Seattle man to pack a pistol into community center to protest mayor's ban

[rainbowbob]

A man has publically announced a challenge to Mayor Nickel's (soon to be Mayor-elect McGinn's) gun ban:

Seattle man to pack a pistol into community center to protest mayor's ban

By Susan Gilmore
Seattle Times staff reporter

A Seattle man said he plans to carry a gun into a Seattle community center Saturday to protest Mayor Greg Nickels' ban on carrying guns into city parks.

"As a courtesy, this is advance notice that at noon tomorrow, Saturday, November 14, I plan to exercise my legal right to bear arms in Seattle's Southwest Community Center, 2801 SW Thistle Street." said Bob Warden in a letter to the Seattle Parks Department. "I will be safely and securely carrying my holstered Glock pistol. I have a current valid State of Washington license to carry concealed."

Warden said he has been an attorney in Washington state since 1991, but doesn't currently practice law and works in labor relations for an unnamed federal agency in the Seattle area. He said he will take a gun into the community center because the city's new gun ban "was promulgated in knowing and blatant violation of state and federal law."

The ban went into effect last month in certain park facilities and will eventually affect hundreds of playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools and water-play areas.

Nickels in September proposed the ban specifically to protect children, but the move immediately drew fire from gun-rights advocates and questions about its legality.

State Attorney General Rob McKenna said after the gun ban was announced that state law pre-empts local authority to adopt firearms regulations, unless specifically authorized by law.

Nickels said state law does not prohibit a property owner from imposing conditions on the possession of firearms on his or her property.

According to Nickels, the city believes a municipal-property owner such as Seattle may impose limits on firearms as a condition of entry or use of particular facilities, particularly those where children and youth are likely to be.

Four gun-rights groups and five individuals said last month they are suing the city of Seattle and Nickels over the new ban on guns in city parks.

But Warden said today he believes the plaintiffs may not have standing because they haven't been denied admission to a city park, and parks officials confirmed today that the issue has not arisen at any facility.

"I expect their suit may be dismissed," he said, adding that he intends to file his own lawsuit if denied admission to the community center.

"I will do so promptly and I will have legal standing," said Warden, 44, a graduate of the University of Washington law school. "I don't think public officials should get away with ignoring the law."

He said he will use McKenna's opinion in his suit.

Warden said he plans to test the law at the West Seattle center because he grew up in West Seattle and knows the area.

He said he informed the city about his plans because "I don't want to play hide the ball." Further, he doesn't want anyone to get hurt.

Warden said he's had a concealed-weapons permit since the early 1990s and is a certified pistol instructor.

He said if turned away Saturday he will comply, and described what he would be wearing so he'll be easy to identify.

As he pointed out, the already-pending law suits may not have standing because, as of yet, no one was actually denied access to a park facility for carrying a firearm.

This is exactly what is needed, someone with the legal chops and the spare time (and hopefully deep pockets) to fight this unlawful ban.

I wish him well.

 

[John Parker]

His name is Bob, your name is Bob. Is it you?

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I've never seen them in the same room together.

 

[kanook]

Bob spells his name different than Bob does

 

[Atroxus]

I wish him luck. I wish I could afford to take the risk of being wrongfully arrested to go with him.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I applaud your bravery Bob. However, I believe you could obtain standing by applying for a permit and being denied at much lower risk than being arrested.

Also, if you are planning on being arrested, I would advise choosing a weekday. Magistrates generally do not work on Sundays, so you will spend an extra day in jail before your bond hearing.

 

[Eightball]

Good luck, bob.

 

[Zoogster]

However, I believe you could obtain standing by applying for a permit and being denied at much lower risk than being arrested.

What permit would he apply for? It sounds like he has had a Washington carry permit for nearly 20 years and still has one. He is choosing to carry on public property, ie land owned by the city which the city has specifically forbidden.

He believes the city does not have the authority to ban him from carrying his firearm in that location. Some gun rights groups have tried to challenge it, but he believes they have no case because they do not have standing.
To have standing you have to be directly effected, not simply sue because you do not like a law which has not effected anyone in an adverse way. Many US SCOTUS cases are thrown out for example because someone is suing over something they do not like, but do not have standing as they were not arrested, or denied, or otherwise adversely effected in a way they can demonstrate in court.
Since people can simply ignore the city, and walk in there with a concealed weapon and the city would never know, law abiding CCW holders are unlikely to achieve standing because nobody will know they are carrying.

So in reality the first time the city ordinance would be validly challenged if allowed to run its natural course would be when it was used to charge some criminal, likely a criminal committing other crimes at the same time. Clouding the issue, and causing precedent to uphold the city ordinance.

This guy has chosen to take a stand, risking a lot, to insure the first time it is challenged is by someone with standing, a clean record, and a legal carry permit.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This guy has chosen to take a stand, risking a lot, to insure the first time it is challenged is by someone with standing, a clean record, and a legal carry permit.

Any predictions on how it goes? I predict the city ignores him completely to avoid the risk. They have to know they are wrong.

Hope all goes well, but I really suspect they will just pretend they know nothing about it.

 

[JaxNovice]

I predict he gets arrested before he even gets to the door.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Nickels has not criminalized the act of carrying a firearm in these places. Nickels says he is acting as a property owner and prohibiting firearms based on property ownership. So, if Bob is challenged, it will be to ask him to leave the premises and if he does not willingly leave, they will take trespassing action against him. Seattle PD has said the plan for enforcement is to remove someone if they don't leave willingly and take them downtown for "investigation" and then let them go.

I guess he said also that he would be wearing a Tacoma Raniers ball cap. A whole bunch of folks should show up in Tacoma Raniers ball cops, sans guns, just to have fun!

 

[rainbowbob]

His name is Bob, your name is Bob. Is it you?

No.

I wish him luck. I wish I could afford to take the risk of being wrongfully arrested to go with him.

For that reason.

Seattle PD has said the plan for enforcement is to remove someone if they don't leave willingly and take them downtown for "investigation" and then let them go.

The other Bob will then have the requisite standing as clarified by Zoogster.

 

[Seminole]

Good for Mr Warden! Is anyone (perhaps a WA resident) willing to volunteer to contact him and invite him to join THR and keep us informed?

 

[Maelstrom]

I hope he brings a cheap gun live a Davis or something. I wouldn't want my STI sitting somewhere collecting rust.

 

[Atroxus]

Nickels has not criminalized the act of carrying a firearm in these places. Nickels says he is acting as a property owner and prohibiting firearms based on property ownership. So, if Bob is challenged, it will be to ask him to leave the premises and if he does not willingly leave, they will take trespassing action against him. Seattle PD has said the plan for enforcement is to remove someone if they don't leave willingly and take them downtown for "investigation" and then let them go.

I guess he said also that he would be wearing a Tacoma Raniers ball cap. A whole bunch of folks should show up in Tacoma Raniers ball cops, sans guns, just to have fun!

Problem here is that the mayor is not the property owner. He has no right to deny law-abiding people access to public property by enacting policy that he has been told already is illegal due to state pre-emption laws.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Problem here is that the mayor is not the property owner. He has no right to deny law-abiding people access to public property by enacting policy that he has been told already is illegal due to state pre-emption laws.

That is correct. I should have clarified that his "claims" in no way make his actions legal, just that was his claim was.

 

[rainbowbob]

Problem here is that the mayor is not the property owner.

That is one of the most galling aspects of this whole steaming pile - that the lame-duck mayor has the arrogance to believe he (as mayor) is the de facto OWNER of city property!

I contend he knows EXACTLY what he is doing and knows that ultimately it won't stand. He is merely padding his resume for his application for future employment with one of the gun-banning organizations.

 

[supham]

We had the same issue here in Oxford MI. Im no legal expert and really don't remember all the details but basically in MI we are granted the rights to carry in parks and our township tried to limit those rights. Which I don't think you can do....

So there was an open carry picnic. All went well and we now have a proposal for a local ordinance to change our township law to be inline with the state law.

 

[JDoe]

He carried, was asked to leave and he did.

Well he carried, was asked to leave and he left. I wonder what the next step is for him?

Man carries gun into community center to protest ban

A Kent man who announced Friday that he intended to carry a pistol into a West Seattle community center to trigger a lawsuit challenging Seattle's ban on guns in public spaces did just that Saturday, and was promptly asked to leave.

Bob Warden, 44, announced his intentions in an e-mail Friday morning to media as well as to the city of Seattle, including the police and city attorney.

On Saturday, Warden walked into the Southwest Community Center at 2801 SW Thistle Street with a Glock-27 .40-caliber sub-compact pistol under a black jacket in a holster strap over his left shoulder. Parks Department employee Lisa Harrison asked him to leave, and he did.

"I'm not here as a Second Amendment activist," Warden said. "I'm here as a citizen who believes in the rule of law."...

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well he carried, was asked to leave and he left. I wonder what the next step is for him?

My prediction is that he will look for someone else to fund a lawsuit against the city, and nobody will because all the big organizations already have their own lawsuit, and he will fade away with nobody else noticing.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

This guy has cajones - give 'em hell!

Wait a sec - why did he leave when asked? That's the 180 degree wrong move if you goal is to challenge the law.

 

[justice4all]

I'm assuming he'll file suit pro se.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Wait a sec - why did he leave when asked? That's the 180 degree wrong move if you goal is to challenge the law.

Not necessarily. If asked to leave and you don't the charge wouldn't be "carrying a gun in a public place", it would be something else.

Whether they had cause to ask you to leave a public place would be a different argument. He might win that, but it still wouldn't change the gun law.

Unless they charged him with that specific crime it would be a waste.

The city knows that all to well, which is why they wouldn't charge him with that, they would find something else.

No, he knew what he was doing. No purpose would be served by getting arrested for an unrelated charge.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Not necessarily. If asked to leave and you don't the charge wouldn't be "carrying a gun in a public place", it would be something else.

Unless they charged him with that specific crime it would be a waste.

The city knows that all to well, which is why they wouldn't charge him with that, they would find something else.

He can't be charged with a firearms violation. Carrying the firearm was not against the law, even past the posted sign. They could only charge him with trespassing if he refused to leave.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Carrying the firearm was not against the law, even past the posted sign.

I thought that was his point, that the city had passed an ordinance that he wanted to be charged with violating so he could contest the ordinance.

What is it, just a citation for carrying? Or did he just want to be denied admission to the park? If they simply asked him to leave without a cause it doesn't seem that he would get the standing to contest this that he wanted.