This just in from a Patriot - Kennewicks also ILLEGAL
What part of "THOU SHALT NOT MAKE A MORE RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE" don't they understand?
A member of the Good 'ol Boys Network just sent me copies of Kennewicks Ordinances on firearms, and it starts off GREAT, but its STILL ILLEGAL. Note the [ ] brackets for my comments afterwards :
----------------------
Dave,
I have read the below sections of Kennewick Municipal Code and this appears to be almost exactly the same as Washington State RCW. I'll run a search for Park related code and send you what I find there pertaining to firearms.
10.12.074: Dangerous Weapon: Every person who:
(1) Manufactures , sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;
(2) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other
dangerous weapon; or
(3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (Ord. 3558 Sec. 20, 1994)
10.12.080: Weapons - Prohibited in Certain Places:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his control a weapon:
(a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;
(b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court
proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress [1] to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b). [bold supplied]
For purposes of this subsection, “weapon” means any firearm, explosive as
defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of any kind usually known as a
slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other
similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is
commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury. [2]
In addition, the county commissioners shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The county commissioners shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;
(c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress and ingress open to the general public; [3] or
(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age. [4]
(2) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties;
(b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW or Title 10 KMC where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or [5]
(c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties.
(4) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 or KMC 10.12.008 [5] who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.
10.12 - 19
(5) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or
employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.
(6) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor. (Ord. 5236 Sec. 1, 2008: Ord. 3558 Sec. 22, 1994)
==================
See- it is more or less an "IBR" (incorporatd by reference) I don't know why they just simply dont IBR it and be done with the matter. I guess we look important to ourseles by making ordinances? It's back to the "keep my job" thing. If we all own firearms like Kennesaw GA and crime more or less goes to ZERO LIKE IT DID IN KENNESAW, the Police and Media are out of work. If we just IBR, then the Council cant sit up and Pontificate.
PRE-EMPTION SAYS THEY SHALL NOT MAKE A MORE RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE.
"More restrictive" means exactly that. A specification for buying an electronic component reads (Ive been the engineer writing such specs):
"Resistor, 1000 ohms, 1/4 watt, carbon composition, axial"
More restrictive is adding any condition to that statement, like some Technician who thinks he knows more about circuit design than me, or a parts supplier who doesnt know how to read specs, or more importantly, DOESN'T HAVE JUST THAT IN STOCK AND WANTS TO SUBSTITUTE PARTS TO MAKE A SALE. That really happens.
My Spec is ignored by some know-it-all salesman and replaced with:
"Resistor, 1000 ohms, 1/4 watt, metal film axial"
where "metal film" is certainly a high-quality part, but IS NOT WHAT I SPECIFIED. Did I not specify "carbon composition?" Metal film are MORE EXPENSIVE too.
That's pretty obvious, but the problem gets deeper in the "more restrictive" area when Salesman responds with:
"Resistor, 1000 ohms, 1/4 watt @ 0 degrees Centigrade, metal film, axial"
What Salesman doesn't have the education to understand is that when I specify a power rating (1/4 Watt) it implies "1/4 watt max dissipation of heat at ROOM TEMPERATURE, 20 * C.." Salesman has made a MORE RESTRICIVE statement " @ 0 degrees Centigrade" which I DID NOT AUTHORIZE, which may result in the component failing in use, or at least, my having to do calculations to qualify that part when it comes in not as I ordered it. His resistor will not dissipate enough heat at room temperature and may burn up. Salesman wants to run the show, wants to sell the parts he has in stock. This really happens.
"Apple" is a noun, red, round, large, w/o stem, are MODIFIERS that restrict "apple". "Apple" is any apple, regardless of grade.
"Run" is a verb. "Fast," "downhill" "away" are modifiers that restrict "run."
Modifiers restrict the plain, simple meaning of words or ideas.
Here's where Kenneiwck is ILLEGAL - they are more restrictive than RCW.
Start here, then we'll look at another section:
[1] Notice this- it's critical - they cite RCW that DOES NOT ALLOW such a restriction on a PUBLIC PLACE. This is why Richlands ordinance was illegal (its been repealed, it no longer exists)
IS THE ACCESS DRIVE TO A SCHOOL A PUBLIC PLACE? Can anyone drive there in their car? Then it's PUBLIC, just like a PARK.
[2] I guess that means I CAN'T GO THERE even unarmed. Ever seen the TV shows about people in Karate classes that tear a building down without tools? Been there, done that. So are they going to tell me that I can't come there? NO, thats a CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, just like the Civil Rights violation against the SECOND AMENDMENT.
[3] that means EXACTLY AND ONLY WHAT IT SAYS, Public areas of ingress and egress OF A BUILDING, NOT A SCHOOL DRIVEWAY. Does it include "public ingress/egress for CARS in front of a building???????
What if a Parent/Guardian has to park a street over and walks to the Public access in front of the School to escort their Child? They CAN do that and they CAN open carry!
[4] The Mexican restaurant in Richland (one in the flag incident) is in violation here they have posted this in an area which is not off limits to those under 21.
[5] ILLEGAL, more restrictive. the RCW does not acknowledge its being modified to include Kennewicks Ordinances. Including their own Ordinance makes it more restrictive.
With a couple exceptions where they couldnt resist trying to MODIFY RCW, theyve quoted RCW. WHY waste time doing it? Like Lampson of Richland said "we dont need an Ordinance, RCW ALREADY COVERS IT."
It makes them feel imporant and powerful. It.s human nature to try to control and manipulate others.
And notice 9.41.300 (7) - theres a contradiction coming up. Put a finger in that section and read on....
NOW, onto the real problem with Kennewick, where they go illegal - school restrictions. Recalling the legal REQUIREMENT that all portions of a Statute be READ TOGETHER, watch the illegalities, vague portions and contradictions pop out. This is the result of IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION.
"(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:
(a) Any firearm;"
Now, they've made an UTTERLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction, and when they try to justfify it on the ridiculous PRIVATE PROPERTY notion, the problems arise. The "private property" thing is the idea that one person can prohibit another from exercising their Rights to Bear Arms on private property, just because its privately owned. NEITHER CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THAT.
Such a blanket prohibition prevents Citizens from carrying in their defense (and presumably of their minor child) to the school. If its illegal to carry to pick up the child in front of the School building, then that de-facto disarms them en-route to the School. This is the Post Office problem.
So, in the process of dealing with that sticky wicket, they create other problems:
"(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW
9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW
9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;"
This appears to cover it, except it doesnt:
1.) Still Unconstitutional
2.) does not specify that the pickup has to be with a MOTOR VEHICLE.
What if you have to park a block away and walk over to the same driveway as those picking up in cars, to receive your child? If it's only limited to posession inside a motor vehicle, then I smell a CIVIL SUIT because your right to carry (openly or concealed) has been infringed on in a public place, both at the Publically accessible driveway AND on NON SCHOOL grounds they HAVE NO CONTROL OVER while you are walking to the School.
3.) The limitation only applies to PISTOLS. What about a shotgun? PISTOL MEANS PISTOL. Not rifle, not shotgun, not revolver.
4.) This section appears to limit posession to ONLY CONCEALED, and thats their GAME, they want to outlaw or harass and intimidate you into thinking the ONLY CARRY IS CONCEALED CARRY they can REGULATE THROUGH LICENSES.
5.) "Any person" includes STUDENTS, and is where the contradictions start.
5a.) are Students not also included in "any person?" If so, that contradicts their attempted blanket prohibition on Students carrying, and LAST I CHECKED, STUDENTS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ALSO.
The CONSTITUTION DOES NOT distinguish among Citizens, it FORBIDS GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON THEIR RIGHTS.
9.41.280 CONTRADICTS 9.41.300 in that:
.280 prohibits ALL weapons IN A SCHOOL BUILDING (ignoring for a moment the part about "picking up"
"(6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building."
AND is more restrictive than:
"(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:"
Which defines premesis as only the BUILDINGS.
AND CONTRADICTS:
.300 (7) "(7) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW
9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility."
WHICH ONE IS IT? All posession (except defined categories) illegal, or illegal unless a School administrator allows it?
The point is not whether the Leftists that haunt the Educational system wants to "allow" a parent to come armed to defend himself or child, the point is how IGNORING BOTH CONSTITUTIONS creates a MESS in Law which makes it UNENFORCEABLE. This State has an ABUNDANCE of stupid laws on the books which cannot be enforced like "you cannot wash your own car in your own driveway. HOW STUPID IS THAT because it IS NOT ENFORCEABLE.
Like these School laws, how will they prevent COncealed carry into a school building without a weapons check, lock box, metal detectors like at the Court house? This leaves the School in violation of 300 (1) (b):
"In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."
Again, PICK ONE, which one is it? A court room is clearly more of a security risk than a School, so why have more lenient restrictions of lockbox etc here and not at a School? They are BOTH RESTRICTED AREAS.
Theres a term to describe the idiotic laws this state has cobbled together, from a less-famous movie called North Dallas Forty:
LIKE A MONKEY F-ing a FOOTBALL.
I'm afraid it's an appropriate comparison.
I got into this conversation with a Pasco School teacher over Xmas. She stated that she didn't want Students to be armed, just after wed agreed on the general unConstitutional laws regarding adults.
After she stated that she did not want students armed, I responded:
"WHY NOT"
SHE HAD NO ANSWER.
Again, the root problems here are:
1.) Functional illiteracy of those involved in lawmaking
2.) Laws directly contrary to BOTH CONSTITUTIONS
3.) Unenforceable laws
4.) stated, implied or apparent restrictions on OPEN CARRY
Posted by Dave
at 9:34 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 13 January 2010 2:30 PM PST
