Seattle Mayor Plans Concealed-Weapons Ban

[suemarkp]

Something is wrong when "city" becomes equated with private property rights. Who is the owner of city property -- the government, which is owned by the people.

Even then, I feel that private property open to the public should not be able to impose restrictions on firearms possession. It would be impossible to seamlessly carry while traveling if every piece of private property banned guns -- need gas, leave your gun at the street. Want groceries, leave your gun at the street.

 

[357WheelGun]

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.

You are misinformed. WA has had legal open carry far longer than nine years and no charge of "reckless endangerment" could be made to stick for simply having a legal weapon show unintentionally (or even intentionally). There must be additional circumstances that warrant concern or alarm (an example typically given is a person gripping the firearm, or prominently exposing it during a heated confrontation) as the mere conspicuous presence of the weapon itself is not sufficient.

As far as the mayor's plan, it won't stand up to the state preemption.

 

[Sun195]

MillCreek: I think your analysis of this issue is spot-on. It's about control of municipally owned property, not a new law. I believe the University of Washington takes a similar approach to restricting firearms on its campus - if they find you with one, you're asked to leave. Failure to comply results in a trespass. It all comes down to who controls what property and what rights/control they have over it.

Not to say I agree with this, but that's the legal approach taken.

 

[Cliff47]

I can see this is going to be a most entertaining exercise through our court system. Mayor Nickels, here's your sign...(to borrow a phrase from Bill Engvall)

 

[Kitchen_Duty]

Where's a good fail image when you need one. Any fark.com people here?

 

[MillCreek]

An article in this morning's PI confirms that the Sequim case is the legal basis for the City's action: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366336_guns10.html

 

[nomadboi]

In answer to the question(s) about the cause of shooting:

So far as I can tell, there was a fight, this guy reached for a gun in an ankle holster, there was a struggle over the gun resulting in a single shot fired... went through the nose of the guy fighting over it (not the shooter, but the other guy), a bystander's arm, and into another bystander's leg.

Heck, I'm with the mayor on banning styrofoam take-out containers and plastic bags, but this seems a pretty useless move.

Also surprised nobody has so far tied this to the cutbacks in staffing they're having to make in the King County Sheriff's office this year, since I believe they're the ones who screen applications for CHL permits.

We're adding expensive video cameras and banning carry to city parks to try to make things "safer", but cutting seventy-some deputies in our county... I know it's different budgets, but it still seems sad.

 

[K-Romulus]

Not having read the Sequim case, I can still already try to work up a distinction.

Sequim seems to concern the proprietary rights of the municipality to propose contractual terms for agreements regarding the use of city property, just as how a landlord could negotiate a lease with a tenant. The key is the term "proprietary."

Regulating a public park or public library is NOT a "proprietary" act. Contracting with someone who wants to rent a convention center or a meeting room in the public library IS a proprietary act.

Seattle seems to be free under state law to negotiate whatever contracts it wants. I don't see the same for its regulating public access to public property. But I'm not a WA state lawyer . . .

ETA: Key part of the Lexis summary in the Sequim case -

The critical point was that the conditions the city imposed on private party gun sales related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.

(I'm reading the opinion now)

ETA: Link to executive order PDF- http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/executive_orders/E0708-GunSafetyAtCityFacilities.pdf
Key part of executive order:

policies, rules and contractual agreements that prohibit dangerous weapons

The Mayor and police chief's "policies and rules" jihad will result in 100% FAIL.