Fighting new gun law in Seattle

[9MMare]

I posted this in the civil disobedience thread, but no one commented. Maybe it's not that, but the legal challenge is interesting...

The (lame) outgoing mayor just passed a city gun law that is contrary to state laws. It says people cannot carry in community centers, parks, places where children gather (paraphrased).

Apparently you cant challenge a law unless there is an actual court case? Because a local lawyer called the press and when a community center opened for the day, entered carrying his legally owned handgun.

He was politely asked to leave, the press recorded it all, the cops were there making sure it didnt escalate, and the lawyer politely left. He's now filing a case against the city of Seattle. (His is the 2nd suit filed)


Interestingly enough, the city says it is going to fight this on the basis that *private property owners* have the right to decide if people can carry guns on their property. So...the city has lawyers advising it that it can be legally classified as a 'private' entity?

 

[lifelongnra]

So does the mayor think he owns the property or who/what??

Good luck we need to take a stand and get our cities and country back.

I don't understand what's going on out there.
The county of Parker county Texas has ruled that no one can shoot on 10 acres or less inside the county. They have also stopped the sale of livestock inside the city limits of Weatherford and it has almost caused the first Monday trades day to be shut down. It did cause the livestock aucton house to be demolished.
What are these people thinking.

The mayors reponse to this was, "this is not the wild wild west".

 

[Bullit13]

I am glad to see that someone finally stood up in Seattle, the outgoing mayor was such an arrogant "ass" anyway, so when did the mayors of major cities start deciding that they could change the "Constitution" , there have been many instances in the past where if one person would have had a weapon many innocent bystanders lives could have been saved.

 

[9MMare]

I am glad to see that someone finally stood up in Seattle, the outgoing mayor was such an arrogant "ass" anyway, so when did the mayors of major cities start deciding that they could change the "Constitution" , there have been many instances in the past where if one person would have had a weapon many innocent bystanders lives could have been saved.

Well, he was a pretty worthless mayor. I dont live in town anymore so I cant even vote on their mayor anymore, yet most of what they do affects surrounding areas.

To clarify, what the city did goes against the WA STATE gun laws. And that is the basis for the law suit. (There are 2 law suits re: this issue now).

 

[9MMare]

Oh, I should mention (after saying that Seattle has such a big influence on surrounding areas)...Snohomish county, directly N of Seattle (in King Co) has proposed legislation that is *intentionally* the opposite of the Seattle ordinance.

*clap clap*

 

[jimmyraythomason]

So.. mayors in Washington state have the power to inact law? Where was the city council during this?

 

[Oro]

So...the city has lawyers advising it that it can be legally classified as a 'private' entity?

No. It has lawyers telling it that it has , under state law that allows municipalities to ban firearms possession in stadiums and convention centers they own, the authority to ban firearms possession in basically all public property.

Prior to the issuance of the new policy, the state AG has already told the city it was illegal. But that didn't stop them. The nut of the issue was a bad court decision in PNSPA vs. City of Sequim on the gun show/convention issue topic. Nickels and his liberal staff seized on the bad and tangential ruling to push their policy regardless of existing law. You can google this issue and find tons of prior discussion, and also the current law suits and activities to reverse it.

So.. mayors in Washington state have the power to inact law?

No, but like everywhere, they interpret existing law and enact (sic) policy to conform to it. In this case, they are just pretending the existing law suits their purpose, not creating new ones.

Where was the city council during this?

They were busy not wanting to annoy the liberal followers of Nickels who like this, but not brave enough to stop the waste of their tax money or city resources. Basically, "head in the sand" pretending it wasn't happening, and not having the common sense to stop a blatantly stupid political grand-stand move by the mayor.

 

[ants]

Nobody responded to you because we already talked it to death here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=486338&highlight=seattle .

 

[9MMare]

Nobody responded to you because we already talked it to death here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=486338&highlight=seattle .

Thanks for your input.

I hope that your ability to reason also extends to the fact that all searches dont find their targets and that people sometimes miss things.

I also didnt realize that 35 posts constituted 'talked to death' but I'll file that away also.

 

[NavyLCDR]

And it is not a new gun LAW in Seattle either. It is not even an ordinance in Seattle. There is no criminal activity associated with the gun ban and no criminal punishment either (I don't mean on the part of the ex-mayor -- he is a criminal. I am speaking about the authority behind the gun ban). If the gun carrier refuses to leave the premises, then the police will escort them out on the basis of trespassing, which also holds no weight whatsoever because of the right to be on public property clause of the trespassing statute. The only thing the mayor has done is post signs to inform persons carrying firearms that they will be asked to leave.

However, his action is illegal because it prohibits persons from being on public property at which they have a legal right to be present at, firearms included.

To be technically correct, the action of the mayor was neither a "law" nor an "ordinance", it was an executive order, via the parks and recreation department, enacting a prohibition of firearms.

 

[9MMare]

Yes, I saw it on the news...he walked in, was asked to leave, and did so.

Just like any other legal CCer would if asked to leave private property...if they leave it's not a crime.

I'm curious tho, because he said that before the 'ordinance' or 'executive order' or whatever it is could be challenged, it had to have some circumstances...like he had to be refused entry.

He will be challenging it in court...whatever it is labelled as.

Have you also heard about Snohomish county choosing to endorse the opposite? I just hear that this week.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Have you also heard about Snohomish county choosing to endorse the opposite? I just hear that this week.

All that happened with Snohomish County was that they had an ordinance and signs that banned guns in county parks. Members of Opencarry.org wrote to Snohomish County and informed them that their ordinance was against state law. The lawyers told Snohomish County the same thing they told Seattle, yes, the gun ban was illegal according to state law. Snohomish County followed the lawyers advice, changed the county ordinance and removed the signs. It's happened a lot in different counties and cities here in Washington.

Some cities, such as Bellingham have acknowledged that their signs at parks banning firearms are illegal and that they won't enforce them, but have stalled on removing the signs so that lesser informed persons will leave their guns at home.