• 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.

Lakewood in violation of preemption????

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
So I was browsing through the Lakewood Municipal code and discovered this:

No person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel and/or persons licensed to carry a concealed weapon shall possess a firearm in a city park. No person shall possess a bow and arrow, crossbow, or air or gas weapon in a City park. No person shall discharge across, in, or into any park area a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, 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 provided that where the Department for good cause has authorized and approved a special recreational activity or a recreational program, upon finding that it is not inconsistent with City park use, this section shall not apply. (Ord. 420 ? 1 (part), 2006; Ord. 126 ? 1 (part), 1997.)

Now is it just me or is that a clear violation of state preemption?
 

cbpeck

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
405
Location
Pasco, Washington, USA
Sounds like a pretty clear violation to me.

There was a similar city ordnance in Richland, and one of the members on OCDO worked hard to have it (and a second ordnance applying to restaurants) repealed. He was successful and we're all very appreciative!
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
I am currently working on Bonney Lake, however since I live in Lakewood I can try and handle this one as well. Sumner's code is still in violation IIRC, although dont have time to double check right now. I do know that Roy is also in violation....
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Renton is also in violation. I need to contact city hall and find out who to send the letter/email to. So is Newcastle. I think a lot of the eastside towns are because to date no one has challenged them. That's going to change!:D
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
To offer my suggestions as to who to contact to accomplish the tasked at hand, I have found the there are a few routes and depending upon who you are dealing with will depend if successful to amount of effort to expend.

  • The quickest thus far for me was through the Mayor to the City Attorney as they will want their impute as well.
  • The other way was to contact a Council Member and work with them to move it through.
  • Another way if not getting any where is show up for the Public Hearing Portion of the City Council Meeting.
Most of this information can be found on the Cities webpages.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
To offer my suggestions as to who to contact to accomplish the tasked at hand, I have found the there are a few routes and depending upon who you are dealing with will depend if successful to amount of effort to expend.

  • The quickest thus far for me was through the Mayor to the City Attorney as they will want their impute as well.
  • The other way was to contact a Council Member and work with them to move it through.
  • Another way if not getting any where is show up for the Public Hearing Portion of the City Council Meeting.
Most of this information can be found on the Cities webpages.


Thank you, Dave. I appreciate the info.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
I would like to offer an email format I sent to the City of Yakima, County of Yakima and City of Union Gap, use it if you like or if you have questions please do not hesitate to asked.

Dave

Attached Google Doc


Thanks Dave I appreciate it. Thus far I have identified 9 cities/towns that are in violation of state preemption...all within a few miles of me! :banghead:

I am currently working with Bonney Lake's public safety committee chair, I will however send out emails to Lakewood and Puyallup tomorrow. After that I will try and follow through with those before I move on to Edgewater, Yelm, Steilacoom, University Place, Sumner etc ad nauseaum...
 

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
Thanks Dave I appreciate it. Thus far I have identified 9 cities/towns that are in violation of state preemption...all within a few miles of me! :banghead:

I am currently working with Bonney Lake's public safety committee chair, I will however send out emails to Lakewood and Puyallup tomorrow. After that I will try and follow through with those before I move on to Edgewater, Yelm, Steilacoom, University Place, Sumner etc ad nauseaum...

Lakewood: I so owe that place. If you need a hand Doc, let me know.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Thanks Dave I appreciate it. Thus far I have identified 9 cities/towns that are in violation of state preemption...all within a few miles of me! :banghead:

I am currently working with Bonney Lake's public safety committee chair, I will however send out emails to Lakewood and Puyallup tomorrow. After that I will try and follow through with those before I move on to Edgewater, Yelm, Steilacoom, University Place, Sumner etc ad nauseaum...

Just to make sure they do not try and feed a line about being a resident of that city, remember State Preemption was put into place so citizens exercising their right to bear arms are not overly burdensome to restrict the right and as a citizen you have every right to be there presenting requesting their ordinances to come into compliance.
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
I found it helpful having a OC friendly senator (or atleast rights friendly one). If you aren't getting any answers from the city, contact your legislators. The republican caucus has looked at this issue already and made calls on my behalf before.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
Thanks Dave I appreciate it. Thus far I have identified 9 cities/towns that are in violation of state preemption...all within a few miles of me! :banghead:

I am currently working with Bonney Lake's public safety committee chair, I will however send out emails to Lakewood and Puyallup tomorrow. After that I will try and follow through with those before I move on to Edgewater, Yelm, Steilacoom, University Place, Sumner etc ad nauseaum...

Please cite the University Place code. I have reviewed this recently and found it to be in compliance....perhaps you have found another reference.

Title 9 of the UP code:

9.25.010 Firing of weapons prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm, airgun, or bow and arrow; or to hunt any game animal; or to set a trap for any animal within the city limits of the City of University Place.

(Ord. 170 § 1, 1997; Ord. 71 § 1, 1995).

...just says you can't shoot them not carry them....there is also a (weak) reference to the discharge of a weapon in self defense being exempt.

jt
 
Last edited:

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
Please cite the University Place code. I have reviewed this recently and found it to be in compliance....perhaps you have found another reference.

jt

They (University Place) may be in compliance. What DevilDoc and I were discussing was reviewing the RCWs and Municipal Codes for anything not in compliance. I guess DevilDoc got a bug up his butt to make a difference. Sounds like a plan to me.

I made a list of all the places I work and would like to know the carry laws of and DevilDoc must be on my same crypto. Let me know if you need help Doc and where you're working and I'll keep my little research project going and share whatever I get.
 

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
Please cite the University Place code. I have reviewed this recently and found it to be in compliance....perhaps you have found another reference.

Title 9 of the UP code:

9.25.010 Firing of weapons prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm, airgun, or bow and arrow; or to hunt any game animal; or to set a trap for any animal within the city limits of the City of University Place.

(Ord. 170 § 1, 1997; Ord. 71 § 1, 1995).

...just says you can't shoot them not carry them....there is also a (weak) reference to the discharge of a weapon in self defense being exempt.

jt

It is very possible that the code has been updated, however the UP code that I have run across online (directed to there by the UP homepage) states "except a duly appointed law enforcement officer, or those persons with a valid concealed pistol license, no person may carry a firearm with a projectile in any part of the mechanism in a city park."

Yes I am doing this from memory as I am on my Linux box right now and all my notes are on my Windoze box. I will however update this in the near future to reflect the code as I have read it online and include a reference...

2. Firearms. No person shall use, carry, or possess weapons of any description potentially inimical to wildlife and dangerous to human safety, or any kind of trapping device; provided, however, that firearms are permitted subject to the following limitations. No person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel and/or persons licensed to carry a concealed weapon shall possess a concealed firearm in a City park. No person shall aim or discharge a firearm in, into, or across any park area.

Nevermind though, apparently I read that part wrong..."firearms are permitted subject to the following limitations" Missed that part originally. I apologize and stand corrected, one to scratch off my list at least....
 
Last edited:

Deleted_User

Guest
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
807
Bump

Hey devildoc, did you fire off an e-mail to Puyallup yet? If not, I found the code and will start on it tomorrow.

Puyallup Municipal Code

Chapter 13.20
CONDUCT WITHIN CEMETERY
13.20.010 Dogs and firearms restricted.Persons with dogs or firearms shall not be permitted to enter the grounds, except that this shall not apply to personal service dogs or the use of firearms in any military service. (Ord. 2735 § 1, 2002; Ord. 1192 § 6(a), 1953).

This page of the Puyallup Municipal Code is current through 2959, passed July 13, 2010.

Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Puyallup Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
 
Top