9.41.070 and shall issue 30 days

[Sparky508]

(1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.


I know this has come up before but I was defeated by the search function.:banghead:

So what is the recourse for not issuing within 30 days? I have an employee that was told it hasn't been processed yet and he’s still has 20 plus people ahead of him. I know he's clean because I had him badged for a federal job, so I am confident it has nothing to do with a background check hang-up. I gave him the RCW, and told him this is what we have, but as far as where to take it? :cuss: Does this go to a state level now? AG type?

Pretty sure that all the folks in Renton could give a rip about the RCW, so calling them and spouting it off wouldn't be very effective.

The other question I have is, with the verbiage of this line,
“-within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person-”

When does the application become “filed” within the eyes of the state?

• At the completion of the application and it is received?
• When the Chief/ Sheriff sends it to Oly?
• When the “filing agency” decides that they are ready to do something about it?

It's beautiful to have laws on the books that the towns don't have to abide by.

 

[slapmonkay]

(1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.


I know this has come up before but I was defeated by the search function.:banghead:

So what is the recourse for not issuing within 30 days? I have an employee that was told it hasn't been processed yet and he’s still has 20 plus people ahead of him. I know he's clean because I had him badged for a federal job, so I am confident it has nothing to do with a background check hang-up. I gave him the RCW, and told him this is what we have, but as far as where to take it? :cuss: Does this go to a state level now? AG type?

Pretty sure that all the folks in Renton could give a rip about the RCW, so calling them and spouting it off wouldn't be very effective.

The other question I have is, with the verbiage of this line,
“-within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person-”

When does the application become “filed” within the eyes of the state?

• At the completion of the application and it is received?
• When the Chief/ Sheriff sends it to Oly?
• When the “filing agency” decides that they are ready to do something about it?

It's beautiful to have laws on the books that the towns don't have to abide by.

I would follow up with the chief of police personally and inform him that his department is in violation of state law, a phone call to him has a higher probability of being ignored. As for the punishment for them not issuing in 30 days, see RCW 9.41.810, of course you will likely not find anyone willing to file charges.

In regards to the 'filing' question, I would say the application is filed once the application has been submitted and received by the authority authorized to accept such applications. In this case, the county sheriffs office or local police department. Since you have to provided fingerprints, and the department is accepting your application at the time you provide the application and fingerprints, it would be the date in which this occurred.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Is it a mandatory 30 day provision? Normally the word "shall" indicates it is this is not always the case.

Mandatory v. directory provisions -- questions that are argued everyday in courthouses around the country.

 

[gogodawgs]

Your recourse is to contact the chief directly.

Then, to contact the local judge in the jurisdiction and demand that he follow the law.

 

[BigDave]

Another recourse is to call your State Representative, they can and so get things moving http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

 

[davidmcbeth]

Mandamus is correct to file; one would have to argue that the law is mandatory and not directory...burden is upon the OP.

 

[amzbrady]

It seems if an RCW is not followed there would be recourse unlike our WAC's which are more like guidelines that have no recourse if not followed.

 

[BigDave]

It seems if an RCW is not followed there would be recourse unlike our WAC's which are more like guidelines that have no recourse if not followed.

While the no carry policy on some colleges in Washington State and the ones I have read had no penalties except for students but I would like to warn you that is not the case in all WAC rules.
During the earlier shut down of the shooting range in the Wenas Wildlife Area it provided for being cited.
Some WAC rules do provide for penalties, unfortunately.

Washington State Register

WAC 232-13-13000A Firearms and target practicing

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of WAC 232-13-130, effective immediately until further
notice, it is unlawful on wildlife areas and access sites owned or controlled by the
department of fish and wildlife to discharge firearms for purposes of target practicing,
except in designated target-shooting areas.

(2) A violation of this section is an infraction punished under RCW 77.15.160(4)(b).

​

[h=2]RCW 77.15.160 Infractions. [/h]

The following acts are infractions and must be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW:
(b) Other rules: Violating any other department rule that is designated by rule as an infraction.

[h=2]Chapter 7.84 RCW Natural resource infractions[/h]RCW Sections

7.84.010	Legislative declaration.
7.84.020	"Infraction" defined.
7.84.030	Notice of infraction -- Issuance -- Authorization for detention for a reasonable period -- Service -- Filing.
7.84.040	Jurisdiction of court -- Venue.
7.84.050	Notice -- Determination final unless contested -- Form.
7.84.060	Response to notice -- Contesting determination -- Mitigating circumstances -- Hearing -- Failure to respond or appear -- Penalty.
7.84.070	Hearing -- Rules of procedure -- Counsel.
7.84.080	Hearing -- Contesting determination that infraction committed -- Appeal.
7.84.090	Hearing -- Explanation of mitigating circumstances.
7.84.100	Monetary penalties.
7.84.110	Order of court -- Civil nature -- Modification of penalty -- Community restitution.
7.84.120	Issuance of process.
7.84.130	Failure to pay or complete community restitution -- Penalty.
7.84.140	Authority to delegate or accept enforcement authority over natural resource infractions.
7.84.900	Effective date -- 1987 c 380.
7.84.901	Severability -- 1987 c 380.

 

[Sparky508]

Awesome thank you gentlemen!

Writ of Mandamus is next step to settling this out then. Appreciate the knowledge and info here. Always a pleasure!

 

[slapmonkay]

As previously mentioned... In parallel I would also do a personal visit to the chief of police...

 

[Sparky508]

As previously mentioned... In parallel I would also do a personal visit to the chief of police...

Yes sir, definitely 1st thing on the list, just not really expecting a whole lot of action out of that part, you know?