rainbowbob
Member
I sent Seattle's Mayor Nickels a letter explaning why his idea to ban guns from city property was a bad one. I don't have a copy of it, but I have previously posted a similar letter to the Seattle Times.
This is the Mayor's reply (or more likely one of his staff wrote this boiler-plate response)
This is my reply:
This is the Mayor's reply (or more likely one of his staff wrote this boiler-plate response)
Thank you for your correspondence regarding a “gun free” policy for city property.
The gun regulations in our state are some of the weakest in the country. While we have severe penalties for those who commit crimes with guns, state laws do very little to prevent convicted felons, children and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. For many years the legislature has failed to pass common sense legislation that would protect our citizens by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. For example, our state allows mentally ill persons who have been involuntarily committed for fewer than 90 days to purchase and possess firearms. This year, the City of Seattle and the State Attorney General supported legislation that would have closed this mental health loophole, but the legislature failed to act on it.
The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that cities may impose conditions related to firearms use on city property. The court held that certain types of firearms regulations related to city-owned property do not violate the State’s preemption statute.
I have directed city departments to adopt rules and policies related to firearms and other dangerous weapons that are permitted under the state’s preemption law. These rules do not infringe on Second Amendment rights nor do they violate the state’s laws and ordinances regulating firearms. While these new rules may inconvenience some gun owners who wish to bring their guns on city property, they will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city.
We are currently studying how to appropriately enforce this order, beginning with signage and other notices of the rules. No rule, policy or regulation can stop all violent acts from occurring. However, we do know that by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur.
Thank you again for contacting the City of Seattle.
Sincerely,
GREG NICKELS
Mayor of Seattle
This is my reply:
Dear Mayor Nickels:
Thank you for your reply to my inquiry regarding your recent Executive Order establishing “gun-free” zones on city-owned properties.
I must ask on what data do you rely for your conclusion that gun laws prevent violent crime? I have diligently researched this issue as objectively as possible, and have found nothing credible to support such a theory.
Simply put: Violent criminals do not respect gun laws or any other laws – and responsible citizens do not commit violent crimes. You write that “…state laws do very little to prevent convicted felons, children and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.” That is correct – at least as far as it goes. I would assert that NO laws can prevent such things from occurring.
Felons will obtain firearms as long as there are firearms on the planet – regardless of the law. Children must be prevented from handling firearms unsafely by their parents – not by any law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the state is truly interested in protecting children, they would initiate firearms safety courses in the public schools. Just as teaching “safe sex” practices presumably does not encourage children to engage in sexual acts – neither would learning about firearm safety encourage the use of firearms. However it would make children safer if and when they did encounter a firearm. There is already a policy in effect to restrict persons with mental illness from obtaining firearms. A court-ordered involuntary commitment of more than 14 days will disqualify them from legally possessing a firearm. If they chose to commit an act of criminal violence, they can still obtain a firearm illegally – just as any other criminal can. Keep in mind also that horrific criminal violence can be committed with any number of other weapons: from axes to sharp sticks.
Laws restricting law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms have never – and never will – eliminate or even reduce instances of criminal violence. One need only look at the crime statistics for cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. – cities that have had laws on the books for decades banning responsible citizens from protecting themselves in their own homes – to see that gun laws simply don’t work. Since the gun bans went into effect in those cities, violent crime has escalated significantly, while in most other cities it has gone down.
If you can produce one iota of credible evidence these new rules “…will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city…” or that “…by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur…” - I will join you in your crusade.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that an increase in the number of firearms available in a community has no negative correlation with the level of violent crime. In fact, the opposite appears to be true based on several large-scale studies of the subject. Although I will not make the claim that more guns in a community are responsible for reductions in violent crime; I can say that in most every city in which concealed permits are issued on a “shall issue” basis – violent crime has gone down – not up
On the other hand, if you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary – you should immediately cease and desist from infringing the rights of the citizens of our beloved city by making it illegal to defend oneself against criminal violence on city-owned property.
Respectfully yours,
Robert Gallaher
Last edited:
