 |
 |
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 9:41 am |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forum rules
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 28 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Use of suppressors illegal in Kirkland?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Admin   Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52037 Real Name: Steve 
|
Well, I guess we're not any better off in Renton.
http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton ... tml#6-18-5 Renton Numbnuts wrote: 6-18-5 DANGEROUS WEAPONS; EVIDENCE: A. It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to manufacture, sell or dispose of or have in his possession any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as sling shot, sand club or metal knuckles; or any weapon, stick, chain, club or combination thereof, including a device usually known as nunchakus stick, or any like device having the same or similar components or parts, whether or not connected by a rope, chain or other device; or to furtively carry, or conceal any dagger, dirk, knife or other dangerous weapon, or to use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm. B. Subsection A of this section does not apply to: 1. The possession of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer while the officer: a. Is on official duty; or b. Is transporting the knife to or from the place where the knife is stored when the officer is not on official duty. 2. The storage of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer. C. Violation of this section shall be a gross misdemeanor. (Ord. 3124, 4-4-1977; Ord. 5652, 2-6-2012) I'm afraid to look at any more . . . .  _________________ Steve Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation Patriot & Life Member, Gun Owners of America Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition Member, NAGR/NFGR Please support the organizations that support all of us. Leave it cleaner than you found it. |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter   Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
Even before suppressors were legal in the state, this seems like it violates state preemption. I wonder why all these cities decided they needed to have this in their municipal codes? (when state law covered it, preempted or not)
|
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Admin Location: Renton, WA Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 Posts: 52037 Real Name: Steve
|
ANZAC wrote: I wonder why all these cities decided they needed to have this in their municipal codes? (when state law covered it, preempted or not) Yeah, I was wondering that too. Maybe the city codes were in place before the state law? Dunno. _________________ Steve Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation Patriot & Life Member, Gun Owners of America Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition Member, NAGR/NFGR Please support the organizations that support all of us. Leave it cleaner than you found it. |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: puyallup Joined: Sat Nov 3, 2012 Posts: 1146
|
ANZAC wrote: kf7mjf wrote: It's probably a relic back from the time prior to preemption. I've seen that same boilerplate in other city laws. Make like most civilized people are planning to do with 594 and ignore it. I don't think it should be ignored. We know. Trust me. Lots of people will be ignoring anyway. Lots of others have no idea it exists or what it does.(or more people would have voted against it) _________________ If your Dad doesn't have a beard you've got two Moms |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
ironworker78 wrote: ANZAC wrote: kf7mjf wrote: It's probably a relic back from the time prior to preemption. I've seen that same boilerplate in other city laws. Make like most civilized people are planning to do with 594 and ignore it. I don't think it should be ignored. We know. Trust me. Lots of people will be ignoring anyway. Lots of others have no idea it exists or what it does.(or more people would have voted against it) I meant the Kirkland municipal code on suppressors should not be ignored. 594 has nothing to do with this thread or subject. |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:03 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Olympia Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 Posts: 16044 Real Name: Steve
|
The Kirkland code should be ignored, because according to State Preemption, it is null and void. It's like finding a law on the books banning smoking weed in your home if you are over 21, or prohibiting Chinese people from owning property. Just an ancient relic of more primitive times. Laugh and move on.
_________________ "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." - William Buckley, Jr. "...steam, artillery and revolvers give to civilized man an irresistible power." -Perry Collins |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:05 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: puyallup Joined: Sat Nov 3, 2012 Posts: 1146
|
Ah, my fault. Kirklands code should be ignored as well, as suppressor a are legal in this state and never should have been banned in the first place. Anywhere.
_________________ If your Dad doesn't have a beard you've got two Moms |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
ironworker78 wrote: Ah, my fault. Kirklands code should be ignored as well, as suppressor a are legal in this state and never should have been banned in the first place. Anywhere. The "no guns in parks" laws were also invalid, but someone cared enough to fix those. |
| Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:57 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Olympia Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 Posts: 16044 Real Name: Steve
|
Mainly because stupid cops/governments tried enforcing them.
_________________ "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." - William Buckley, Jr. "...steam, artillery and revolvers give to civilized man an irresistible power." -Perry Collins |
| Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:10 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Faxon, OK Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 Posts: 17818 Real Name: Chuck
|
In England it may be a bitch to get a fire arm, but suppressors are on the shelves like gun cleaning supplies.
_________________ "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux |
| Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:54 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Orting Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 Posts: 1359 Real Name: Nick
|
golddigger14s wrote: In England it may be a bitch to get a fire arm, but suppressors are on the shelves like gun cleaning supplies. The English are, above all, polite and refined. Can you imagine our highways full of cars without mufflers? It's simply common courtesy. Use a suppressor, nobody else needs to hear your gun from miles away. _________________ Massivedesign wrote: There is no such thing as 5.56 55gr.. |
| Sun Dec 07, 2014 12:29 am |
|
|
|
 Location: Redmond Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 Posts: 601
|
ANZAC wrote: ironworker78 wrote: Ah, my fault. Kirklands code should be ignored as well, as suppressor a are legal in this state and never should have been banned in the first place. Anywhere. The "no guns in parks" laws were also invalid, but someone cared enough to fix those. only because little tyrants in uniforms tried to enforce them. |
| Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:56 am |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Marysville, WA Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 Posts: 11581 Real Name: Mike
|
MadPick wrote: ANZAC wrote: I wonder why all these cities decided they needed to have this in their municipal codes? (when state law covered it, preempted or not) Yeah, I was wondering that too. Maybe the city codes were in place before the state law? Dunno. I asked this question a while ago of a prosecutor. His answer made the most sense. Cities merely pass ordinances that mirror state law so they can charge and prosecute the offenders in their own court system. Easier to prosecute in Municipal Court than in Superior Court. The issue is that the Municipal Codes aren't updated when the State passes laws like "Preemption". Only time anyone notices is if someone is actually charged with a crime or when professional "fly-shit sifters" spot these anomalies. _________________ "I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother" - William Shakespeare |
| Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:39 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 |
[ 28 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2 |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|