Washington state - ACTION URGENTLY NEEDED

[pax]

GOAL Alert 8-2008 15 June 2008

ACTION REQUIRED

Using last month's shooting incident at the Folklife Festival at Seattle Center as his excuse, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has announced he will take measures to ban the carry of firearms in all Seattle city facilities. Not just open carry (which is perfectly legal under Washington law), but even concealed carry by cleared and licensed individuals. Nickels has a long history of anti-gun activism, most of it of the "ready, fire, aim"category where he demonstrates his ignorance of the gun issue at every turn.

Back in the mid-1980s, the Washington legislature passed "state preemption" (RCW 9.41.290), reserving to the state the right to regulate almost all aspects of firearm regulation. The purpose of state preemption is to ensure law-abiding gun owners can travel across the state secure in the knowledge that they are not passing through or entering random "gun free zones" or other restrictive areas.

Mayor Nickels' stated intent is a clear violation of the spirit and the letter of state preemption. But that isn't stopping him.

To make matters worse, other municipalities have or are planning to jump on the local gun control bandwagon. The Montesano city council voted this week to ban all firearms in city parks ¬ again with CPL or without CPL. Other cities are considering similar action, all based on Nickels' declared defiance of state law.

RCW 9.41.290 reads as follows (note the last sentence of the section especially):

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Various courses of action can be followed to prevent Nickels' actions, should he choose to violate state preemption, among them a lawsuit. At least two state organizations are already considering a suit.

But other measures should be considered before filing suit. One of these is publication of an Attorney General's Opinion (AGO) that clearly states the purpose of preemption and puts Mayor Nickels and other on notice that they do not have the authority to regulate firearms beyond that prescribed by state law.

AGOs are drafted at the request of state agencies or state legislators. PLEASE CALL, E-MAIL OR WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS (Senator AND two Representatives) and ask that they request an Attorney General's Opinion clarifying the issue and intent of state preemption so that even gun-grabbing extremists like Mayor Nickels understand it.

This issue impacts EVERY GUN OWNER in Washington. First Seattle, then rural Montesano. Do you really believe arbitrary gun control ordinances can't come to your home town or county?

If you don't have contact information for your legislators, you can find it at:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx

Individual legislator e-mail addresses can be found at:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/memberemail/Default.aspx

The more legislators we have requesting an AGO on this critical issue, the sooner the Attorney General will act. Do not delay. Montesano has already passed a gun ban, Seattle threatens to go far beyond the Montesano ban. PLEASE ACT TODAY.

As soon as I've finished posting here, I'm headed over to my email to write a letter to my Representatives and Senator. I intend to point out to them that the cities are rebelling against the state legislatures' legal prerogatives, and that this threat to their political authority cannot be allowed to stand. Even if they don't care one way or the other about firearms rights, or even if they are against firearms, they should still care very much about this challenge to their political and legal authority.

That ought to hit them right where they live ...

pax

 

[fastbolt]

Are you trying to talk me into looking more at OR instead of WA for my retirement? ??

 

[dirtbos]

Neither one!

Given the political makeup of both states, I would not be confident in the future gun fights in either. I am looking to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc. None of these are perfect, much better than OR & WA (ideologically).

 

[fastbolt]

Given the political makeup of both states, I would not be confident in the future gun fights in either. I am looking to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc.

Sigh ...

At least both states aren't as far down the same road as CA has gone over the decades. I remember when I could buy ammunition in hardware & drug stores in CA when I was younger, as well as buy firearms and ammunition in the major dept chain stores in CA shopping malls, like Sears & Penneys. I remember the sporting goods/firearms dept being next to the men's clothing dept in a couple of stores.

It appears both of my children, and hence grand children , are going to be located in either WA or northern OR, and my wife still has a lot of family in WA (she was born there), so one or the other of those states is likely going to be my state of residence once I retire.

I lived in Medford, OR for just under a year about 30 years ago, and briefly stay there for a day or three when driving to WA just about every year since then. While it wouldn't be high on my list of places in which I'd again like to live, I do rather like the general country in southern OR. It's what northern CA could be if it wanted.

I've always liked the people I've met over the years in OR & WA, many of which are transplanted from many other states. Friendly folks.

I guess I'm looking to find the CA of 35-45 years ago.

NV and AZ both have some country which I admire, outside of the temperature extremes to be found, but they aren't on my list of retirement states. I know too many other cops who have retired there, or are planning to retire there. I plan to switch identities when I retire and become 'normal' again. Well, as 'normal' as I ever was, at any rate.

 

[dirtbos]

I may be too quick to judge

My wife and I are planning to make a number of trips in the next couple of years too a number of western states. We want to be sure that we make the right decision. One of those trips will be through Northern California (I have a number of relatives in Redding, CA) and then through Oregon. My wife has an aunt in Eugene Oregon and I want to stop at the Van's RV homebuilt aircraft factory (near Portland). We'll take a good look at the state then. My wife is very positive about the state. Who knows? Besides, given my age, things (gun rights, etc.) probably won't change in my life time anyway.

Mike

 

[MD_Willington]

Pax, care to whip up a form letter we can all use.. I know my reps will give it a look over if I send it to them.

 

[MD_Willington]

Form letter here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=370951

 

[Gray Peterson]

Both Oregon and Washington have a state constitutional RKBA provision. California does not. This is one of the reasons that OR/WA will not go down the same path as CA.

 

[dirtbos]

Lonnie - thanks for the info

That is a very good point. It does provide a reasonable level of protection. Unfortunately, California's larger counties are as good as lost to the cause. The other, more gun friendly counties CCW policy etc., can change with the election of a different sheriff. May issue here in CA creates uncertainty, for sure. OR & WA's shall issue policy is definitely a better situation. As I said, I was probably to quick to judge.

Mike