would this preempt some no shooting zones?

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

http://www.spokanecounty.org/engineer/content.aspx?c=1501

And here's the actual map:

http://www.spokanecounty.org/data/engineers/noshoot/NoShootingAreas11x17brochuremapOct2009.pdf

imported post

Lammo wrote:

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

http://www.spokanecounty.org/engineer/content.aspx?c=1501

And here's the actual map:

http://www.spokanecounty.org/data/engineers/noshoot/NoShootingAreas11x17brochuremapOct2009.pdf

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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_De...ing Maps/noshooting_countywide_58x36_1109.pdf

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.

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.

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.

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Thanks!!!!

want to see one that is fishy look at eatonville. it is a no shooting zone for one mile around entire city limits.

Edgar said:

want to see one that is fishy look at eatonville. it is a no shooting zone for one mile around entire city limits.

Click to expand...

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.