Mood:
incredulousTopic: Second-Amendment
Welcome to Tri Cities WA, where local Government has nothing but CONTEMPT for Law and Constitution. See Richland about to be sued out of existance? Why are their ATTORNEYS COMPLICIT in this? They surely can read the law?
EDIT. It looks as if the Tri Cities Herald is complicit in these fabrications. I'll bring the evidence out shortly. Part of it is reproduced below in excerpts from the second article.
"We" (Bob and I) confronted the City of Richland, by letter and in open Council Meeting, about their illegal Ordinance banning "weapons" in Howard Amon Park. We were NOT the first to do so. The big green sign at the Community Center entrance (sidebar- naught used as it is, so why post the main sign there? Its an EMBARASSMENT they don't want posted at the Lee entrance) read:
"Weapons prohibited, including paintball guns"
[see below for digitized audio of our comments to the Richland City Council]
Read my letter to and letter from the City of Richlands Attorney Lampson:
(links on that page)
Read the first (first relative to our action) story in the Herald:
and read today's story in the Tri Cities Herald about signs being changed:
It's Good to see the Herald has the time to at least report on CRITICAL ISSUES LIKE FREEDOM, when the local Tee Vee and Radio don't seem to have the electricity spare to "investigate" these issues, especially when KEPR bleats like sheep about their "investigating to give people a voice." KEPR has time to "investigate a leaking soda can topper," (a real menace to society!) but don't have time to "investigate" lawlessness and doing so after REFUSING to look into my evidence of a REAL ESTATE FRAUD conspiracy in Richland. Does the lawbreaking in Richland ever end? Recently they were busted, if I recall the TV news report, for housing fraud and diverting funds. Now Tee Vee has time for that!
Todays news story on the Herald is most interesting. Let's analyse it, I'm pasting my comments to the second article hereafter. Im not reposting the Heralds story because I, UNLIKE THE CITIES/COUNTY HAVE RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Its called "Copyright,"
Quotes from the story are in " quotes "
My responses are in [ brackets]
======
"...Fyall, Benton County's ...staff review signs at county parks ... county prosecutor's office to review the county's park ordinance.
"We wanted to take a look before someone else did," Fyall said."
[ The County have ALREADY been challenged on this issue by Tri Cities Shooting Association (TCSA -"Rattlesnake Range") as I recall the comment by, best I recall, a Board Member of TCSA, that the County had illegally (and most stupidly) posted a signprohibiting firearms use- GET THIS - AT or NEAR the RANGE. Its a County Facility FOR shooting. I understand that after TCSA called their attention to it, the County changed the sign.
For a more accurate description of those events, you'll have to talk with TCSA, I wasnt involved in the first incident, Im just telling what I heard while I presented my letter to the REICHland City Council to TCSA in a meeting. ]
========
"The county's ordinance and the park signs say discharging weapons in parks is not allowed...Fyall said... signs ...say it's unlawful to discharge them (firearms)."
[ ONLY CONDITIONALLY TRUE): THE LAW OF THIS STATE, says this:
"RCW 9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged... "
There is NO Blanket prohibition on discharge, the specification is "likely to cause harm." The County ( I assume) has posted an apparently correct sign on the switchbox at the rail crossing on Duportail at 240 bypass in Richland, North side of the street.
The purpose of this is to intimidate people into thinking they cannot use firearms to defend themselves. If there was a blanket prohibition, then there would be a defacto ban on their use, where said ban is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.
========
"Since the sign at Howard Amon Park was brought to the attention of the Richland City Council, its language has been changed [1]. It now reads, "Except for firearms per (Revised Code of Washington) 9.41, no weapons are permitted in the park per (Richland Municipal Code) 9.22.070(2). [2]"
" [ bracketed numerals supplied]
[ [1] The sign was changed TWICE before this, once to REMOVE the prohibition on PAINTBALL GUNS, and the second time, after I ridiculed this on the Tri Cities Tea Party website, TO PUT IT BACK. So this is the THIRD time its been "changed."
[2] THERE IS NO ORDINANCE, it was REPEALED by the authority of the Washington LEGISLATURE in the Pre-emption Statute and I quote the head Attorney of the State, McKenna in AGO2008 #8:
" The requirement in RCW 9.41.290 that firearms laws adopted by cities be “consistent with this chapter” necessarily implies that inconsistent laws are invalid. RCW 9.41.290 contains additional language, however, that renders this implication explicit. RCW 9.41.290 provides, in part:
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.
(Emphasis added.) In our judgment, the plain language of RCW 9.41.290 demonstrates that the Legislature intended to broadly preempt local laws relating to firearms."
http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188 ]
=========
"Strong said the city's ordinance regarding firearms in parks was modified earlier this year to bring it into compliance with state law."
So Strong is making law now from the Parks Department? Or is he suddenly an Attorney? If he's versed in Law, why didn't he get it right in the first place? It's clear he made up his own illegal signs!
=========
"Rick Terway, Pasco administrative and community services director, said concealed weapon permit holders can carry concealed firearms in Pasco parks, but he was unsure if firearms could be carried in plain view."
[[ It is irrelavent whether he is lacking in education on WA LAW, or HIS OWN CITY CODE (9.24.020, page 6). Open Carry is not Legal, for law has no hold on the question except to make some Unconstiutional restrictions as far as restricted areas and concealed carry. The STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL knows its "allowed."
Firearms CAN be carried in plain view in ANY part of this State, whether he knows it or not, or likes it or not, and BOTH the US and WA Constiutions FORBID PASCO from infringing on that Right.
Now we need to work on those unConstitutional restrictions on concealed carry a restricted areas!
See: http://www.pasco-wa.gov/WebApp/MunicipalCodesandOrdinances
page 6:
9.24.020 WEAPONS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING BODILY HARM - UNLAWFUL
ACTS - PENALTIES - EXCEPTIONS.
(a) It is unlawful for anyone to carry, exhibit, display or draw any firearm,
dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon or imitation of any weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, excepting firearms, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to injure another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons or for the security of their property. (large font supplied)]
EDIT. YOU MUST be kidding me, it took me 5 times to read this to catch the contradiction in Pascos ordinance. Do you see it? Read it carefully. This section is VOID.
LOL x 10
(laughing out loud at Pasco)
=======
After that, there's not much left in the article!
So, what's going on here? It's simple. Cities and Municipalities all across the US are attempting to (I use "attempt" because I refuse to use "enact" as it might be seen as giving credibility) outlaw firearms possession. See:
for details on this in other States.
Why? They are attempting to subvert the Constitution and emplace a Police State which THEY control, by attempting to divert the subject of firearms (right to bear) into LAW, where they can manipulate and control it.
Now, the audio:
https://second-amendment.tripod.com/counrem.wav
The file is 11.x mB, large hi quality file from a marginal recording. If its too unwieldy, let me know and I'll convert it to a smaller file.
First up, Bob, whose comments cover part of what I was going to talk about, but the Council and Parks Director blew that out of the water with their FALSE STATEMENTS. It couldn't have gone any better.
The voices in the tape after Bobs are the City Attorney and Parks Director, who state, FOR THE RECORD, that the Ordinance and sign have been dealt with. If so, then why the immediate statement afterwards that 'we're looking into correcting the sign?'
The City Attorney had BETTER know full well about pre-emption and repeal, I DO, as does Attorney General McKenna.
Yes, the sign had been changed TWICE, but they think I'm not paying attention. This is how they manipulate issues like this, try to sneak them in under the radar.
When I talked with Dave Workman at the Second Amendment Foundation, on the phone, he literally broke out in LAUGHTER when I told him about the sign being changed to first remove the restriction on painball guns, then putting it back.
If money is the issue, then why weren't we able to get it right the FIRST time, instead of the third? Changing the sign is not the issue, it can be modified without replacement.
How about not making an ILLEGAL ordinance in the first place? Would that save money, devote City resources to other important issues like a FAILED RECYCLING PROGRAM thats financially under-water?
Instead of wasting City time, the City Council should have followed ITS OWN ATTORNEYS ADVICE that such Ordinance was UNNECESSARY as State Law already covers it.
And this was after they ALL had the gall to state the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of these United States, and to the Republic for which it stands?
DON'T USE MY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO MY FLAG, YOU DISGRACE IT.
==============
EDIT: I've received and recorded troubling evidence that this web of deceit and mis reporting may have a source INSIDE the TRI CITIES HERALD. Stay tuned for more. I just got an email from the Herald defending these erroneous statements with erroneous arguments, apparently at the order of TCH Management.
Both TCH articles are misrepresenting both Law and the Constitution. The above analysis proves it.
Someone in TCH management, "Andy" I assume, just disabled my on line account for flagging posts after a story, where said posts were in clear violation of the TCH website rules and contained LIBEL against other users.
Newspapers ought not allow that kind of conduct.
Stay tuned race fans, this is going to get REAL interesting. Watch what happens when Leftists and Subversives have their tactics turned back on them. They go out of their senses with rage, which is expected since they never have anything to go on but manufactured rage about invented social problems (like fear of firearms for example).
-------------- 11 Dec 09
REICHlands Ordinance/Sign STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL/ ILLEGAL
Letter to COR, their Attorney and RPD:
------------------------------
David R Campbell
PO 1336
Richland WA 99352-1336
City of Richland Council
COR RPD, Attorney Lampson
505 Swift Blvd
Richland WA 99352-1336 11 Dec 2009
Re: Amon Park sign STILL ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Today, 11 Dec 09, I went to the large sign at Amon Park at the Richland Community Center and photographed the sign in question. Your sign today reads:
"Except for firearms regulated by RCW 9.41, No weapons are permitted in the park per RMC 9.22.070 (2) "
The sign states "Except for firearms regulated by RCW 9.41..." The referenced RCW regulates CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE of individuals. It DOES NOT regulate, nor does it (or you) have authority to regulate, Open (visible) Carry in Public places.
Put another way, the sign says "only firearms which are concealed are allowed" and that statement is ILLEGAL as it is more restrictive than RCW. It is un-Constitutional as it infringes on Citizen's Right to Bear Arms.
This sign (ordinance) attempts to prohibit OPENLY CARRIED firearms, which is both an ILLEGAL and UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.restriction. It is illegal because it is MORE RESTRICTIVE than RCW, and Unconstitutional because BOTH Constitutions FORBID you or the State from infringing on the Right to Bear Arms.
The RCW restrictions which you are forbidden to exceed, are essentially:
1.) 'concealed firearms, permit required'
2.) 'restricted areas such as inside a Court Room'
3.) 'restriction on discharge likely to cause injury' (excepting self defense)
Your sign (ordinance) implies that you have authority to regulat ALL (Public) firearms possession which is false. The reason this is so critical is that besides the Constitutional /legal questions, in other places in the Country, Cities and their Police Departments are taking illegal and un-constitutional actions against Citizens who are exercising their Rights to Openly Bear Arms. This has happened recently in Cleveland, Ohio and is resulting in a Federal lawsuit against the Municipality in question. The Cleveland Police have falsely arrested, detained, threatened with deadly force, an Ohio Citizen who was exercising his Rights to openly Bear Arms, and the Police did so in direct contradiction to Ohios Pre-emption laws.
At this point your actions leave me with no other conclusion that you are deliberately ignoring
RCW and I intend to begin prosecution.
Sincerely
David Campbell
----------------
read this:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum43/33795.html
Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland Heights) is a gal-blanked CESSPOOL of drugs and crime. Years ago, there was a cocaine epidemic (may still be, I don't know) and a hospital posted a huge billboard ( I was on a construction job in SW Cleveland and saw the billboard along a highway) offering that 'anyone who needs cocaine could call this number...' The number was to a hospital, clinic or some similar place to offer TREATMENT to the addict.
As I recall the comments on the LOOP (?) the number had to be shut down because it was flooded with calls from people TRYING TO BUY DRUGS.
No need for people to be armed in their Self Defense THERE, is there?
I was sitting in the hotel bar one morning waiting to check out to leave and an Employee pulled a picture aside to show me 5 bullet holes in the wall. Seems a robber was behind the bar and when the Cops showed up, robber picked up the soda dispenser, and they shot him.
No need for people to be armed in their Self Defense THERE, is there?
So much for "right to due process."
I saw a group of mostly black people come into the entrance of the hotel, and one of them brandished a firearm.
No need for people to be armed in their Self Defense THERE, is there?
Ill pick this one up in the Legal section, because it leaves Constitution and goes to law. Unconstitutional law, that is.
======== 13 Dec 09
The sign at the Community Center entrance is as above, but nothing has been done to change the other signs at the Lee entrance. They are printed on paper - what- is there a paper shortage?
