad subsidiary. If the underlying owner decides that they have seen enough damage to the land due to the idiots leaving garbage behind, shooting up the trees, etc., then that land becomes closed land. Just go up the Sultan Basin Road where people used to go shooting for years. Most, except for the DNR pit is closed now and if it weren't for the work of a couple of locals, that haul garbage from the pit regularly, it too will be closed.

    Sometimes, shooters are their own worst enemies when it comes to enjoying the use of a piece of land for target practice.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188



    Rob Mckenna
    wrote:






    Seems some counties just enact broad stroke no shooting zones. Part of Galbraith in Bellingham comes to mind.

    link fixed:
    http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Op...chive&id=21188

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Thanks!!!!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    roy wa
    Posts
    15
    want to see one that is fishy look at eatonville. it is a no shooting zone for one mile around entire city limits.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    want to see one that is fishy look at eatonville. it is a no shooting zone for one mile around entire city limits.
    Talk to the county Sheriff, because from what I can see as long as you are outside city limits and meet the rest of the legal criteria, they cannot prevent you from engaging in that lawful activity.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

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