Need a second opinion for Village Green

[GreatWhiteLlama]

While visiting Kingston with the fam this weekend, we stumbled upon a newly built park with a 'No Guns' sign. Anyway, before I write a letter, I ran across something I haven't seen before and was hoping I could get a second opinion on.

"As of April 25th the Village Green is community owned. Kitsap County has transferred ownership of the Park as well as the proceeds from the sale of a parcel on-which Senior Housing will be built to the MPD. This is an important step in the plan to bring a new community center and library to The Village Green Park."

Okay, so what's a MPD?

"An MPD is a "junior taxing district" funded by property tax.
According to state law as amended in 2002 an MPD can now be formed even by unincorporated areas like Kingston."

Alright, this seems to indicate that preemption should apply. Am I wrong? Is there some way they can apply the Sequim vs NWSPA here?

http://myvillagegreen.org/

 

[ak56]

While visiting Kingston with the fam this weekend, we stumbled upon a newly built park with a 'No Guns' sign. Anyway, before I write a letter, I ran across something I haven't seen before and was hoping I could get a second opinion on.

"As of April 25th the Village Green is community owned. Kitsap County has transferred ownership of the Park as well as the proceeds from the sale of a parcel on-which Senior Housing will be built to the MPD. This is an important step in the plan to bring a new community center and library to The Village Green Park."

Okay, so what's a MPD?

"An MPD is a "junior taxing district" funded by property tax.
According to state law as amended in 2002 an MPD can now be formed even by unincorporated areas like Kingston."

Alright, this seems to indicate that preemption should apply. Am I wrong? Is there some way they can apply the Sequim vs NWSPA here?

http://myvillagegreen.org/

Did a little searching through the RCW's. The key one is here:

RCW 35.61.040
Election — Creation of district.

If a majority of the voters voting on the ballot proposition authorizing the creation of the metropolitan park district vote in favor of the formation of a metropolitan park district, the metropolitan park district shall be created as a municipal corporation effective immediately upon certification of the election results and its name shall be that designated in the ballot proposition.

So an MPD is a municipal corporation. Municipalities are preempted. This is the same reason library districts are preempted.

There gun prohibition is in violation.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I am writing to let you know that your sign is in violation of Washington state law, RCW 9.41.290

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

Failure to correct this sign could result in a much higher cost to the community as a result of any legal actions taken against the park due to any police harassment that stems from this sign being posted.

People calling the police over this sign will also end up costing the County Sheriff man power that could have been used toward solving crimes.

I highly recommend that this sign be corrected, ASAP.

Thank you,

Concerned Citizen.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

While visiting Kingston with the fam this weekend, we stumbled upon a newly built park with a 'No Guns' sign. Anyway, before I write a letter, I ran across something I haven't seen before and was hoping I could get a second opinion on.

"As of April 25th the Village Green is community owned. Kitsap County has transferred ownership of the Park as well as the proceeds from the sale of a parcel on-which Senior Housing will be built to the MPD. This is an important step in the plan to bring a new community center and library to The Village Green Park."

Okay, so what's a MPD?

"An MPD is a "junior taxing district" funded by property tax.
According to state law as amended in 2002 an MPD can now be formed even by unincorporated areas like Kingston."

Alright, this seems to indicate that preemption should apply. Am I wrong? Is there some way they can apply the Sequim vs NWSPA here?

http://myvillagegreen.org/

Since they are not acting as a private business preemption applies.

 

[GreatWhiteLlama]

Thank you for the replies. A message has been sent. I will update this thread once I receive a response.

 

[Right Wing Wacko]

From their Park Rules, which seems to be compliant with State Law.


10.12.080 Firearms in parks.*
It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, firecracker, fireworks, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to shoot or fire any air gun, BB gun, bow and arrow or use any slingshot in any park, except the park director may authorize archery, slinging, fireworks and firing of small bore arms at designated times and places suitable for their use.

(Ord. 431 (2009) § 1, 2009: Ord. 6 (1971) § 8, 1971)

* Editor’s Note: For regulations governing firearms generally, see Chapter 10.24, Article III.

However note that their PDF does not include 10.24, only 10.12, however it's simply an excerpt of the Kitsap County Code.

 

[Bill Starks]

I am writing to let you know that your sign is in violation of Washington state law, RCW 9.41.290

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

Failure to correct this sign could result in a much higher cost to the community as a result of any legal actions taken against the park due to any police harassment that stems from this sign being posted.

People calling the police over this sign will also end up costing the County Sheriff man power that could have been used toward solving crimes.

I highly recommend that this sign be corrected, ASAP.

Thank you,

Concerned Citizen.

also don't forget to add the court case that started this....

Chan v Seattle
http://www.omwlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Firearms-Preemption-Chan-v.-City-of-Seattle.pdf

 

[rapgood]

From their Park Rules, which seems to be compliant with State Law.


10.12.080 Firearms in parks.*
It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, firecracker, fireworks, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to shoot or fire any air gun, BB gun, bow and arrow or use any slingshot in any park, except the park director may authorize archery, slinging, fireworks and firing of small bore arms at designated times and places suitable for their use.

(Ord. 431 (2009) § 1, 2009: Ord. 6 (1971) § 8, 1971)

* Editor’s Note: For regulations governing firearms generally, see Chapter 10.24, Article III.

However note that their PDF does not include 10.24, only 10.12, however it's simply an excerpt of the Kitsap County Code.

Note that 10.12.080 is lawful, as it doesn't (nor can it) prohibit possessing firearms in the park. The rules posted at the park reasonably can be interpreted to prohibit even lawful and mere possession there.

Upon second reading, I also note that they prohibit "having narcotics or other drugs in the park." I happen to take several prescription drugs on a daily basis. They want to prohibit me from having them with me? What about an eppy-pen for folks who are allergic to bee/wasp/hornet/yellow-jacket stings? They want to prohit possession of those in the park, as well? Are they really prepared to defend against a wrongful death action by the survivors of a sting victim resulting from not being allowed to have a prescribed medication in the park? What a bunch of morons!

 

[GreatWhiteLlama]

The issue is on the agenda for this month's commissioners meeting (August 19th).

I would really like to attend, but I do not think I'll be able to take the time off work necessary to catch the Edmonds/Kingston ferry run.

If anyone would like to attend:
"The Village Green MPD Commisioners meet the third Tuesday of the month at 6:30PM at the North Kitsap Fire House. Meetings are open to the public."

North Kitsap Fire House: www.nkfr.org

 

[Right Wing Wacko]

Note that 10.12.080 is lawful, as it doesn't (nor can it) prohibit possessing firearms in the park. The rules posted at the park reasonably can be interpreted to prohibit even lawful and mere possession there.

Upon second reading, I also note that they prohibit "having narcotics or other drugs in the park." I happen to take several prescription drugs on a daily basis. They want to prohibit me from having them with me? What about an eppy-pen for folks who are allergic to bee/wasp/hornet/yellow-jacket stings? They want to prohit possession of those in the park, as well? Are they really prepared to defend against a wrongful death action by the survivors of a sting victim resulting from not being allowed to have a prescribed medication in the park? What a bunch of morons!

I guess I need to leave my Insulin Pen at home

 

[Mainsail]

I am writing to let you know that your sign is in violation of Washington state law, RCW 9.41.290

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

Failure to correct this sign could result in a much higher cost to the community as a result of any legal actions taken against the park due to any police harassment that stems from this sign being posted.

That's a good start but you need to emphasize the safety aspect as well. It is a safety hazard because a police officer who isn't aware that the sign is not legally binding may draw his weapon when he encounters a citizen legally carrying a firearm in the park. If that citizen is inadvertently shot or injured as a result, especially now that they've been informed the sign is in error, it could obligate the municipality financially.

As an aside, I seriously doubt KCSO deputies would enforce it if it was only open carry (ie., not a domestic etc.).

 

[Mainsail]

From the park website:

10.12.080 Firearms in parks.*

It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, firecracker, fireworks, torpedo or explosive of any kind or to shoot or fire any air gun, BB gun, bow and arrow or use any slingshot in any park, except the park director may authorize archery, slinging, fireworks and firing of small bore arms at designated times and places suitable for their use.

(Ord. 431 (2009) § 1, 2009: Ord. 6 (1971) § 8, 1971)

* Editor’s Note: For regulations governing firearms generally, see Chapter 10.24, Article III.

Chapter 10.24, Article III is titled "Article 3 – No-Shooting Areas"

Oddly, Article 2 – Pistols and Other Short Firearms seems to be little more than a reiteration of the RCWs for carrying a firearm inside a vehicle, delivery to a minor, and obliterating the serial number.

10.24.050 Pistol defined.

“Pistol” as used in this article means any firearm with a barrel less than twelve inches in length.

(Ord. 25 (1971) (part), 1971)
10.24.060 General regulations.

(a) No person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle unless it is unloaded or carry a pistol concealed on his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor as provided for in RCW 9.41.

(b) No person shall deliver a pistol to any person under the age of twenty-one or to one who he has reasonable cause to believe has been convicted of a crime of violence, or is a drug addict, an habitual drunkard, or of unsound mind.

(c) No person shall change, alter, remove or obliterate the name of the maker, model, manufacturer’s number, or other mark of identification on any pistol. Possession of any pistol upon which any such mark has been changed, altered, removed or obliterated, shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has changed, altered, removed, or obliterated the same. This shall not apply to replacement barrels in old revolvers, which barrels are produced by current manufacturers and therefore do not have the marking on the barrels of the original manufacturers who are no longer in business.

(Ord. 25 (1971) (part), 1971)

So to *me* the whole thing sounds like a legalese circle-jerk to keep people from understanding the law so that they'll leave their gun at home. It's also a safety hazard.