Seattle Mayor Plans Concealed-Weapons Ban

[rainbowbob]

The 14-day "commitment" is an observation period only. No meaningful treatment for any mental condition can take place in 14 days. IMHO it would be setting a very dangerous precedent to start denying civil rights on the basis of nothing more than the person having been under observation for a fortnight.

Aguila Blanca:
I agree with everything you wrote. My point was that Grainger did qualify for a CPL under the current statute, and there is no reason to change it.

Although some will say that any restriction of firearm ownership is an infringement of the 2A (and they would be right), I personally don't have a problem with restrictions based on a history of criminal violence (whether or not the person is mentally ill).

 

[pyle]

Why is it that politicians and "stupid" find each other like male and female cats? My definition of "stupid" = lacking common sense.....

 

[spentbrass]

I can't stand Greg Nickles, when will people stop electing "Dough Boy" into office? I'm so glad I don't live in Seattle anymore.

"Dough Boy" also wants to ban plastic water bottles, bon fires on the beach, and plastic bags at the grocery store. In addition to trying to ban "evil guns" at his precious music festivals, he's some sort of Climate Change Crusader.

 

[Mannlicher]

I may be wrong, but a mayoral edict is not law.

 

[makarovnik]

How does the issuing authority verify if someone has been committed? Does that show up on the FBI background check. Is there a list somewhere?

 

[86thecat]

What am I missing here? Music festival in park is outdoors, right?

RCW 70.108.150
Firearms — Penalty.


It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport or convey, or to have in his possession or under his control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

[1972 ex.s. c 123 § 5.]

 

[Mortech]

The main thing is that the Festival is not mainly a music one so there is a debate whether it qualifies as a 'music festival' . Thus whether or not it is coverd by RCW 70.108.150

 

[86thecat]

Thanks.

 

[theken206]

Nickles, man dont even get me started on this cat

 

[rainbowbob]

How does the issuing authority verify if someone has been committed?

The clerk of the court is supposed to send notice to the NICS system of any order of commitment (longer than 14 days).

 

[rainbowbob]

What am I missing here?

Music festival in park is outdoors, right?

RCW 70.108.150
Firearms — Penalty.

It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport or convey, or to have in his possession or under his control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

That's a good question. I'd forgotten about that. It could certainly be argued the Folklife Festival is an outdoor music festival. Hmmm...

 

[Dain Bramage]

RCW 70.108.150

Note that Grainger has not been charged under this RCW. The DA either thought it didn't apply, or that 2nd degree assault was enough. I get the distinct impression they just want this to die down and go away.

They probably have a better grasp of the legal issues, unlike Don KeyNickels tilting at antigun windmills.

 

[MinnMooney]

Knee-jerk reaction......... heavy on the JERK.

They were injured by an evil,crazy, person with a firearm.

Grainger committed the crime, not the gun. Without Grainger, the gun would have just been lying there. Without the gun, Grainger would have resorted to a knife or a hammer, or even a rock.

Exactly the way I feel. The mayor is simply being a knee-ferk reactor and we don't need that kind of adolescent in a position of power.

 

[Old Dog]

It seems to me that Nickels has somehow fixated on the gun-control issue as being the one issue he will continue to obtain support on ... he's screwed so many things up in Seattle; he knows that guns are one thing on which his liberal constituency will actually agree with him (see the current "SoundOff" in the P.I.). http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ SPD Chief ("Dude, where's my Glock?") Kerlikowske is probably one of the few who side with him on the gun issue ...

Nickels fancies himself a crusader for numerous liberal causes, but regrettably, firearms issues will probably garner him more heat than any others, as I suspect most people simply ignore him until he starts attacking something that affects their lives ... and there are too many folks up here, even in King County, who will draw the line when it comes to guns.

 

[Bobarino]

here's the EO. he's out of his gourd. state laws do NOT authorize further restrictions and his EO is not consistent with state laws in the least. at least not in the real world. in crazy lefty, hoplophia land, ya, you betcha.

http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/executive_orders/E0708-GunSafetyAtCityFacilities.pdf

Bobby

 

[Orange_Magnum]

I'm glad Florida has a more mature outlook on things. Many people living in Florida are retired, people with life experience. On the news here our Sheriff would say about an incident like the one in Seattle, had it happened here, "We got the guy and he is off the street now. Good news for everyone." But no, in commie Seattle everybody has to be punished, people who had nothing to do with it, and the shooter is probably out on the street tomorrow, given leftwing sobbing mentality. :banghead:

 

[MD_Willington]

Wow, the comments posted there are really ripping the mayor a new one...

 

[Larry E]

This sort of thing makes me glad that I no longer live in the Seattle area or WA State. Nine years ago when I lived in WA a person could be charged with reckless endangerment if someone so much as saw another's concealed handgun, let alone had it drawn on them.

WA State's concealed carry requirements are actually pretty lenient unless they've changed recently. A clean criminal record, legal age, and the money for the permit. The King County Sheriff's office had a window for concealed carry applications, open during all normal business hours. In Montana, a person not only has to have a clean criminal record, be legal age, and have the money for the permit, but also pass a firearms safety/law class (at least in Billings/Yellowstone County). The anti-gun Yellowstone County Sheriff's office has two (or three, my memory is going) days a week, three people per day by appointment, when a person can apply for either a new or renewal CCP. Other states require a shooting test as well. When the WA State legislature passed a reciprocity bill a few years back, Gov Locke vetoed it because, "...other states might not have WA State's rigorous requirements...". Uh, yeah! A WA CCW is good in Montana, but not vice-versa.

 

[MillCreek]

Actually, I just read the executive order linked above. As I interpret it, he is asking the City to develop restrictions forbidding firearms on City-owned property. I think the City would be within their property ownership rights to restrict or forbid firearms on their owned property. A property owner is generally given wide latitude as to permissible activities on their property.

The question is of course, as to if the lawful possession or carrying of firearms would from a Constitutional standpoint trump the private property ownership rights. Very interesting, and I wonder if there is any Washington state case law on the subject.

 

[Mainsail]

RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

 

[MillCreek]

Mainsail, if you read the executive order, you will note that the mayor is not proposing any laws or ordinances. He is proposing rules, policies and contractural agreements pertaining to the ownership of City property. As such, a good lawyer would argue that this is immune from the state preemption of firearms laws and ordinances. This would be no different than you having a rule in your house banning the carrying of firearms. Your rules apply on your private property. The sticky wicket is then if those rules violate the Constitution, and as such the government can over turn those rules.

 

[MD_Willington]

restrictions forbidding firearms on City-owned property.

Mayor "Fancy" Nancy over here in Moscow Idaho tried the same thing, the State told her to get stuffed...

 

[TAB]

Mayor "Fancy" Nancy over here in Moscow Idaho tried the same thing, the State told her to get stuffed...

wait so it so its wrong for some one, to restrict what can be brought onto thier properity?

 

[MillCreek]

I did some research in the Washington case law, and I found the Washington Supreme Court case that the City of Seattle is relying upon: Pacific NW Shooting Park Association, et al. vs. the City of Sequim, et al. The citation is at 158 Wn. 2d. 342, October 2006. It turns out my earlier guess as to policies and rules pertaining to owned property is exempt from the state preemption is correct.

If you read the opinion, you will see some interesting holdings by our Supreme Court in the headnotes:

[9] Municipal Corporations - Weapons - Possession - Right of Possession - Regulation - Municipal Corporations - Proprietary Capacity. RCW 9.41.290 , which preempts municipal "laws and ordinances" regulating the possession of firearms, does not apply to a municipality when it acts in a proprietary capacity comparable to that of a private party.

[10] Municipal Corporations - Powers - Proprietary Function - What Constitutes - In General. A municipality acts in a proprietary capacity when it acts as the proprietor of a business enterprise for its own private advantage. A municipality acting in a proprietary capacity exercises business powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation.

[11] Municipal Corporations - Powers - Proprietary Function - Right To Contract - Scope. When acting in a proprietary capacity, a municipality may enter into any contract that is necessary to render the system efficient and beneficial to the public.

[12] Municipal Corporations - Powers - Proprietary Function - Property Management - Temporary Use Permit for Municipal Facility. A municipal corporation acts in a private capacity as a property owner when it issues a permit for the temporary use of a municipal facility by a nonmunicipal entity.

[13] Municipal Corporations - Weapons - Possession - Right of Possession - Regulation - Municipal Facilities - Permit Conditions - Preemption. RCW 9.41.290 , which preempts municipal "laws and ordinances" regulating the possession of firearms, does not prohibit a municipality from conditioning the issuance of a permit for the temporary use of a municipal stadium or convention center for a gun show where firearms will be bought, sold, and traded.

Reading the entire opinion, you see that the Court essentially said that RCW 9.41.290 does not prohibit a municipal property owner from imposing firearms restrictions on municipal property. These are not laws and ordinances as contemplated by 9.41.290, and the city can exercise its property rights.

So very interesting reading, and since the Washington Supreme Court has ruled on this issue of a municipality exercising property rights on municipal property as they pertain to firearms, it will be interesting to see if any new City of Seattle firearms policies related to city-owned property could be successfully challenged. Note that this decision did not address the Constitutional issue of the lawful possession and carrying of firearms. This decision had to do with restrictions on sales at a gun show.

 

[another okie]

What is it exactly that happened? The newspaper accounts are all extremely vague. The guy has been charged criminally for the shooting, but why did he shoot?