• 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.

Preemption, Article 1 Section 24 and & Outdoor Music Festivals

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,310
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
[h=3]Not to mention recent SCOTUS cases, we know this is a law that "needs" to be changed but under current laws is it a law that can & should be repealed? This law has been on the books since 1971. I'm still doing data research on firearm injuries at these events but I see no reason this law cannot be done away with. Why is it ok to carry at stadiums, fairs and such but NOT at the festival?


70.108.010
Legislative declaration.[/h]The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals by assuring that proper sanitary, health, fire, safety, and police measures are provided and maintained. This invocation of the police power is prompted by and based upon prior experience with outdoor music festivals where the enforcement of the existing laws and regulations on dangerous and narcotic drugs, indecent exposure, intoxicating liquor, and sanitation has been rendered most difficult by the flagrant violations thereof by a large number of festival patrons.
[1971 ex.s. c 302 § 19.]
Notes:
Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
[h=3]70.108.150
Firearms — Penalty.[/h]It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[2012 c 117 § 424; 1972 ex.s. c 123 § 5.]
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
673
Location
Idaho
The sad thing is that it ISN'T "ok" to carry at stadiums and fairs because even the public ones have been abusing pre-emption through "leasing" via the Sequim decision. We need that case overturned.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Not to mention recent SCOTUS cases, we know this is a law that "needs" to be changed but under current laws is it a law that can & should be repealed? This law has been on the books since 1971. I'm still doing data research on firearm injuries at these events but I see no reason this law cannot be done away with. Why is it ok to carry at stadiums, fairs and such but NOT at the festival?


70.108.010
Legislative declaration.


The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals by assuring that proper sanitary, health, fire, safety, and police measures are provided and maintained. This invocation of the police power is prompted by and based upon prior experience with outdoor music festivals where the enforcement of the existing laws and regulations on dangerous and narcotic drugs, indecent exposure, intoxicating liquor, and sanitation has been rendered most difficult by the flagrant violations thereof by a large number of festival patrons.
[1971 ex.s. c 302 § 19.]
Notes:
Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
70.108.150
Firearms — Penalty.


It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[2012 c 117 § 424; 1972 ex.s. c 123 § 5.]

I'm going to go with a wild shot in the dark and say this has to do with a little speedway in California and a famous (and amazingly still going) rock band and a few of their friends.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
The main problem with this sort of thing is differing levels of judicial scrutiny.

The courts use different standards of (effectively) evidence when considering whether a law violates rights when it appears to violate the right to freedom of expression than when it appears to violate the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, laws that are obvious violations of the 2nd amendment or Article 1, Section 24 get judicial approval, despite the fact that an identically worded law applied to the first amendment gets struck down swiftly.

The courts are allowed to consider so-called compelling government interests when considering the right to bear arms, that they are not allowed to consider when the topic is a restraint upon speech. Despite the fact that governments have a greater interest in controlling political speech than they do controlling firearms.

What we need to do is have one standard (the more strict one, of course) for consideration of all such rights and their interaction with statutes, not the varying strictness we have now.

Unfortunately, doing so would likely take a constitutional amendment.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
596
Location
Stanwood, WA
The main problem with this sort of thing is differing levels of judicial scrutiny.

The courts use different standards of (effectively) evidence when considering whether a law violates rights when it appears to violate the right to freedom of expression than when it appears to violate the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, laws that are obvious violations of the 2nd amendment or Article 1, Section 24 get judicial approval, despite the fact that an identically worded law applied to the first amendment gets struck down swiftly.

The courts are allowed to consider so-called compelling government interests when considering the right to bear arms, that they are not allowed to consider when the topic is a restraint upon speech. Despite the fact that governments have a greater interest in controlling political speech than they do controlling firearms.

What we need to do is have one standard (the more strict one, of course) for consideration of all such rights and their interaction with statutes, not the varying strictness we have now.

Unfortunately, doing so would likely take a constitutional amendment.

I am of the opinion that lawful open carry is an expression of political belief that is protected by the First Amendment...
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I am of the opinion that lawful open carry is an expression of political belief that is protected by the First Amendment...

Oh, I agree completely. Unfortunately, the courts generally do not consider any rights to be violated when they tell you that you can't be armed in public. First and second amendments use almost identical language. Article I, Section 24 is even more explicit. Doesn't seem to make a difference. The courts still insist the words mean different things when talking about different rights.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
[h=3]Not to mention recent SCOTUS cases, we know this is a law that "needs" to be changed but under current laws is it a law that can & should be repealed? This law has been on the books since 1971. I'm still doing data research on firearm injuries at these events but I see no reason this law cannot be done away with. Why is it ok to carry at stadiums, fairs and such but NOT at the festival?


70.108.010
Legislative declaration.[/h]The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals by assuring that proper sanitary, health, fire, safety, and police measures are provided and maintained. This invocation of the police power is prompted by and based upon prior experience with outdoor music festivals where the enforcement of the existing laws and regulations on dangerous and narcotic drugs, indecent exposure, intoxicating liquor, and sanitation has been rendered most difficult by the flagrant violations thereof by a large number of festival patrons.
[1971 ex.s. c 302 § 19.]
Notes:
Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 302: See note following RCW 9.41.010.
[h=3]70.108.150
Firearms — Penalty.[/h]It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport, or convey, or to have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[2012 c 117 § 424; 1972 ex.s. c 123 § 5.]



But lets say I am a CEO of company X and I have decided to hire the Rolling Stones to play (Pepsi did this some years back) in an outdoor venue for MY employees. Does the statue still forbid the carrying of weapons? Does festival mean multiple bands? And since only employees are allowed is it considered a private enterprise and not covered under the ridiculous The legislature hereby declares it to be the public interest, and for the protection of the health, welfare and property of the residents of the state of Washington to provide for the orderly and lawful conduct of outdoor music festivals... ?
 
Top