Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 1 WASHINGTON (11/21/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a county ordinance requiring shooting facilities to obtain an operating permit was preempted by state law, which explicitly pre- empted the entire field of "firearms regulation." It also addressed whether that county ordinance violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Background/Facts: In September 2014, Kitsap County adopted Ordinance No. 515-2014, which established a new chapter to the Kitsap County Code ("KCC") entitled "Firearms Discharge." That chapter, KCC 10.25 required all existing and proposed shooting facilities to obtain an operating permit within 90 days of the ordinance's effective date, and provided that the failure to obtain a permit would result in closure of the facility. It also required shooting facilities to meet detailed standards. The Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club (the "Club"), which operated a shooting range in the County, failed to submit an application for an operating permit by the deadline and informed the County that it did not intend to apply for a permit. The County then filed a legal action against the Club. The County asked the court to declare that the Club was in violation of KCC 10.25, and asked the court to enjoin the Club from operating its shooting facility until it received a permit. In that legal action, the Club argued that KCC 10.25 was invalid or unenforce- able on various grounds, including that: (1) KCC 10.25 was preempted by state statutory law, RCW 9.41.290, which expressly provides that state law "fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation . . . including [the discharge of firearms)"; and (2) KCC 10.25 violated the Second Amendment tothe United States Constitu- tion (and its similar state constitutional counterpartArticle 1, section 24 of the Washington Constitution), which guarantees the right to bear arms. Finding no material issues of fact in dispute and deciding the matter on the law alone, the trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The court ruled that RCW 9.41.290 did not preempt KCC 10.25 because KCC 10.25 was not a firearms regulation. The court also summarily rejected the Club's argument that KCC 10.25 violated the constitutional right to bear arms. The court thus concluded that KCC 10.25 was enforceable against the Club's shooting facility and that operation of the facility without an operating permit was a violation of KCC 10.25. The Club appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division, 2, concluded that KCC 10.25 was not preempted by RCW 9.41.290, and was valid and enforceable against the Club. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3