Las Vegas v. Coupeville

Dave Workman · Jan 21, 2011

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-...-vegas-and-coupeville-common-sense-v-nonsense

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/4d5hj8e

amlevin · Jan 21, 2011

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.

ak56 · Jan 21, 2011

amlevin said:
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.

amlevin · Jan 21, 2011

ak56 said:
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.

BigDave · Jan 21, 2011

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

tombrewster421 · Jan 21, 2011

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.

BigDave · Jan 21, 2011

tombrewster421 said:
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.

tombrewster421 · Jan 21, 2011

BigDave said:
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.

BigDave · Jan 21, 2011

tombrewster421 said:
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.

tombrewster421 · Jan 21, 2011

BigDave said:
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.

Trigger Dr · Jan 21, 2011

tombrewster421 said:
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."

heresolong · Jan 21, 2011

amlevin said:
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'.

amlevin · Jan 21, 2011

tombrewster421 said:
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.

Metalhead47 · Jan 21, 2011

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

amlevin · Jan 21, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
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.

JoeSparky · Jan 21, 2011

heresolong said:
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!

ak56 · Jan 21, 2011

JoeSparky said:
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.

BigDave · Jan 21, 2011

JoeSparky said:
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.

amlevin · Jan 22, 2011

BigDave said:
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.

Bill Starks · Jan 22, 2011

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.

Las Vegas v. Coupeville

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Campaign Veteran

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

State Researcher