Seattle area lawyer announces intent to challenge Seattle's illegal gun ban on Saturday

[paulsby]

This is a perfect example of civil disobedience for a good cause. The state attorney general has already said the seattle law is illegal, violating state law. This Seattle law was created by an ":executive order" a la Bush, by lame duck mayor Nickels.

my prediction? this man will win the lawsuit. the state law is clear.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010270121_webgun13m.html


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.
...

[pnwmom]

1. I hope Nickel's view is the correct one.

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.

[paulsby]

2. the analogy is specious

and i have a hard time believing nickels could be this stupid.

private property owners have RIGHTS

govt's such as seattle do not. they have authority

a private property owner can place all kinds of restrictions on his property that a govt. cannot. does nickels REALLY not understand this?

sure, a private property owner can prohibit firearms

they can also prohibit women or blacks or short people or...(unless they are a place of public accomodation)

or people with red t-shirts.

rule of law is very important. and the law in WA state is clear.

even if you think banning guns in seattle city parks is good from a policy standpoint. it doesn't matter. it's still illegal

[Euromutt]

29. Nickels claims there was precedent in PNSPA v. Sequim

Frankly, PNSPA v. Sequim was a rather dodgy ruling (the dissent put it rather well), but even if you accept the WS Supreme Court's ruling, it's still quite a step from saying that a city government has the authority to prohibit the sale and purchase of firearms in a city-owned convention center, to arguing that a city government can prohibit carry in publicly accessible parks and recreational facilities.

[Merchant Marine]

3. Sadly for Nickels

the State Constitution preempts whatever laws that the city lays down. The Washington Constitution includes a right to keep and bear arms. All this case is going to do is cost the city time and money.

[quiller4]

4. Washington state law is clear and Nickels argument has been

rejected in 4 different cases.

I'm a pnwgrandmom who hopes Nickels loses in court

[pnwmom]

5. Oh yeah, we'd be so much better off if only there were guns in parks. n/t

[paulsby]

7. there ARE guns in parks

and have been for ages. and seattle, fwiw, has a low homicide rate.

vancouver canada is beating us this year in homicide rate.

regardless, there are already guns in the parks.

if this law is sustained, it will only be the law abiding that won't have guns in the parks

[pnwmom]

14. Since there IS a law against guns in Seattle parks that has not been overturned

there are NO law abiding people with guns in the Seattle parks.

Every single one is a lawbreaker.

[virginia mountainman]

18. A law?? Where does the City, get the authority, to write the law from??

The state....And what did the state say....HELL NO!!

Boy o Boy, I can't wait to see the slap down.....

[Euromutt]

20. I refer you to RCW 9.41.290

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

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. <...> 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.

Emphasis added.

Nickels' executive order was overturned before he issued it; that's what "preempted" means. The only lawbreaker here is Nickels himself.

[paulsby]

22. you are wrong

i am a law abiding person and i can and will carry in the parks.

because i'm exempt from herr nickels "executive order"

care to guess why i'm exempted?

so, yes virginia, there are guns in parks. there are lawful guns in parks. there are unlawful guns in parks

[rd_kent]

24. No response after being shown your ignorance?

How telling....

[Euromutt]

27. Well, in fairness

She probably posted in this thread before it was relegated to the Gungeon, and hasn't bothered to check on it since.

[taurus145]

32. An illegal law is not a law

The state Constitution preempts all local firearms laws. Therefore, any law passed by a local government or local executive order carries no weight.

The logical and proper conclusion is that anyone carrying a firearm who is legally allowed to do so by state and Federal law is guilty of nothing except ruffling your feathers.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. An illegal city ordinance.

I would think that here, at DU, of all places, people would understand the necessity of resisting and disobeying illegal 'laws'.

[Political Heretic]

6. Wow I'm shocked, a totally rational, sensible position! I hope it prevails.

[paulsby]

8. well, except for the fact that is illegal

but why should the rule of law matter?

didn't matter to bush.

doesn't matter to nickels

[Political Heretic]

10. no, rule of law does matter - but I sure would like to see laws changed.

[paulsby]

11. the problem with that is

the WA state constitution

it reads:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


fwiw, i know a bunch of SPD cops. i am not even sure that SPD will enforce this Grand Decree (tm).

for example, kitsap county has a similar ordinance.

here's what happened
On May 31, 2009, Washington OpenCarry members held an open carry protest picnic at Silverdale's Waterfront Park, a county park. Attendees openly carried handguns, in violation of posted regulations prohibiting firearms at the park. Kitsap County Sheriff's deputies were on hand, in part to explain to the public why they weren't enforcing the park's posted gun ban. State law allows the open carrying of firearms, and specifically preempts local ordinances more restrictive than the state's. Kitsap County not only has left its parks gun ban on the books, but continues to publicly post it with other park regulations. Because the law is not practically enforceable, county deputies appear to be showing disregard for the county's law, making it unclear to many gun owners what is tolerated

per wikipedia

fwiw, i cannot be charged with a violation of this law, or i would consider such a civil disobedience as well.

[Political Heretic]

17. It's not a problem, I wish the constitution was changed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Then try and change it.

[Political Heretic]

36. Of course I'll do that. I would think that is sort of implied.

:shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. You think it is implied that complaining would result in attempting to change the Constitution?

That's just silly. Most people are well aware that any attempt to remove the 2nd Amendment would result in total political defeat by the party that would be dumb enough to try it.

[Political Heretic]

39. Of course not! I thought it would be impled that I'd work to change it

if I said I wished it would be changed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Wishing something was different doesn't imply one will work to change something.

[proteus_lives]

41. So you don't believe people have the right to bear arms?

Are you sure you're a liberal/Democrat/progressive?

[pnwmom]

15. Until that law is overturned by a court, it IS the law in the city of Seattle.

You're not the one who gets to decide this.

But why should the rule of law matter? It doesn't seem to matter to you.

[virginia mountainman]

16. Yea, and it is gonna cost them a pretty penny, to get their ass kicked!!

You say the "city" has a law, who do you THINK is the higher power? The city, or the state?

The state's attorney general, and legislator has spoken, and said, Nickles, your ban is ILLEGAL, and will NOT stand up in court...Nickels said "I think so" So now, people "who are much smarter then he, are planing to profit off the DUMB ASS.

An illegal law, is invalid.

I wish I lived close, just so I could get a piece of the "free money" action.

It would be like going to buy a lotto ticket, knowing what numbers are going to come up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Don't grasp the meaning of the words 'unconstitutional' and 'preemptive', do you?

If you feel so strongly about this, why not send a donation to Nickels' legal defense fund?
Better your money than the taxpayers at large...

[Euromutt]

21. I refer you AGAIN to RCW 9.41.290

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

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.

Emphasis added.

And we can add Article I, Section 24 of the State Constitution (http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx):

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, <...>

So Nickels' little executive order--which isn't even a law; technically, it's an agency rule--is unconstitutional and illegal. Strictly speaking, a court won't be overturning this rule; it'll be confirming that it's illegal.

[paulsby]

23. i'm exempt from the law

try to keep up

[rd_kent]

25. First of all, it is NOT A LAW..it is an executive order....

Now that we have THAT cleared up, the executive order is not valid as it is contrary to STATE LAW......

[taurus145]

35. The rule of law

obviously doesn't matter to you so long as an ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE ORDER jibes with your beliefs. Read the thread, then read the Washington Constitution.

The Constitution of the State of Washington preempts any local firearms laws or ordinances.

Your reasoning on this is faulty at best. It's akin to the idea of openly carrying a sidearm in Marion, IL because there is no local ordinance prohibiting it, even though IL state law prohibits open carry.

[X_Digger]

31. Govt property != private property..

what's so difficult to understand?

Government is not private.

[Zomby Woof]

9. Nickels is the worst mayor Seattle has ever had

I am relieved to learn he is finally on his way out. I left WA over 6 years ago, and can't believe he is still in office. But not for long...

[proteus_lives]

12. I hope the ban is struck down!

It's bullshit and Nickels wildly overstepped his authority and power.

[MichaelHarris]

13. wrong forum

but you knew that

[rd_kent]

26. Huh? What do you mean?

[Euromutt]

28. This was probably in General Discussion earlier

But you know what the mods are like: just whisper "privately owned firearm" and they dump the thread in the Guns forum, even if there are other aspects to the issue (e.g. the executive branch of local government deciding state law doesn't apply to his fiefdom).

[paulsby]

45. i put it in general discussion

and was dissapointed it got sent to this forum. not that i am dissing the gun forum, just saying that this case is about a lot more than guns. it's about a mayor who against the advice of the attorney general, common sense, case law, and state law issued an "executive" order to ban guns from city parks, as a kneejerk reaction to a shooting. and it's about a man using civil disobedience to challenge the unjust and obviously illegal law.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. LDS?

Latter day saints? I don't understand your sig.

[Euromutt]

33. Update: Bob Warden asked to leave community center by security, complies

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010276158_webgunban14m.html

Basically, Warden went into Southwest Community Center, carrying a concealed handgun, as he'd announced, security asked him to leave, and he did. SPD was present, but since he left when asked, there were no grounds for arrest on a trespassing charge.

However, having been evicted from public property should give him standing to sue the city of Seattle.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Nicely done.

I get the feeling I might know this guy from somewhere. Possibly a gun club meeting. Sharp man, if the same guy. Very sharp. Came to explain exactly this sort of thing, around concealed carry and public/private property, trespassing, and how it can all go terribly wrong if you don't know not only the letter of the law, but existing court precedent.

[aikoaiko]

34. I applaud the act of civil disobedience.

I don't know if he'll win, but I agree with the principle.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Video of the encounter, blood ran on the floor, children diving for cover.

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=240953

Bullets everywhere...