Spokane Training Bulletin...

[joeroket]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

Success. Mostly.

They're going to submit a recommendation to fix the law to the city council. The police chief and city attorney weren't thrilled to be having the discussion, but they eventually did agree and were friendly by the time we wrapped it up. I think they were expecting a wacko camo-wearing contrarian gunnie to show up, but what they got was a friendly, prepared, respectful (but firm) young man.

Unfortunately they were also quite pleased to announce they'd be submitting a plan to ban discharge (we don't currently have an ordinance), even in the rural outlying areas of the city's control. While state law does allow them to do this, I'd like to see if I can convince the city council to vote it down. There are many areas on the outskirts where people can and do shoot without endangering or bothering anyone else.

So I have my next project.

Good luck in Spokane!

What you should do is compromise on this one. Having a law prohibiting the discharge of a firearm is not a bad thing in a city environment, provided they have an exemption in there for self-defense. What you could do is to see if they would be willing to map out discharge prohibited areas and then reference the map in the code. Snohomish county does this for the discharge law.

Snohomish county code 10.12.010 specifies the no discharge areas and 10.12.020 is the shooting unlawful code. It is a nice compromise if they insist on having a no discharge law.

 

[fetch]

imported post

City codes probably be in a differnt thread, but Spokane does have a "Discharging of Firearm" ordinance, SMC 10.11.050. As approved last year. #4 was put in when the city annexed the property that the Spokane Rifle Club is on.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

joeroket wrote

What you should do is compromise on this one. Having a law prohibiting the discharge of a firearm is not a bad thing in a city environment, provided they have an exemption in there for self-defense. What you could do is to see if they would be willing to map out discharge prohibited areas and then reference the map in the code. Snohomish county does this for the discharge law.

Snohomish county code 10.12.010 specifies the no discharge areas and 10.12.020 is the shooting unlawful code. It is a nice compromise if they insist on having a no discharge law.

Good suggestion, and that end result would be acceptable to me, but I think I still have to oppose it on philosophical grounds. We already have laws for reckless endangerment, disturbing the peace, etc. Why not enforce what's already on the books? I fail to see how yet ANOTHER law will improve things.

Not to mention they had a discharge law which only fell off the books in the past few years, but the public is still operating under the assumption there is a discharge law. If they're having trouble with it now, while people believe it is illegal, what will be gained by making it actually illegal?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

joeroket wrote

What you should do is compromise on this one. Having a law prohibiting the discharge of a firearm is not a bad thing in a city environment, provided they have an exemption in there for self-defense. What you could do is to see if they would be willing to map out discharge prohibited areas and then reference the map in the code. Snohomish county does this for the discharge law.

Snohomish county code 10.12.010 specifies the no discharge areas and 10.12.020 is the shooting unlawful code. It is a nice compromise if they insist on having a no discharge law.

Good suggestion, and that end result would be acceptable to me, but I think I still have to oppose it on philosophical grounds. We already have laws for reckless endangerment, disturbing the peace, etc. Why not enforce what's already on the books? I fail to see how yet ANOTHER law will improve things.

Not to mention they had a discharge law which only fell off the books in the past few years, but the public is still operating under the assumption there is a discharge law. If they're having trouble with it now, while people believe it is illegal, what will be gained by making it actually illegal?

I hear ya on having to oppose on philisophical grounds and I too wish they would enforce the laws they have but in this case I fear they will not back down on a no discharge law. Compromising is something that I think they may actually do especially if they think they can control the areas that discharge is allowed.