IL gov's veto and Spokane mulls CCW restrictions

[Dave Workman]

Skip the Illinois stuff...it's frustrating.

MEANWHILE...in Spokane....

The Seattle case didn't teach these Spokane guys anything as they eyeball restrictions on CCW in public facilities.
:huh: :huh: :huh:

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[accessbob]

The mindset of these politicians is just hard to fathom. The evidence is right before them and yet they are so blind as to keep digging a pit which will continue to feed the criminals.

 

[duane black]

Dave,

Why would Spokane even waste time on this ? Do they not know what they are discussing is impossible in Washington as of now ?

 

[Diamondback]

Duane, like all committed Radicals they believe they know best and to hell with facts or law saying otherwise. And if they have to kill us all to get their "utopia"... well, one Proggie I know straight-up TOLD me they believe there are too many people on this rock already.

 

[slimmer13]

The Spokesman Review is not the best source for reliable info.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Wish there was a way to make the politicians pay for the court case when they lose, so the city doesn't have to use tax money

 

[Stomper]

Duane, like all committed Radicals they believe they know best and to hell with facts or law saying otherwise. And if they have to kill us all to get their "utopia"... well, one Proggie I know straight-up TOLD me they believe there are too many people on this rock already.

Tell your proggie friend, "no problem". We'll "thin the herd" starting with him first... then we'll see how how fast he holds to that ideology. (and it IS and ideology)

 

[rodell]

When the hysteria makes it to Spokane, we're in serious trouble.

 

[slimmer13]

The city council updated its ordinance to comply with state law.

Ordinance No. C35001
An ordinance relating to firearms; amending SMC sections 10.10.050 and
10.11.052.
The City of Spokane does ordain:
Section 1. That SMC section 10.10.050 is amended to read as follows:
10.10.050 Municipal Public Assembly Facilities
A. No person shall bring into or have in their possession while present at any City
public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled
substances, ((guns)) firearms, knives or other such devices which are weapons
or apparently capable of use as weapons.
B. The public assembly facilities are the INB Performing Arts Center, the
Convention Center, Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena, and Joe Albi Stadium.
C. This shall not prohibit legitimate operations of licensed concessionaires or other
persons authorized by the Spokane Public Facilities District, Chief Executive
Officer or designee, or the director of parks and recreation or designee for Joe
Albi Stadium.
D. The restriction set forth above in subsection (A) shall not apply to:
1. Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or
exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
2. Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
E. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the owner or operator of a public assembly
facility from adopting rules or policies regulating the possession of firearms
pursuant to and consistent with state law.
Section 2. That SMC section 10.11.052 is amended to read as follows:
10.11.052 Firearms and Dangerous Weapons
The following Revised Code of Washington (RCW) sections, including all future
amendments, additions, or deletions, are hereby adopted by reference and shall be
given full force and effect as if set forth in full.

City of Spokane - City Council

 

[solv3nt]

I wonder if they are aware that Washington is a preemptive state....

 

[Steve32]

 

[8ball]

The article is hard to interpret. I think the legal precedent they are referring to is the same public/private loophole used to allow rights restrictions at public venues that operate under a commercial lease e.g. the Seattle sports stadiums that ban guns despite the fact that taxpayers funded them.

Is there a WA court case applying this to firearm pre-emption though? I thought it was untested in court.

Edit: According to this OpenCarry thread, that Spokane Review article is completely incorrect!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=115598

 

[Dave Workman]

The article is hard to interpret. I think the legal precedent they are referring to is the same public/private loophole used to allow rights restrictions at public venues that operate under a commercial lease e.g. the Seattle sports stadiums that ban guns despite the fact that taxpayers funded them.

Is there a WA court case applying this to firearm pre-emption though? I thought it was untested in court.

Edit: According to this OpenCarry thread, that Spokane Review article is completely incorrect!

Spokane City Counsel Meeting July 8th

For the lease case: the Sequim case.
For the preemption case: the Seattle case.

In Sequim, the State supes upheld prohibitions as part of a lease agreement for a public facility
In Seattle, the state appeals court unanimously ruled the city violated preemption by adopting a regulation banning firearms from city parks facilities. The state supes declined to review, so the appeals court ruling is the law.

 

[solv3nt]

For the lease case: the Sequim case.
For the preemption case: the Seattle case.

In Sequim, the State supes upheld prohibitions as part of a lease agreement for a public facility
In Seattle, the state appeals court unanimously ruled the city violated preemption by adopting a regulation banning firearms from city parks facilities. The state supes declined to review, so the appeals court ruling is the law.

I don't know, my interpretation of an Oregonian article, was that they were banning open carry in public buildings, such as the one that they meet in, which is completely moot if you have a carry permit.

 

[Botte Hork]

The Seattle case didn't teach these Spokane guys anything as they eyeball restrictions on CCW in public facilities.

This is a simple but effective approach:

1) Introduce restrictive but easily overruled laws/regulations/city code.
2) Gun groups file lawsuits. (my reason to be a SAF life member, they do great work!)
3) Court decides law/regulation/code oversteps higher level preemption and kills it.


Hooray, right? Well, not so fast, because there are two big problems here:
1) Step 2 costs some time and often significant amounts of money. Most of us aren't Bloombergs, so that's an issue.
2) There is often a significant amount of time between step 2 and 3 during which the law/regulation/code is active and people's rights get infringed upon. So even though the law is illegal, it's still active for weeks or months. Enough time for the grabbing/anti-crowd to do their work.

And since money's not an issue when introducing legislation in a relatively anti-friendly legislature, we'll often see step 4 to create a perpetual cycle:

4) Return to step 1).



Sure we win, and Seattle was a big win, but cities still try to slither their sleazy snakes in.

 

[hermannr]

The Spokesman Review article is is completely WRONG with it's interpretation of the revised Spokane law. BTW: The SR is not the most reliable source of information. Try read the law that was passed.