State court torpedoes city's gun storage demands

wnd.com ^ | 4/23/2022 1657 hrs edt | Bob Unruh

[rktman]

"This is a great victory for the principle of state preemption," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "This should send a signal to other municipal governments—especially the city of Seattle against which we have a nearly identical pending lawsuit—that they cannot enact their own gun restrictions in violation of state law or the state constitution."

Edmonds officials had adopted a so-called "safe storage" mandate for firearms owners living within Edmonds city limits.

The problem was that in 1985, the state legislature adopted the state statute, preempting "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…"

He added, "The legislature plainly meant to broadly preempt local lawmaking concerning firearms except where specifically authorized in chapter 9.41 RCW or other statutes…Accordingly, we hold that this ordinance is preempted by state law."

"Washington adopted state preemption nearly 40 years ago," Gottlieb said, "and we will defend it vigorously, because it is plain common sense. We’re grateful the state’s highest court unanimously shares that opinion. This is another example of SAF fulfilling its mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time."

[rktman]

Sheesh. A statute(chapter 9.41 RCW) adopted way back in ancient times(1985) actually beats the city desires? Who knew? Well at least that gives bloomberg fidiots something to do in the legislative session. Mainly, cancelling the statute. It is WA after all. Probably means that Universal Background Checks from friend to friend are not enforceable either? Legal X-spurts? Bueller?

[bobbo666]

“Safe storage” is promoted by the pinheads (like BeijingBiden) that insist that guns are only for hunting.

No. Self defense, which is a human right.

If some Ahole is invading my home I will not survive having to unlock a cabinet and then go unlock the ammo cabinet, load, ................dead.

[joma89]

See my tagline. Go out and purchase weapons and ammo, folks.

[Mouton]

Perhaps those safe storage of firearms regs should be promoted to include the secret service guarding politicians. If guns are just for hunting they need not be present to protect anyone period.

[Rinnwald]

It just means the Dem paper cutouts in the legislature will rescind preemption. They’ve already been rolling back firearm rights every year recently. We will descend into a patchwork of laws, where during my commute I will go from a legal gun carrier to de-facto felon.

[Clarancebeaks]

Really. When politicians are surrounded by 6’3” 250 lb, ugly looking, aggressive, body-armoured, brainwashed goons everywhere they go, why do the goons need to have guns?

[rktman]

What do you mean ‘de-facto’? LOL!

[Big Red Badger]

6’3” and 250lbs.
.
I’ve been Followed by
That Guy!
His Wing tips were big as
as Gun Ships!

[VanShuyten]

Here in VA, the Dims got rid of most preemption for city government property and events, and the cities immediately adopted laws restricting carry locations. I went from being law abiding to being a Class 5 criminal overnight without changing my behavior, all to solve a problem that didn’t exist.