Wash Dept of Fish and Wildlife

[joeroket]

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

As a liong time Hunter Ed instructor, I have come to know Mikitik very well. He will do the best that you can expect to try to get resolution on this question, as it has a direct bearing on what is taught in the H Ed classes as well as the Master Hunter program.

That is very good to know. Thanks for the insight Trigger Dr.

 

[deanf]

imported post

so it wouldn't completely surprise me if State Government Agencies are also exempt from Preemption laws.

It's not that state agencies are exempt, it's that the preemption statute doesn't apply to them. Review it again. It's not that hard to figure out. It's written at about a 12th grade level.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

A 12th grade/senior level is actually pretty high.. on a side note, I bet most high school seniors would beat most 25+ year olds at any sort of grammar or historical trivial quiz seeing how it's all fresh in their minds, as oppose to post grads who don't always use these skills/knowledge on a regular basis.

Doesn't apply = "exempt" by the way.

 

[deanf]

imported post

No, an exemption requires a specific set-aside. That's not in the preemption statute.

The statute doesn't apply to state agencies because they are not specifically listed as being preempted, whereas only municipalities are, and under our British Common Law system, that which is not specifically prohibited is permitted.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

We're talking about the same thing using different words.

 

[deanf]

imported post

No there is a subtle but important difference.

An exemption for state agencies would imply that they are specifically empowered to regulate firearms and any other statute that might have been used as an affirmative defense to state agency regulations would be moot.

Mere non-applicability leaves open the door for the "traveling to or from a lawful outdoor activity" defense.

 

[Sparky508]

imported post

joeroket wrote:
Believe me, it will go somewhere. My state rep. will not hesitate to have the AG's office contact me directly. He has done it three times in the past for different issues, 2 of which were firearms issues.

How long ago did you get your response?



The time stamp was at 2:23. I am pretty excited to see something finally happen here.

Now if the weather would just cool off a little so I could get some sleep.....:cuss:

 

[alienbogey]

imported post

I'm not a lawyer, so take what follows with that in mind......

Aren't we talking the difference between laws and regulations?

The legislature has enacted a law (the RCW) that says one can carry a handgun while engaging in an outdoor activity.

The Department of Wildlife has promulgated a regulation (archery hunting rules) that says a person may not carry a handgun while archer hunting (unless a CPL holder).

I'd be very surprised if it is legal for a Washington bureaucratic entity to enact a regulation which contravenes state law.

The Legislature is vested with the power to write laws, not state agencies.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

alienbogey wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, so take what follows with that in mind......

Aren't we talking the difference between laws and regulations?

The legislature has enacted a law (the RCW) that says one can carry a handgun while engaging in an outdoor activity.

The Department of Wildlife has promulgated a regulation (archery hunting rules) that says a person may not carry a handgun while archer hunting (unless a CPL holder).

I'd be very surprised if it is legal for a Washington bureaucratic entity to enact a regulation which contravenes state law.

The Legislature is vested with the power to write laws, not state agencies.

That is my whole take on it. They say it is unlawful for a person without a a CPL to possess a pistol while archery hunting. They do have the authority to create penalties for rule violations but it certainly does not make it unlawful.

 

[Sparky508]

imported post

This is what I found to be the difference between the two:
Regulation: Milk must be removed from the shelves on a certain date
Law: The milk was not removed and the law was broke, people may get sick, and now you get sued by the sick people.:question:



So, ifthe reg is to prevent a bad situation, and a bad situation occurs, than your open to liable for having not followed the reg?

:banghead:

 

[deanf]

imported post

This is what I found to be the difference between the two:
Regulation: Milk must be removed from the shelves on a certain date
Law: The milk was not removed and the law was broke, people may get sick, and now you get sued by the sick people.

So, if the reg is to prevent a bad situation, and a bad situation occurs, than your open to liable for having not followed the reg?

Criminal Law
Civil Law
Torts
Common Law
Administrative rules and regulations

Read up on all of them. I expect a report by breakfast.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

deanf wrote:

This is what I found to be the difference between the two:
Regulation: Milk must be removed from the shelves on a certain date
Law: The milk was not removed and the law was broke, people may get sick, and now you get sued by the sick people.

So, if the reg is to prevent a bad situation, and a bad situation occurs, than your open to liable for having not followed the reg?

Criminal Law
Civil Law
Torts
Common Law
Administrative rules and regulations

Read up on all of them. I expect a report by breakfast.

In triplicate.

 

[Sparky508]

imported post

you know, everybody around here usually throws out the disclaimer that:

"I'm not a lawyer, but........ if you read subsection 6 of paragraph B under the subletting section of the form within the outer parameter of the document................"

Just take the damn bar exam would ya?