Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 22, 2020, 07:26:53 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 22, 2020, 07:37:09 AM
Can't be legal, can it?
Post by: Special T on March 22, 2020, 07:39:53 AM
We know that most municipalities have instructed thier police forces to give more latitude with the law right now.
Just another example of the cultural and political divide between those that live in cities and those that don't. I am quite happy in the county.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Malitia T. on March 22, 2020, 07:44:52 AM
Post by: HillHound on March 22, 2020, 07:52:43 AM
Post by: aer212 on March 22, 2020, 07:55:51 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 22, 2020, 08:02:31 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if they tried something like this in Bellingham, I cant find that document on any of the city of Bellingham sites. Do you have a link to it??Yeah, always referred to it a Bellingrad.
Post by: Bango skank on March 22, 2020, 08:03:43 AM
Post by: Griiz on March 22, 2020, 08:06:02 AM
Post by: Fuhrmem on March 22, 2020, 08:18:22 AM
I live in town and haven't heard anything about this or a city council meeting. Cant find anything on the COB website either. if there is a link I'd a really appreciate it.
Post by: CP on March 22, 2020, 08:26:41 AM
https://meetings.cob.org/Documents/ViewDocument/Attachment%20-%20EMERGENCY%20ORDINANCE%20-%20AB_%2022609.pdf?meetingId=2215&documentType=Agenda&itemId=14333&publishId=14891&isSection=false
Post by: h20hunter on March 22, 2020, 08:27:13 AM
Post by: Fuhrmem on March 22, 2020, 08:27:54 AM
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2020, 08:39:14 AM
Not an instant restriction to 2A rights, but the mayor and council need to know that they won't be able to slip this provision in, and especially not issue and confirm the order, without political consequences.
It would be interesting to get the police chief on record about whether or not they would enforce the order, if issued.
Post by: Alchase on March 22, 2020, 08:41:21 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on March 22, 2020, 08:45:08 AM
An important part of the document was left off of the screen shot above. As I mentioned in the other thread - this is definitely an overreach, but the city council is only voting to authorize the mayor to issue the order at a later date - which the council must then confirm "as soon as possible."
I don’t think it’s that important. “We’re not saying we’re doing it, but we’re giving someone permission to do it, possibly, maybe, down the line...”
That’s *censored*.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Ghost Hunter on March 22, 2020, 08:50:03 AM
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2020, 09:19:45 AM
An important part of the document was left off of the screen shot above. As I mentioned in the other thread - this is definitely an overreach, but the city council is only voting to authorize the mayor to issue the order at a later date - which the council must then confirm "as soon as possible."
I don’t think it’s that important. “We’re not saying we’re doing it, but we’re giving someone permission to do it, possibly, maybe, down the line...”
That’s *censored*.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it's pretty darn important. It's the difference between "After our vote on Monday your 2A rights have been suspended, comrade" and a group of people deciding what tools they want in the tool chest to deal with whatever situation might be coming.
It's up to the law abiding, gun owning and carrying citizenry to let them know if they decide to put the "restrict 2A rights" tool on the table they will pay for it with the loss of their job.
If they did issue the order would anybody even follow it? Would the police enforce it?
They could choose to strike the language of the gun and ammo related orders as a concession, but if they really want to do it they will anyway, since the text reads "Such orders include but not be limited to the following:"
A large presence at the meeting demanding explanation of their thinking, and putting the police chief on the hot seat about if and how he would propose to enforce a violation of the 2A would go a long way.
Post by: CP on March 22, 2020, 09:31:09 AM
RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
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.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 22, 2020, 10:24:03 AM
An important part of the document was left off of the screen shot above. As I mentioned in the other thread - this is definitely an overreach, but the city council is only voting to authorize the mayor to issue the order at a later date - which the council must then confirm "as soon as possible."
I don’t think it’s that important. “We’re not saying we’re doing it, but we’re giving someone permission to do it, possibly, maybe, down the line...”
That’s *censored*.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it's pretty darn important. It's the difference between "After our vote on Monday your 2A rights have been suspended, comrade" and a group of people deciding what tools they want in the tool chest to deal with whatever situation might be coming.
It's up to the law abiding, gun owning and carrying citizenry to let them know if they decide to put the "restrict 2A rights" tool on the table they will pay for it with the loss of their job.
If they did issue the order would anybody even follow it? Would the police enforce it?
They could choose to strike the language of the gun and ammo related orders as a concession, but if they really want to do it they will anyway, since the text reads "Such orders include but not be limited to the following:"
A large presence at the meeting demanding explanation of their thinking, and putting the police chief on the hot seat about if and how he would propose to enforce a violation of the 2A would go a long way.
So you’re saying the thought or idea of it isn’t a problem?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KopperBuck on March 22, 2020, 10:25:30 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 3nails on March 22, 2020, 10:27:07 AM
Bellinghamistan.It wouldn't surprise me if they tried something like this in Bellingham, I cant find that document on any of the city of Bellingham sites. Do you have a link to it??Yeah, always referred to it a Bellingrad.
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2020, 10:36:28 AM
An important part of the document was left off of the screen shot above. As I mentioned in the other thread - this is definitely an overreach, but the city council is only voting to authorize the mayor to issue the order at a later date - which the council must then confirm "as soon as possible."
I don’t think it’s that important. “We’re not saying we’re doing it, but we’re giving someone permission to do it, possibly, maybe, down the line...”
That’s *censored*.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it's pretty darn important. It's the difference between "After our vote on Monday your 2A rights have been suspended, comrade" and a group of people deciding what tools they want in the tool chest to deal with whatever situation might be coming.
It's up to the law abiding, gun owning and carrying citizenry to let them know if they decide to put the "restrict 2A rights" tool on the table they will pay for it with the loss of their job.
If they did issue the order would anybody even follow it? Would the police enforce it?
They could choose to strike the language of the gun and ammo related orders as a concession, but if they really want to do it they will anyway, since the text reads "Such orders include but not be limited to the following:"
A large presence at the meeting demanding explanation of their thinking, and putting the police chief on the hot seat about if and how he would propose to enforce a violation of the 2A would go a long way.
So you’re saying the thought or idea of it isn’t a problem?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The thought or idea of what, specifically? A disaster declaration?
Post by: ghosthunter on March 22, 2020, 10:45:39 AM
But the fact they are willing to even write on paper as a agenda item should not go un challenged.
They should hear the discontent of Bellingham gun owners and Whatcom county full force.
So next time it’s not even on the agenda.
Hope they made plans for a larger meeting hall. Oh that’s right no public allowed because V concerns.
Burn up their phones.
Post by: Skillet on March 22, 2020, 10:56:00 AM
Bellingham has lots of gun owners. It will never get enforced.
But the fact they are willing to even write on paper as a agenda item should not go un challenged.
They should hear the discontent of Bellingham gun owners and Whatcom county full force.
So next time it’s not even on the agenda.
Hope they made plans for a larger meeting hall. Oh that’s right no public allowed because V concerns.
Burn up their phones.
:yeah: Take a seat at the table and be a part of the conversation-
In fact, to get you Bellingham residents started, here you go:
Mayor Seth Fleetwood
Phone: (360) 778-8100
Fax: (360) 778-8101
Email: mayorsoffice@cob.org
City Council
Phone: (360) 778-8200
Fax: (360) 778-8101
Email: ccmail@cob.org
Individual City council members contact info can be found here:
https://www.cob.org/gov/council/Pages/contacts-bios.aspx (https://www.cob.org/gov/council/Pages/contacts-bios.aspx)
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 22, 2020, 11:27:37 AM
Wonder if there's a fear of random fights and some one pulls a gun.
I don't think that the amount of people buying guns are all Republicans.
I don't agree with it. But just trying to make sense of the situation.
Post by: aaronoto on March 22, 2020, 11:30:43 AM
Post by: Cougartail on March 22, 2020, 11:42:18 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe any City has this authority because of our State's preemption wrt firearm laws.
RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
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.
And the State must follow the US Constitution and federal law as it preempts State regulation.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 22, 2020, 12:36:54 PM
Could this be because the amount of people purchasing guns and ammunition. With the folks who are spinning out over no none skid.A few people I know (Bernie supporters) thought the virus would never get here and we had all the tech to control it. Now seeing that it is here, they can't go out, finding food is tougher, I guess they're kind of thinking if things have slid that far already, maybe it really can completely crash? They were asking me last week about how to get rifles with scopes like they use on Xbox. These are guys that have been anti-gun until last week (they wanted Canadian gun rules). So, there's a new who wanting guns.
Wonder if there's a fear of random fights and some one pulls a gun.
I don't think that the amount of people buying guns are all Republicans.
I don't agree with it. But just trying to make sense of the situation.