Richard6218
Regular Member
imported post
Here is the edited copy of the cover letter that has had a lot of trouble translating from the original MS Word format (.doc). With some help from Gene Beasley (Thanx, Gene ) I've been able to clean it up so it will be a lot more readable. It still isn't exactly as I wrote it -- I had some trouble using the Tab key to move lines around, but it's reasonably close to the original. Sorry for all the hassle.
(Sunday 11/9) Just discovered a major gaffe in my description of 9.41.300. I've corrected that in bold/red.
Tuesday when I went to drop off my ballot at the Ferndale Library I noticed a sign outside the door that I had never noticed before: "NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND ALLOWED IN THIS BUILDING". That got me on a roll, soI gathered all the legal weapons I could find including copies of RCW 9.41.290. -300, -270 and -050 as well as AGO 1982 No. 14 and AGO 2008 No. 8 and put them together with a cover letter and bound them in a nifty multi-compartment folder. I called the City Administrator, Greg Young and set up an appointment for today. The meeting was very cordial, and he listened as I cited the problems with the sign. He seemed to be completely un-aware of the whole field of firearms, though it's possible he was just downplaying. He took my package and promised to refer it to others in the city government including the PD and mayor. It will be VERY interesting to get the feedback.
Here's my cover letter:
[align=center]
HAND DELIVERED[/align]
November 7, 2008
City of Ferndale
Mr. Greg Young, City Administrator
PO Box 936
2095 Main Street
Ferndale, WA 98248
Re: Firearms sign at Library
Dear Mr. Young:
It has come to my attention that there is a sign posted at the Ferndale Library which states: “NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND ALLOWED IN THIS BUILDING”.
I have attempted to identify a Ferndale ordinance supporting the policy stated in the sign, but have been unable to find one in the Code displayed in the City’s website. Whether or not this policy is codified, I must take this opportunity to point out that any prohibition against firearms by a municipality or county in the State of Washington is contrary to RCW 9.41.290, which is the Section pre-empting the entire field of firearms regulation to the State. That section begins: “The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state …”
In addition to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 24 of the State of Washington Constitution, in general Chapter 9.41 defines the State’s regulation of the field of firearms. The Sections that most closely apply in this case are these:
9.41.290 is the statement of State pre-emption, as notedabove;
9.41.270(2)(c) protects the citizen’s right to openly carry a firearm for the purpose of self-protection and protection of others against the use of“…unlawful force by a third person.”
9.41.300 lists and defines such circumstances and locationswhich areexceptions to the generalprohibition set forth in Section 290. These are restricted areas of jails,law enforcement facilities, courts and court buildings, on-sale liquor establishments and mental health facilities. It also allows municipalitiesand counties to restrict discharge of firearms within their jurisdictions.
9.41.050 defines the requirements for licensed concealed carry of firearms.
The Attorney General issued an opinion letter, AGO 1982 No. 14 analyzing the issue of pre-emption with constitutional and case law references. Three questions were asked by State Senator Al Williams (32nd District), first of which was: “May a municipality or county prohibit the sale or possession of a handgun within its jurisdiction?” The answer to that question was “in the negative”.
Last month, in response to a question asked by State Senator Bob Morton (7th District) and State Representative Kevin Van De Wege (24th District) the Attorney General on October 13 issued AGO 2008 No. 8. The question was:
Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibitspossession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities?
Again, with references made to relevant RCW, constitutional and case law applications, the answer was No.
In view of the facts I have presented, I request that you (1) remove the above-mentioned sign, (2) initiate a repeal of any ordinance in support of the sign, (3) immediately cease any enforcement of the policy stated, and (4) instruct all affected City employees about the issues addressed here.
I have enclosed copies of the RCW Sections as referenced as well as complete copies of the two Attorney General Opinion letters.
Respectfully,
Here is the edited copy of the cover letter that has had a lot of trouble translating from the original MS Word format (.doc). With some help from Gene Beasley (Thanx, Gene ) I've been able to clean it up so it will be a lot more readable. It still isn't exactly as I wrote it -- I had some trouble using the Tab key to move lines around, but it's reasonably close to the original. Sorry for all the hassle.
(Sunday 11/9) Just discovered a major gaffe in my description of 9.41.300. I've corrected that in bold/red.
Tuesday when I went to drop off my ballot at the Ferndale Library I noticed a sign outside the door that I had never noticed before: "NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND ALLOWED IN THIS BUILDING". That got me on a roll, soI gathered all the legal weapons I could find including copies of RCW 9.41.290. -300, -270 and -050 as well as AGO 1982 No. 14 and AGO 2008 No. 8 and put them together with a cover letter and bound them in a nifty multi-compartment folder. I called the City Administrator, Greg Young and set up an appointment for today. The meeting was very cordial, and he listened as I cited the problems with the sign. He seemed to be completely un-aware of the whole field of firearms, though it's possible he was just downplaying. He took my package and promised to refer it to others in the city government including the PD and mayor. It will be VERY interesting to get the feedback.
Here's my cover letter:
[align=center]
HAND DELIVERED[/align]
November 7, 2008
City of Ferndale
Mr. Greg Young, City Administrator
PO Box 936
2095 Main Street
Ferndale, WA 98248
Re: Firearms sign at Library
Dear Mr. Young:
It has come to my attention that there is a sign posted at the Ferndale Library which states: “NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND ALLOWED IN THIS BUILDING”.
I have attempted to identify a Ferndale ordinance supporting the policy stated in the sign, but have been unable to find one in the Code displayed in the City’s website. Whether or not this policy is codified, I must take this opportunity to point out that any prohibition against firearms by a municipality or county in the State of Washington is contrary to RCW 9.41.290, which is the Section pre-empting the entire field of firearms regulation to the State. That section begins: “The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state …”
In addition to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 24 of the State of Washington Constitution, in general Chapter 9.41 defines the State’s regulation of the field of firearms. The Sections that most closely apply in this case are these:
9.41.290 is the statement of State pre-emption, as notedabove;
9.41.270(2)(c) protects the citizen’s right to openly carry a firearm for the purpose of self-protection and protection of others against the use of“…unlawful force by a third person.”
9.41.300 lists and defines such circumstances and locationswhich areexceptions to the generalprohibition set forth in Section 290. These are restricted areas of jails,law enforcement facilities, courts and court buildings, on-sale liquor establishments and mental health facilities. It also allows municipalitiesand counties to restrict discharge of firearms within their jurisdictions.
9.41.050 defines the requirements for licensed concealed carry of firearms.
The Attorney General issued an opinion letter, AGO 1982 No. 14 analyzing the issue of pre-emption with constitutional and case law references. Three questions were asked by State Senator Al Williams (32nd District), first of which was: “May a municipality or county prohibit the sale or possession of a handgun within its jurisdiction?” The answer to that question was “in the negative”.
Last month, in response to a question asked by State Senator Bob Morton (7th District) and State Representative Kevin Van De Wege (24th District) the Attorney General on October 13 issued AGO 2008 No. 8. The question was:
Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibitspossession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities?
Again, with references made to relevant RCW, constitutional and case law applications, the answer was No.
In view of the facts I have presented, I request that you (1) remove the above-mentioned sign, (2) initiate a repeal of any ordinance in support of the sign, (3) immediately cease any enforcement of the policy stated, and (4) instruct all affected City employees about the issues addressed here.
I have enclosed copies of the RCW Sections as referenced as well as complete copies of the two Attorney General Opinion letters.
Respectfully,