(The Center Square) – Spokane City Councilmember Paul Dillon amended his gun control measure on Monday, tightening up some of the language just two weeks after pushing it through council without a legal review.
The ordinance garnered broad support for the most part but faced skepticism from the Spokane City Council's two conservatives. Councilmembers Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart noted the lack of a review before passing and tried to defer a vote on that basis but to no avail.
Last week, Dillon asked the council to reconsider the legislation as the legal team had noted some “really small kind of technical changes.” The minor tweaks reached the council on Monday, defining “public assembly facilities” while leaving other areas for the courts to interpret.
Washington almost entirely preempts municipalities from enacting gun control outside of a few areas, such as discharge within city limits and limiting open carry during a municipal meeting. However, Kirk Evans, attorney and president of U.S. LawShield, previously told The Center Square that Dillon’s lack of clarity goes too far.
“I really appreciate the patience of my colleagues as we reconsider [this]. Councilmember Cathcart, you had requested a deferral; in hindsight, you were right,” Dillon admitted.
The main update to the measure was swapping “public assembly venue” for “public assembly facility,” which is now defined as “a stadium, convention center, arena, performance or entertainment venue or other similar facilities located within the City and operated by a municipal or public corporation or governmental entity.”
The technical change follows state law, which allows municipalities to limit the open carry of a firearm within a city-owned convention center or stadium; however, there’s no definition for a public corporation, which means the court may have to interpret if that includes private facilities.
Still, as previously passed, the section fails to specify whether it limits open or concealed carry despite listing lawful concealed carry as an exemption; instead, the legislation notes it’s unlawful to enter when a person “knowingly possesses or knowingly has under the person’s control a weapon.”
Another “technical change” takes things to the next level by allowing the facilities to impose even tougher restrictions.
“This section shall not prevent the operator or owner of the public assembly facility from imposing additional firearm regulations authorized pursuant to state or federal law,” according to the approved language.
Dillon’s other tweak cleared up some confusion around open carry during the meeting of a governing body. Prior language banned open carry altogether in “any public building” used for the meeting of a governing body “without limitation.” This means it could have applied to any location, even if the council or other governing body only met there once.
The new language changes “any public building” to “any municipal building” and clarifies that the restriction only applies to nonmunicipal locations during the meeting.
“If you have a council meeting at a different location, then the restriction applies during the time of the meeting only,” City Attorney Mike Piccolo told the council earlier on Monday.
Still, Cathcart and Bingle questioned whether it would apply during council retreats at a restaurant or other venue outside of an official meeting, which Piccolo said could be true.
Most Popular
Comments / 0