Rumor Control Post from OpenCarry.org's forum, by me.
Ok, now that the actual executive order has been released, now we know what is actually planned.
This is rumor control, here are the facts:
1) Despite some reports from the news media, the city's gun bans are NOT in effect yet. If you read the language carefully, you will see that he is directing the City Departments to come up with a PLAN. PLAN, not actual regulations. In fact, it states flat out that the regulations must be done per the city's administrative procedures act, which means public comment periods, and so on. It'll be at least THIRTY days before any regulations will take effect, unless all city departments respond before then (given the nature of the city's bureaucracy, this is unlikely).
2) I know that some people have PM me with the comments that they wanted to open carry at Seattle Center or one of the Seattle Parks in the next few days in order to trigger an incident under this EO which would create standing for a lawsuit. This is entirely premature, as you won't be arrested or even asked to leave, so it'll pretty much do nothing to trigger standing, other than making yourself look like a fool. If you're going to carry in a Seattle Park or Seattle Center, or other places where this plan may encompass, just continue doing so in the meantime, however due consider the possibility that there may be increased 911 calls and harassment in this circumstances due to the FUD that's being spread by Nickels and his crew.
3) There's also a possibility that this is entirely a PR stunt by Nickels. This would not surprise me in the slightest. Granted, this is not the most likely scenario, it's one that's in the back of my head that he's trying to play people. Right now, the FUD is being spread about that there's already a gun ban in place, which gives him a way of discouraging gun carrying at festivals from here on out. There's still a significant amount of CPL holders who are not members of opencarry.org, or members of wa-ccw or any other mailing list, who now think it's illegal to carry in Seattle city property and just won't.
4) I know there are folks here who are antsy and want to do something, anything about the situation right this moment. Well, here's what you can do for the moment:
A) Contact the AG's office, and voice your displeasure at Mayor Nickels suggesting state preemption can be gotten around via trespass laws. Though not directly effective, it'll show the AG's office that this is a really serious situation that cannot be ignored and may cause them to start making some phone calls to Seattle and tell them to stand down (if they decide to listen).
B) Make pro-gun comments at the Seattle PI and other blogs, but stay away from political slurs. I've noticed an alarming amount of posts generally using the term "liberal", "moonbat" and other similar slurs. Folks, the gun ownership spectrum is just as wide as the political spectrum. I myself would be considered a "liberal". Every time you use such statements, such as "you stupid liberals are always attacking guns" or "you liberals are always @#$^ing on the constitution", you diminish the image of gun owners to the people who may be riding on the fence. Be non-partisan on this issue. Best terms to use is anti-rights, anti-gunners, and similar wording. We need all of the allies we can get in this fight, from all political spectrums.
C) Contact your state legislators, and tell them that you don't appreciate Seattle violating state preemption, and because of this, you will be watching them like a hawk if they try to attack your Article 1, Section 24 rights. For Nickels to do this during an election year screws up things pretty hardcore for the current majority party in the Legislature, and I'm sure with the exception of what I call the "Seattle crowd" there, I'm sure there's a huge bout of heartburn and anxiety over this situation.
D) Use the words "Second Amendment" as sparingly as possible: Using "The Second Amendment" makes great shorthand statement of Seattle violating our rights. However, we also have way too many of the "other side" who say "Well Second Amendment is a collective right according to the courts" blah blah blah. We have a much more powerful RKBA clause in our state constitution, which makes absolutely no mention of the militia. This issue will also allow us to bring to the forefront Article 1, Section 24 of our state constitution, which states:
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired....."
The great thing about our state's declaration of rights is how the wording is more protective of civil liberties than the federal constitution. See for example the Eisburg case where A1 S7's privacy provisions make almost all warrant-less searches without consent unconstitutional. Any time you have someone saying "There's no right to own a gun", all you have to is hit them with the wording of A1 S24, and you completely shut down their entire argument. I've seen anti-gunners go into total meltdown mode when I inject A1 S24's wording into the debate. It totally preempts the entire "collective rights" argument.
5) This entire issue will be resolved almost entirely on state law and the state constitution. The federal courts will not take a case like this because it's a city violating a state law, which means the state courts will be the playground for both sides to fight in.
