Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Las Vegas v. Coupeville

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Las Vegas v. Coupeville

    LAS VEGAS — The good citizens of Coupeville — that town up on Whidbey Island now in the headlines for the questionably-legal decision to ban firearms retail stores within 1,000 feet of a school — need to spend some time at the Sands Convention Center in Las Vegas, where the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show wraps up today.
    Lacking time to get here, maybe a drive to Puyallup this weekend is in order, for the monthly Washington Arms Collectors’ gun show at the fairgrounds.


    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...nse-v-nonsense

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/4d5hj8e

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    What you say makes sense but they are within their rights under State Law. While RCW9.41.290 does preempt local laws on regulating firearms it does allow them to pass laws as stated in RCW9.41.300.

    RCW9.41.300

    (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

    Stupid, but not illegal. Not even questionable given the clarity of the law.
    "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
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    What you say makes sense but they are within their rights under State Law. While RCW9.41.290 does preempt local laws on regulating firearms it does allow them to pass laws as stated in RCW9.41.300.

    RCW9.41.300

    (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

    Stupid, but not illegal. Not even questionable given the clarity of the law.
    You overlooked the "may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone" part of that, so if other retail businesses are allowed, so are those that sell firearms, except as provided in referenced section (b)

    (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
    Plus if they did not post "advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale", even the five hundred feet would not apply.

    So you are right, not questionable given the clarity of the law. The ban within 1000' is unquestionably a violation of state law.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    You overlooked the "may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone" part of that, so if other retail businesses are allowed, so are those that sell firearms, except as provided in referenced section (b)



    Plus if they did not post "advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale", even the five hundred feet would not apply.

    So you are right, not questionable given the clarity of the law. The ban within 1000' is unquestionably a violation of state law.

    Part b only refers to a Minimum distance.

    As for the "more restrictively" clause it merely means that they can't restrict OTHER aspects of their business opperation than firearms. They can't restrict hours of operation of these businesses to less than others. They can't force them to provide any facilities other than those of other businesses. But since the whole point of the Statute is to allow restriction of firearm sales and location, they certainly can limit them as to location.
    "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?"

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    I read this they can restrict a business selling firearms within 500 ft of primary or secondary school but if another business is with in that zone they cannot be more restrictive and thus they do not have the authoritative of law to restrict it that is not in the purview of (b).

    If they are denying a business selling firearms that has other business operating in the same zone, I feel they do not have that authority.

    (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in
    [(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.]
    of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.

    [ ] Added for emphasis
    Last edited by BigDave; 01-21-2011 at 12:43 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    If there's a federal law stating that you can't bring a gun within 1000 feet, wouldn't their law just prevent people from breaking that law? Maybe that's where their logic came from. Theoretically, a person buying a gun could be ticketed as soon as he steps out the door onto the sidewalk.
    Last edited by tombrewster421; 01-21-2011 at 04:38 PM.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  7. #7
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    If there's a federal law stating that you can't bring a gun within 1000 feet, wouldn't their law just prevent people from breaking that law? Maybe that's where their logic came from. Theoretically, a person buying a gun could be ticketed as soon as he steps out the door onto the sidewalk.
    Unless they have a CPL.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  8. #8
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Unless they have a CPL.
    Only if the CPL is from the same state as the school is in of course. Stupid law. I was just trying to show the cities possible logic. Personally, I think teachers should have a responsibility to carry guns in the classroom to protect the children, who are our future.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  9. #9
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Only if the CPL is from the same state as the school is in of course. Stupid law. I was just trying to show the cities possible logic. Personally, I think teachers should have a responsibility to carry guns in the classroom to protect the children, who are our future.
    Of course, we are talking about here in Washington where we are located correct .
    I concur as well as allowing teachers to be armed as well.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  10. #10
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Of course, we are talking about here in Washington where we are located correct .
    I concur as well as allowing teachers to be armed as well.
    Yes, but a visitor of the state could be ticketed unless they have a Washington CPL.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Only if the CPL is from the same state as the school is in of course. Stupid law. I was just trying to show the cities possible logic. Personally, I think teachers should have a responsibility to carry guns in the classroom to protect the children, who are our future.
    Not all teachers... I can think of a couple teachers (LaTourneau) that the students should have been protected from.
    Before the internet grammar police speak up, I will quote my 8th grade english teacher. "never use a preposition to end a sentence with."
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 01-21-2011 at 05:00 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Part b only refers to a Minimum distance.
    Disagree. "may restrict the business to not less than 500 feet" means that they can keep a business from being within 500 feet. Doesn't mean that they can increase the distance that has been specified in state law. And then only if they post signs advertising firearm sales.

    However, they are clearly in violation at the 1000' mark unless they restrict all businesses from being within 1000'.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    Personally, I think teachers should have a responsibility to carry guns in the classroom to protect the children, who are our future.
    Can't say that I totally agree with this. Some of the teachers I have met would be a bigger hazard to the kids if they were armed. It's bad enough that we allow some of them to have access to our children's minds.
    Last edited by amlevin; 01-21-2011 at 05:15 PM.
    "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
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Gotta love the thought process here....

    Cuz you know there's just sooooo many gun stores in Coupeville as it is, a little regulation won't hurt
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Gotta love the thought process here....

    Cuz you know there's just sooooo many gun stores in Coupeville as it is, a little regulation won't hurt
    What I'd like to see is the hubub if someone wanted to open a topless joint in Coupville. That would make for some interesting Council Meetings.
    "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?"

  16. #16
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by heresolong View Post
    Disagree. "may restrict the business to not less than 500 feet" means that they can keep a business from being within 500 feet. Doesn't mean that they can increase the distance that has been specified in state law. And then only if they post signs advertising firearm sales.

    However, they are clearly in violation at the 1000' mark unless they restrict all businesses from being within 1000'.
    except the "grandfathering" portion allows a shorter grandfather period for firearms than for other businesses. So, all firearms stores get a 1 - 2 week grandfather period and the other stores get 50-100 YEARS!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    except the "grandfathering" portion allows a shorter grandfather period for firearms than for other businesses. So, all firearms stores get a 1 - 2 week grandfather period and the other stores get 50-100 YEARS!
    Read it again:

    (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    except the "grandfathering" portion allows a shorter grandfather period for firearms than for other businesses. So, all firearms stores get a 1 - 2 week grandfather period and the other stores get 50-100 YEARS!
    Last I looked having a business grandfathered means since it was there before the ordinance or law was enacted they still can operate as before.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Last I looked having a business grandfathered means since it was there before the ordinance or law was enacted they still can operate as before.
    But they can limit the amount of time it does so.

    There are also other considerations. Remodeling, Changing Signs, Enlarging, and other such things a business may want to do can be limited. "Grandfathering" only insures that the original business may operate for a given period of time in it's original form.

    Grandfathering is supposedly done so that the property owner can meet their mortgage, franchisee, or other legal obligations which are often based on the continued operation of the business.
    "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?"

  20. #20
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    When I looked into getting a C&R license and went to the city of Tacoma to get a business license I was told that because I was within 500 feet of a elementary school it would not be granted.

  21. #21
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    Read it again:
    Yep, You got me! I mis-read or mis-remembered it!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    When I looked into getting a C&R license and went to the city of Tacoma to get a business license I was told that because I was within 500 feet of a elementary school it would not be granted.
    ?
    Why would you need a business licence to get a C&R licence?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  23. #23
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    ?
    Why would you need a business licence to get a C&R licence?
    I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the application was read wrong. A business license IS required for a standard FFL but not for "Collectors".
    "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?"

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    ?
    Why would you need a business licence to get a C&R licence?
    Most municipalities require a business license for people that do business and a C&R is defacto proof that you intend to operate a firearms business.
    "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

  25. #25
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    Most municipalities require a business license for people that do business and a C&R is defacto proof that you intend to operate a firearms business.
    Not at all. A C&R (curio & relic) licence specifically prohibits one from "doing business." A C&R holder can sell off guns in his collection with the aim of acquiring different ones, but ordering a gun specifically to sell to someone else is sehr verboten. Basically all a C&R licence "allows" one to do is to have guns shipped to their home for their own collection.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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