NavyLCDR
member
TexasRifleman said: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.
The mayor prohibited firearms in these places (actually he made the Parks and Recs Department prohibit firearms). He did not enact any ordinance or statute that carries any weight of law because he knew that if he did it would be immediately, without action, voided by state preemption. That is how he, in his mind, thinks he got around preemption, he did not criminalize firearms possession, he merely said, "Don't bring a gun on my property."
The Seattle Police Department can only enforce the prohibition by removing a person carrying a firearm, but they can do nothing about the lawfully carried firearm itself.
Now, Warden has a case against the City of Seattle for not allowing him access to public property even though he met all lawful conditions for entry onto that property, by claim that the gun ban is not a lawful condition for entry. That's what the court case is centered around, public property vs private property and property owner's rights.
If the courts uphold Nickels ban (and I don't see how they could) it would completely invalidate preemption altogether because then any city or county could claim that they owned the public property in their care and, therefore, as property owner, vice being a government, prohibit firearms on "their" property.