So then I talked to the Prosecuting Attorney...

[charliecrusader]

    Well here is the story leading up to today.  About a week ago I
went to a restaurant here in town (Colville) and at the entrance they
had a sign. Hadn't seen it before but it was not to be missed now. It
read... "Under RCW 9.41.300(d)  no firearms are allowed even with a
CPL. Failure to follow this can result in arrest under 9.41"  I knew
that the RCW was about carrying in bars and so forth. Establishments
that didn't allow minors.  This is a restaurant that doesn't even
have a bar as I am aware of.
   I went from there to the city police to inquire about said sign. 
I was told that the liquor license covered the whole building, so if
alcohol could be served, no carry. I thanked them for this and left.
Thinking this was not right I went to the Stevens County sheriff and
talked with a detective who said that state law didn't say that. I
brought up state preemption to which he replied that localities could
enact stricter ordinances but not looser ones. He said that it was
kind of a grey area, and that even if you were to get arrested the
prosecuting attorney might not charge you. It was up to him as to how
it would be handled.
  So today, I stopped in to the S.O. and renewed my CPL and then went
to the Prosecuting Attorney.  I talked with one of his deputies and
wanted to know what they understood about it.  He got out the big
book of RCW's and after reading it said he thought I was right, that
you can't go in a bar, posted not minors, but that a restaurant was
OK.  He then asked if I carried all the time. I replied that I carry
when I want to.  He suggested that I could leave my gun in my car if
I was going to eat dinner. I replied that if it wasn't illegal why
would I do that.  We shook hands and I left.
  I then went back to the city police to talk to the Chief.  He
wasn't in but an officer was happy to talk with me.  I laid out the
above story to which he said that preemption meant that locals and
even private business could be more restrictive then state law but
not less.  I specifically asked if I would be arrested because of 9.41
He said that since the owner had posted I possibly could be.  I told
him that I understand preemption to mean that no law can be made
about firearms, that it is the venue of the state.  To which he said
that the final authority was the Wa AG and I should call them to find
out what real intent was.  That if I was right I should even carry of
copy of the written opinion on my person.  They gave me number for
the AG and said to come back and let them know what I found out.  He
said that if I am right and was to be arrested that I could charge
them with false arrest if I was to be vindictive.  I thanked them and
left.

   SOOOO,  What and where are the pertinent info about this issue, both
carry in restaurants and the REAL meaning of Preemption.  I am
shocked that I have gotten this many wishy washy, opposing answers to
a straightforward question. For the record, everyone was very
professional and courteous to talk with, but somebody needs to get
their head screwed on, and I don't think it's me.
   Also, I understand and totally support private property rights.
They can refuse service to me if I am wearing a red shirt.  But that
isn't 9.41  I will talk to the owner to see if they are
misunderstanding the statute (considering our LEO's I wouldn't be
surprised), but if he doesn't want guns in his restaurant I won't
bother him again. And I will encourage every one I know not to bother
him :-{
   Any help, comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Travis Lisenbee

[gregma]

I see you also posted this on the CCW email list.  I'm sure you'll get outstanding replies there, but wanted to reply here as well. 

First, it doesn't surprise me that LEO's have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to gun laws.  Most don't support us peons carrying, thus only care about how they can use the laws to arrest and disarm us.

Second, 9.41.270 states:

...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.

Granted, I might not have completed 8 years of college, but in my feeble mind, this quite clearly states that they may NOT enact laws more restrictive than state laws.  It might be interesting to actually bring the law to those who stated that a city may enact stricter laws and see just how they get that interpretation.  It's one of WA's most defined laws from what I've read.

Third,  RCW 9.41.300 states

...     (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or...

Unless they have a sign posted that the entire restaurant is off limits to persons under 21 years of age, the sign is meaningless as far as the law goes.  Yes, they still have the right to ask you to leave if you enter armed, but can do no more than that legally.  And no, it is not a violation of 9.41.300 to be in a place where minors are allowed while armed.  9.41.300 ONLY covers those parts of an establishment that is off limits to those under 21.

I would carry sections of 9.41.300 and 9.41.290 with me before I talk to the owner.  And if he refuses to budge, we'll add him to our "do not patronize" list. 

[joeroket]

I completely agree with Gregma. Note also that 9.41.290 says laws that are inconsistent with state laws. This means that any law that is not in exact line with the state law is invalid. Further more 9.41.300 specifies what type of laws local municipalities may enact. None of which include the possession of a pistol.

[amlevin]

Where the "local authorities" get tangled in their Jockstraps is that for any other regulation but those regulating firearms, they are right.  If the state passed a law requiring all front lawns to be trimmed to 4" in length, the city could pass one requiring 3" max. 

RCW 9.41.290 is very clear and specific on the issue of firearm regulation.  Only someone with a bad case of "cranial rectal inversion" would see it any other way.  But then again, Colville is a little remote and maybe they haven't recieved their mail with the new RCW updates yet

[handgunner]

Does premption apply to taser's or stun guns?  Not really a firearm, but what do you think?

City of Bellingham Municipal Code
10.30.020 - Stun Guns, Tasers And Similar Devices

A. Possession, sale or use prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any individual, person, firm, corporation, or similar entity to sell, give, lend, rent, or otherwise transfer to any other individual, person, firm, corporation, or similar entity a stun gun, TASER, or similar electronic or energy device or weapon which, upon coming in contact with a person, is capable of inflicting injury or an electric or energy shock to such a person. It shall further be unlawful for any person to possess, fire, or discharge such electronic or energy device or weapon within the Bellingham City limits.

B. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any member of the Bellingham Police Department or other authorized law enforcement officer while in the performance of his or her official duties or to any electronic or energy device or weapon designed solely and exclusively for animal control purposes.

C. Penalties. Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

[Ord. 2005-10-006]

[amlevin]

Preemption is only applicable to Firearms which are defined in state law.

Tasers (specifically the air taser that fires darts by compressed gas) are not firearms.

[gregma]

Just to get the appropriate RCW here:

 9.41.010 states:

(1) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

And I don't think you could say that Compressed Air is considered an explosive.

[handgunner]

That's what I thought. Strange that one would ban a non leathal device that allows a person to defend themselves, with no real down fall. Do you know of other cities that have banned tasers?

[amlevin]

If they were allowed, you would be equally as well armed as those that are allowed to have them.  That wouldn't be right (in the rulemaker's eyes).

Look at all the weapons that Police Officers are allowed to carry that we can't.  The ASP is considered a "Club".  Most jurisdictions outlaw fixed blade knives.  How about a Tear Gas Gun (39 or 40 mm, your choice).  Let us not forget the unchallenged ability to open carry at all times and inplaces we are all forbidden to.

Seems only logical that they would carry this on to Tasers for the public.

[joeroket]

My thoughts exactly.

[gregma]

If they were allowed, you would be equally as well armed as those that are allowed to have them.  That wouldn't be right (in the rulemaker's eyes).

While I was in Leavenworth for Octoberfest this weekend, I got an idea.  Consider this...

If all law-abiding citizens were well armed, crime would plummet!  What happens when crime plummets?

Lots of LEO's would be out of a job(power).  Keep the sheeple unarmed and victim ready, and you need LEO.  Could that be a reason many of them despise us carrying as much as they do?  We're a threat to their job, to their power?

[amlevin]

What?  You don't think there would be enough crime to keep them busy?  Not me.  What I do feel is that there would be a lot LESS crime, not NO crime.  

[partyncwby]

Just to get the appropriate RCW here:

 9.41.010 states:

(1) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

And I don't think you could say that Compressed Air is considered an explosive.

But pellet guns use compressed gas to fire a projectile and are considered weapons.

[joeroket]

Just to get the appropriate RCW here:

 9.41.010 states:

(1) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

And I don't think you could say that Compressed Air is considered an explosive.

But pellet guns use compressed gas to fire a projectile and are considered weapons.

They are considered a weapon but they are not considered a firearm. The state allows municipalities to write their own codes concerning most things. The two things I know that are pre-empted are firearms and pepper spray. Anything else varies from locality to locality.