Lacey in Violation of Preemption

I'm also impressed with the timeliness and professionalism, and the obviously tightly coordinated, apparently well run team there.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the folks we contacted were as competent and dedicated to their jobs as the folks in Lacey. I'm especially impressed with the way Lori took the ball and ran with it, getting the job done with no pushing needed.

Good job on pursuing this issue within Lacey and following up in person.

Also, kudos to Lacey for resolving this issue quickly, too bad some libraries that we're reading about right now can't seem to find the "fast" button on this same issue.

joejoejoe said:

This is a great idea! I don't know the cases that can be cited, but I know the RCWs. If anyone wants to send me the cases to cite, I can put something together.

Joe~

Click to expand...

The Court Cases I know of are "Heller" and the King County Superior Court Ruling. I don't have the exact cite but here is a news release:

"SEATTLE, Feb. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A King County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, striking down a ban on guns in city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute.

Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country."

The one thing that would probably carry a lot of weight is the AG's opinion regarding laws that contravene State Preemption.

Keeping it simple, showing how Seattle lost on their "ban" and backing it with the AG's opinion, and a reference to "Heller" that states the 2A DOES apply in the State. Toss in Sec. 1, Art 24 of the State Constitution.

If you post a draft of your work here you might get some comments from those who have a greater insight as to the workings of government and the law that might make it have a good impact.

Since the issue is pretty much the same State Wide with codes that have not been revised for decades, there is no point to 'reinventing' the wheel for every instance that a non complying "law", "rule", or "regulation" is found.

DoomGoober said:

Awesome! Well done everyone. I just got this back from the City Attorney of Lacey:

---
Alexander:

The City's Board of Park Commissioners is currently considering possible
changes to the Park Regulations regarding possession of fire arms.

Thank you for your kind comments regarding the RAC.

Ken Ahlf
---

I'm impressed with Lacey's timeliness and professionalism. Anyone who lives and votes in a Lacey should take note!

Alexander

Click to expand...

Tomas said:

I'm also impressed with the timeliness and professionalism, and the obviously tightly coordinated, apparently well run team there.

Wouldn't it be nice if all the folks we contacted were as competent and dedicated to their jobs as the folks in Lacey. I'm especially impressed with the way Lori took the ball and ran with it, getting the job done with no pushing needed.

Click to expand...

I would be even more impressed if the response was more like "Thank you for calling our attention to this discrepancy. We will correct this immediately", rather than the response that they are "considering" changing it. This merely tells me that they are waiting to hear from their "counsel" to see if there is a way to weasel their way around State Law.

Vancouver

I feel bad for Joe with all the stupid Anti remarks in the comment section.
Also amlevin I was at the meeting, and they are changing the rules. They've already told the police dept to not bother anybody or try to enforce what is on the sign concerning firearms.

golddigger14s said:

I feel bad for Joe with all the stupid Anti remarks in the comment section.
Also amlevin I was at the meeting, and they are changing the rules. They've already told the police dept to not bother anybody or try to enforce what is on the sign concerning firearms.

Click to expand...

I was pretty sure that they would change the rules, it's just that for some stupid reasons politicians never give a straight answer. I just thought a straight out answer would be refreshing.

DoomGoober said:

Awesome! Well done everyone. I just got this back from the City Attorney of Lacey:

---
Alexander:

The City's Board of Park Commissioners is currently considering possible
changes to the Park Regulations regarding possession of fire arms.

Thank you for your kind comments regarding the RAC.

Ken Ahlf
---

I'm impressed with Lacey's timeliness and professionalism. Anyone who lives and votes in a Lacey should take note!

Alexander

Click to expand...

Great! Nicely done.

To the folks complaining that public officials always check with their legal folks before making random changes in rules, laws, codes, procedures, etc. - try to understand that it is necessary for them to do so.

In the quarter century I spent at a Fortune 500 company as an engineer / project manager / engineering manager, any time I needed to make changes that affected the way the company did business I was required to pass it by legal. As an official representative of the company (manager), if I did something not-quite-legal, or that put the company in an awkward position legally, the company would take the hit, and because of that, legal had to OK it.

(Occasionally some young, new engineer would make a minor change in the way he/she designed something without running it by legal, and 6 months later the company would have the feds on 'em 'cause it broke some obscure rule or regulation in the thousands and thousands of pages that controlled our industry. Some of those "minor changes" ended up costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and fixes.)

Pretty much the same applies to the public servants we contact. Even if they personally want to just go ahead and make a change they feel is right, they MUST pass it by their legal counsel and get their OK first. It is just part of the job. If they don't do that, they, personally, are hung out to dry...

Stretch said:

Good job on pursuing this issue within Lacey and following up in person.

Also, kudos to Lacey for resolving this issue quickly, too bad some libraries that we're reading about right now can't seem to find the "fast" button on this same issue.

Click to expand...

+1

!!!!!!!

Update

latest e-mail from the awesome Lacey Parks Dept.:

Thank you for your kind words, Chuck, and for attending our meeting. I will keep you posted on the adoption schedule. Our Park Board meets monthly, so we will be at the Monday, Oct. 25th meeting for adoption.
Sincerely,
Lori Flemm

From: Charles Story [mailto:storyc@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:36 PM
To: Lori Flemm
Subject: RE: Illegal Rules

I just want to thank you and the rest of the committee for your time and consideration. The members of our group were very impressed with how quickly your organization handled this situation. The Lacey Parks and Rec Dep. are a shining example to the community. When I retire from the military next year I plan on staying here in Lacey, and the wonderful parks of Thurston county are are just one more reason.
Thanks,
Chuck Story