• 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.

South King Fire District restricts weapons carry on public property

YB-Idle

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
20
Location
Western Washington
"South King Chief Al Church said that if someone were discovered to be carrying on the department’s property, that person would be isolated and the police would be called to remove them."

Are you willing to be told by a fire chief that your legal right to carry, open or concealed, does not apply in 'his' department?

Even the Federal Way Police Chief Brian Wilson agrees with the right to carry "Our role is to enforce the state law, but also to protect the Constitution,” he said, so what does the fire chief think will happen when the police arrive?

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/fwm/news/117204133.html

Mark your calendar for the next regular board meeting
Tuesday March 22 at 3:00 pm
Station 68 - 1405 SW 312th St
Federal Way, Washington

Wouldn't they be surprised to see a room full of citizens exercising their rights?

Read more and follow the blog of the private citizen that brought this absurd policy to light:
http://southkingfire.net/
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
"South King Chief Al Church said that if someone were discovered to be carrying on the department’s property, that person would be isolated and the police would be called to remove them."

Are you willing to be told by a fire chief that your legal right to carry, open or concealed, does not apply in 'his' department?

Even the Federal Way Police Chief Brian Wilson agrees with the right to carry "Our role is to enforce the state law, but also to protect the Constitution,” he said, so what does the fire chief think will happen when the police arrive?

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/fwm/news/117204133.html

Mark your calendar for the next regular board meeting
Tuesday March 22 at 3:00 pm
Station 68 - 1405 SW 312th St
Federal Way, Washington

Wouldn't they be surprised to see a room full of citizens exercising their rights?

Read more and follow the blog of the private citizen that brought this absurd policy to light:
http://southkingfire.net/

Someone should send him a copy of the "Cherry" decision and underline the parts that allow them to prevent employees only because that rule "doesn't apply to members of the Public". BTW, isn't Federal Way PD more "firearm friendly" now?
 
Last edited:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
South King Fire District Policy Violates Washington State Law Firearms Preemption under Washington Revised Code 9.41.290 and, therefore, is Unenforceable.
 

DevinWKuska

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Spanaway
he he its King County.. its a liberal county. It is against the law for that ordinance to be enforced but you can bet your life savings youll be in court in front of left wing judge and jury before they reverse it. I try to avoid Seattle for that very reason. Too many LEO and judges in that area are left wingers...

So how exactly does the fire dept plan on "isolating" armed citizens? Maybe we should all plan a trip to go peacably assemble in front of his station OCing. Maybe he will come out and we can reason like adults... then again... maybe not.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
he he its King County.. its a liberal county. It is against the law for that ordinance to be enforced but you can bet your life savings youll be in court in front of left wing judge and jury before they reverse it. I try to avoid Seattle for that very reason. Too many LEO and judges in that area are left wingers...

So how exactly does the fire dept plan on "isolating" armed citizens? Maybe we should all plan a trip to go peacably assemble in front of his station OCing. Maybe he will come out and we can reason like adults... then again... maybe not.

Isolate with high pressure fire hose.
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
he he its King County.. its a liberal county. It is against the law for that ordinance to be enforced but you can bet your life savings youll be in court in front of left wing judge and jury before they reverse it. I try to avoid Seattle for that very reason. Too many LEO and judges in that area are left wingers...

So how exactly does the fire dept plan on "isolating" armed citizens? Maybe we should all plan a trip to go peacably assemble in front of his station OCing. Maybe he will come out and we can reason like adults... then again... maybe not.

You will be hard pressed to find a single OCer that has had an issue in Seattle. The police, everall, support our rights. The courts, particularly in King County have also ruled in our favor within the past year or so.

I think you will also find that the King County So is fully trained and the Sheriff advises people to arm themselves for protection. This is well documented in the press over the last several years as well.
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Isolate with high pressure fire hose.

Or circle him with several well fed firemen.

It would only take 3-4 of them like this guy
0cef01b794d45ada5a92f24de7703382.jpg
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
You will be hard pressed to find a single OCer that has had an issue in Seattle. The police, everall, support our rights. The courts, particularly in King County have also ruled in our favor within the past year or so.

I think you will also find that the King County So is fully trained and the Sheriff advises people to arm themselves for protection. This is well documented in the press over the last several years as well.

But you don't understand. He's the Chief and that means he's in charge. What's reason got to do with it?
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
"South King Chief Al Church said that if someone were discovered to be carrying on the department’s property, that person would be isolated and the police would be called to remove them."


Let him call the police. When they arrive, make them arrest the chief and any of his subordinates who interfere with your right to carry on public property that is NOT specifically prohibited by 9.41.300.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
"South King Chief Al Church said that if someone were discovered to be carrying on the department’s property, that person would be isolated and the police would be called to remove them."


Let him call the police. When they arrive, make them arrest the chief and any of his subordinates who interfere with your right to carry on public property that is NOT specifically prohibited by 9.41.300.

Now that I'd like to see. Wonder what the odds of that happening would be?
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
"South King Chief Al Church said that if someone were discovered to be carrying on the department’s property, that person would be isolated and the police would be called to remove them."

Are you willing to be told by a fire chief that your legal right to carry, open or concealed, does not apply in 'his' department?

Even the Federal Way Police Chief Brian Wilson agrees with the right to carry "Our role is to enforce the state law, but also to protect the Constitution,” he said, so what does the fire chief think will happen when the police arrive?

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/fwm/news/117204133.html

Mark your calendar for the next regular board meeting
Tuesday March 22 at 3:00 pm
Station 68 - 1405 SW 312th St
Federal Way, Washington

Wouldn't they be surprised to see a room full of citizens exercising their rights?

Read more and follow the blog of the private citizen that brought this absurd policy to light:
http://southkingfire.net/

I will be there, who else is coming?
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
So this is not the first time the fire chief has decided he is more important than...

the Constitution....

Should we invite the media???

South King Fire and Rescue's board of commissioners is at odds with a local resident — and an interpretation of state law — over videotaping public meetings.
At a special board meeting Nov. 4, chairman Bill Gates called attention to Jerry Galland, a resident of unincorporated King County who was filming the meeting. Gates asked the meeting's attendees if anyone objected to being filmed. Following an immediate closed executive session with an attorney, Gates told Galland to take down his video camera.
Joe Quinn, who provides legal counsel to South King Fire and Rescue, advised the board that Galland does not qualify as a media organization and therefore is not allowed to videotape board meetings. Quinn's conclusion is based on interpretation of the board's guideline 12.1, which says media such as "radio, television and photographic services" may freely record meetings. The board currently makes audio recordings of all meetings available to the public and allows the public to do the same.
Quinn said there is a difference between a media outlet and a private citizen who wants to videotape a meeting.
"The media are recognized instruments of the public," Quinn said on Monday. He said the media are held to higher standards in public and are unlikely to exploit people captured on videotape. "When you take an audio recording...you're not getting a physical likeness of the person in a medium you can use or transmit."
Quinn said such recordings could compromise public testimony by a citizen who did not give consent to be videotaped.
"If you allow completely unregulated videotaping, there's a chance it could have a chilling effect," Quinn said.
As a result of The Mirror's inquiry into this incident, the board of commissioners will revise its guidelines at a special meeting Nov. 15, Fire Chief Al Church confirmed Tuesday. The new guidelines will allow private citizens to videotape the board's public meetings, but prohibits videotaping of other private citizens who object, Church said.

Looking at the law
Bill Will, executive director of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, said there is no difference in the status between media and private citizens.
"The reporter is an agent of the public. They shouldn't have any more rights or privileges than the private citizen off the street," Will said. "You cannot prohibit anybody from videotaping the meeting."
According to the state's Open Public Meetings Act, conditions may not be placed upon the attendance of public meetings. Being allowed to attend a public meeting, but not being allowed to videotape it, can be interpreted as a condition.
"It's perfectly appropriate (to videotape) so long as they are not disruptive," said Timothy D. Ford, Assistant Attorney General for Government Accountability.
South King's board of commissioners is able to change its own policy. Citizens who want to enforce their rights could file a lawsuit and be entitled to attorney fees and costs, Ford said.
"It's the public attention that could bring about change," Ford said.
Galland was a District 30 candidate for the state Legislature this past summer. He also led an opposition effort against South King Fire and Rescue's Prop. 1, a proposed service benefit charge that failed in the August primary.
"All I was trying to do was accurately record what was going on so I could play it back," Galland said of the Nov. 4 board meeting. "These (fire commissioners) were elected by us. We voted for them to do our business in the public eye."

FYI
• The South King Fire and Rescue board of commissioners consists of five members who are elected by the public every six years. Current commissioners are chairman Bill Gates, vice-chairman James Fossos, Mark Freitas, Mark Thompson and John Rickert.
• According to a 1998 formal opinion by the state Attorney General: "A county does not have authority to ban video or sound recording of a meeting required to be open to the public by the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); the county could regulate recording only to the extent necessary to preserve order at the meeting and facilitate public attendance."
• According to the current South King Fire and Rescue board of commissioners guideline 12.1, titled Media Representation at Board Meetings: "All public meetings of the board shall be open to the media, freely subject to recording by radio, television and photographic services at any time provided that such arrangements do not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting. Seating space shall be provided for the media at each public meeting."
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Did you all forget about Estes v Vashon Fire District?

It is unpublished but the court sided with Vashon.

Estes Here

Estes was an unpublished opinion. Strike one.
Estes was from 2005, since then we have McDonald and Heller. Strike two.
Estes appealate court uses three arguments against: Strike three.

1) Cherry decision regarding an employee policy. See AGO #8
2) Second Amendment Claim that 2A does not apply to the states. See McDonald and the Seattle v Chan cases.
3) Article I Section 24 claim. Relies on information prior to state preemption RCW and the City of Renton ordinance that prohibits carrying firearms in places where alcholic beverages are dispensed by the drink.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Estes Here

Estes was an unpublished opinion. Strike one.
Estes was from 2005, since then we have McDonald and Heller. Strike two.
Estes appealate court uses three arguments against: Strike three.

1) Cherry decision regarding an employee policy. See AGO #8
2) Second Amendment Claim that 2A does not apply to the states. See McDonald and the Seattle v Chan cases.
3) Article I Section 24 claim. Relies on information prior to state preemption RCW and the City of Renton ordinance that prohibits carrying firearms in places where alcholic beverages are dispensed by the drink.

It may be unpublished but it shows how the court views the rule of disallowing firearms on fire district property to, supposedly, ensure the safety of firefighters and EMTs.

Heller has nothing to do with this as it based solely on allowing persons to keep functional firearms in their house for protection.

Chan may come into play, which I hope it does, however it's decision was that the rule created by Seattle was too sweeping and broad.

Don't get me wrong as I see this as being an unconstitutional rule, both state and federal. I am just playing devil's advocate because there is a decision, albeit unpublished, that shows the courts views. If it gets far enough and they rule in favor of a plaintiff then Estes basically becomes a void decision regardless of it's unpublished status.
 
Top