In recent years, gun owners in Washington State have felt under siege every time the state legislature is in session, and this year is no exception. A punitive measure proposed by two Democrat lawmakers would expand the list of locations where lawful residents could not possess a firearm for self-defense.
Senate Bill 5098, introduced by Senators Javier Valdez and Rebecca Saldaña, would ban the possession of firearms in parks, government buildings and areas where “children are likely to be present.” If that seems like a pretty broad scope of the state, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action agrees with you.
“This vague definition could be applied almost anywhere outside of the home and demonstrates the intent of this bill is to make the entire state of Washington a ‘gun-free’ zone,” NRA-ILA said in a recent legislative update.
Under the measure, areas where “it is unlawful for any person to enter … when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon” would include: (i) “The premises of a city’s, town’s, county’s or other municipality’s neighborhood, community, or regional park facilities at which children are likely to be present. Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities shall designate the park facilities within its boundaries where children are likely to be present and post appropriate signage at common access points of the park facility’s premises to notify the public that weapons are prohibited within the park facility.”
When defining where children and youth are “likely to be present,” the measure’s restriction broadens even further.
“Park facilities where children and youth are likely to be present include, but are not limited to, park facilities that have: Playgrounds or children’s play areas; sports fields; swim beaches or water play areas; teen centers, community centers, or performing arts centers; skate parks; and other recreational facilities likely to be used by children or youth.”
The phrase “but are not limited to” is particularly vague and concerning. By including this language, law enforcement could claim that nearly any location one might visit falls under the ban.
Not satisfied to stop there, Sens. Valdez and Saldaña also included provisions to outlaw firearms at county fairs held throughout the state. It added to the banned areas list: “The premises of county fairs and county fair facilities during the hours of operation in which the fair is open to the public. For the purpose of this subsection, “county fair” means fairs organized to serve the interests of single counties and are under county commissioner jurisdiction. This prohibition does not apply to gun shows operating on county fairgrounds.”
Though it offers little consolation, the legislation places the responsibility of designating “gun-free zones” on the government, making it less likely that someone will carry a firearm in a vaguely defined restricted area.
“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,” the bill states.
Definitions are going to be a huge part of the national reciprocity issue. In one state, a person with a permit may carry everywhere but a court room. In the next state, not within 1000 ft of a head lice sanctuary.
How about, I have a permit to carry and if there isn’t a metal detector, I’ll carry anywhere I want.
Same. My only issue with that is when you carry all the time, you might forget to disarm before walking into certain “sensitive” areas. It’s also a pain to turn around and walk back to the vehicle when you spot a detector.
After NOLA why not have Vehicle Free Zones? Makes as much sense as Gun Free Zones. Question is where will Gun Control zealots be should you and yours be cornered by a violent criminal? The answer is where Gun Control zealots always are…Nowhere. So f them and carry anyway.
This initiative in the state of Washington is another example of government employees setting out to menace the people of their jurisdiction for sick “thrills”. Of course said government employees advance their garbage under the guise of, “it’s for your own good.”
We know that nasty people exist. Common examples include violent criminals and domestic abusers. Note that some of those nasty people are shrewd enough to attain employment in government offices where they can legally harass and torment the populace. Plan accordingly.
Oh neat this is kinda similar to a couple 2nd circuit cases with pending decisions. Probably trying to sneak whatever they can in under the wire before anything gets decided then try to hold onto it until we have a new president/justices.