Therefore, the statute and ordinance are not inconsistent. While an absolute and unqualified local prohibition against possession of a pistol by the holder of a state permit would conflict with state law, an ordinance which is a limited prohibition reasonably related to particular places and necessary to protect the public safety, health, morals and general welfare is not preempted by state statute. Municipal ordinances enacted in the exercise of the municipality's police power are presumed to be valid enactments. The appellants have failed to overcome this presumption. The ordinance also prohibits other specified weapons capable of producing bodily harm.
Appellants challenge only that part dealing with firearms.
This provision is an uncodified amendment to Laws of 1935, ch. Since oral argument in this case, the Legislature added a new section to RCW 9.41, to be effective July 24, 1983. Laws of 1983, ch. This provision prohibits the enactment of local ordinances inconsistent with the requirements of RCW 9.41. It does not militate against the result reached here.