• 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.

Jury Duty-Kent Municipal Court

ak56

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
kenshin said:
But there's also no state preemption preventing them from making a rule against it.
Click to expand...
.
RCW 9.91.160
Personal protection spray devices.
(2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020.
Click to expand...
 
K

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
ak56 said:
.
Click to expand...

The way that I read RCW 9.91.160 is that it protects purchasing and possessing, not carrying. A person can still possess a spray device while at home, therefore it would not prevent the courthouse from barring spray devices.

I'm not saying this is the way I think it should be, just the way that I read the RCW.


ETA. for grammer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top