Mayor Nickels Moving Forward With Gun Ban
Mayor Greg Nickels is going forward with a controversial executive order which would ban "dangerous weapons" - including firearms - on Seattle owned parks and properties. An exact date has not been set yet for when the ban will go into effect. However, a spokesman for the Mayor's office said the ban is currently expected to begin sometime in May.
Coincidentally, this places the time somewhere around the one-year anniversary of the freak shooting incident at Folklife, last year, that left two people injured and was the casus belli for the order.
The move also comes in spite of legal concerns questioning whether the city can unilaterally prohibit firearms owners, particularly those possessing Concealed Pistol Licenses, from exercising their legal rights.
Since announcing his intentions to eliminate the possession of firearms on city-owned properties, Nickels' gun ban has slipped in and out of the shadows of public attention. Carefully worded media releases and televised press conferences are followed by a hail of invective aimed at City Hall from local and national talk show hosts, political bloggers, pundits and defenders of the Second Amendment.
On Dec. 15, months after the initial furor over the ban had died down, and after most political experts had concluded the weapons ban was a dead end, the City held a public meeting to solicit input from the public after Mayor Nickels had surprisingly reiterated his intent to proceed.
The meeting was attended by several department heads of the City but not the Mayor.
Over 150 citizens showed up, most of whom were opposed to the ban. And far from being the stereotypical gathering of right wing out-of-towners that the city tried to portray the crowd as, at least half or more were Seattleites and many of them were self-described liberals, women or sexual minorities.
The State Attorney General's Office has repeatedly warned the City that Nickels was treading on a legally hazardous path with the executive order, citing the concept of pre-emption. When informed, last week, of the Mayor's plans to move forward, Attorney General Rob McKenna's office released this statement.
"Our office's opinion clearly states that state law pre-empts a city's authority to enact local laws that prohibit the possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities. Moving forward with the firearms rule could subject the city to legal challenges from private citizens."
The Mayor's office has its own legal interpretation stemming from a variety of city firearms ordinances across Washington and also a State Supreme Court ruling allowing the City of Sequim to prohibit a gun show on city property.
Whether the Mayor or AG is correct, when the executive order goes into effect, it is likely the courts will have a say. However, there was one final venue where the conflict over interpreting pre-emption might have been bypassed.
The State Legislature this session could have stepped forward with a bill that would clarify the issue and officially negate any remaining legal difficulties.
According to the Mayor's spokesman, Alex Fryer, the odds of that legislation being passed look slim at the moment. Chatting with him, last week, Fryer said the city has so many more pressing issues facing it in Olympia, such as obtaining funding for the Viaduct Tunnel and Mercer Mess, that its lobbyists don't have the time to press for additional favors.
What was unsaid was the lobbyists haven't been able to press legislators for a favor as politically explosive as gun control. At any rate, legislation from Olympia or no, it looks like Mayor Nickels is moving forward with the ban.
63 comment(s)
Joe Waldron says:
The legislature didn't address the issue because existing law (RCW 9.41.290) is perfectly clear -- neither the City of Seattle nor any other political subdivision within the state have the authority to ban otherwise lawful possession of firearms.
But Mayor Nickels doesn't care. He doesn't care about the law. He's above the law. You might as well call him President Nixon.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 6:45AM
Donn says:
I am a resident of seattle, a former police officer, and a current CPL holder.
I am not a fan of firearms, a gun nut, or a hobbyist.
I believe the Mayor's plan, as he has been already told by our state attorney general, is unconstitutional.
The mayor is wasting the time of his office and that of the citizens of Seattle with this move. It will not make our citizens safer and it will be overturned in the courts.
The Mayor seems incapable of dealing with snow over the Christmas season. Many in Seattle are hoping *someone* capable will run against him.
I personally will donate to the campaign of that person.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 9:03AM
Hal says:
The NRA militants don't care about anything but their guns.
They would elect Bin Laden if he promised them lax gun laws.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 9:34AM
GunNut says:
Ha! Thumb your nose at state law all you want, Mayor McCheese, we'll sue your fat arse so fast we'll OWN you and your city.
Don't you citizens of the People's Republic understand what he is doing? He's blatantly and arrogantly ignoring state law and choosing to create his own law. Within 30 seconds of the law being enacted, there will be THOUSANDS of people there, armed to the hilt, hoping to be the first one arrested so they can sue your stupid city into oblivion.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 9:52AM
Chris says:
I am also a Seattle resident, have never handled a gun at all and don't really plan to, but this ban is just stupid.
Once we ban guns the law abiding citizens will follow the laws leaving only the criminals and crazy outlaws with the guns.
If the mayor thinks that by enacting this law the people currently illegally carrying guns will magically follow the law he's stupid.
This is just a way to ensure the only people with guns on Seattle streets are the outlaws.
Plus, it is unconstitutional and I'm all for the Constitution.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 10:35AM
L.A. says:
"Mayor McCheese"? That's so typical of gun nuts who can't back up their position with facts and therefore always must resort to ad hominem attacks. The fact is Nickels is the mayor and he has the authority and the duty to make us as safe as possible. If you want to play cowboy take your guns to Kent.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:03AM
Goodspike says:
How about a compromise. We only ban guns around the mayor's house, and have increased police patrols there too? ;-)
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:14AM
div4gold says:
So what would the next unconstitutional step be. Suspend habaes corpus so he can't be sued? What an idiot Seattle has for a mayor so goes it for those that support him.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:18AM
Comme il Faut says:
Irrespective of the issue, the problem with Mayor Nichols is that he's just a relentless series of pandering gestures.
Why doesn't he focus on something he can actually fix?
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:20AM
johnson says:
Interestingly enough, all debate is focusing on firearms, when the proposal is for "dangerous weapons". So what is the definition of dangerous weapons? The executive order does not say. Does it include Knives, baseball bats (whoops, no softball!), ASPs, stun guns?. This is very slippery as it could take away all viable means to protect oneself (lethal and less than lethal)!
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:21AM
Voice of Reason says:
If the weapon is concealed, how would they know if you had it. Mandatory patdown searches? This might be more fun than what McFatty bargained for.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:51AM
Inookshook says:
I think that everyone should read Chris' post. My views are rather more extreme and unreasonable, but I agree with Chris
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 12:26PM
Johnson says:
I fear a revolution may be in the country's future. Some Americans will not tolerate having their liberties continually stripped away.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 12:41PM
Bob-o says:
Sorry, LA, but that is NOT the mayor's mandate.
The mayor's job is NOT to 'keep us safe'. That is not the job of the police either. The major is supposed to 'run the city' and provide the city services the taxes are collected to provide. Amoung them is the police service, which is supposed to arrest or cite those violating laws.. respond to crimes and emergencies. A policeman's job is not, never has, nor will it be, to keep any particular person safe, as that is an impossible order.
However, if you want to be kept safe, by all means, move back down to LA where that line of 'someone protect me' thinking seems to be the norm. The rest of us can do well enough to keep ourselves safe by not doing stupid things and having some basic personal protection skills... if only the politicians and crybabies would get out the of the way.
If you start implying that the mayor's job is to keep us safe, then when I'm no longer safe, I'll be good to sue the mayors office for breach of contract, right?
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 1:20PM
GunNut says:
LA: Apparently, you are not familiar with Washington State Law, perhaps because you are a liberal gun grabber, the law doesn't matter to you, or perhaps it's because you are illiterate and can't read because you got educated in LA. Either way, let me explain a couple of things about this great State that I was born and raised in...
1) NO municipality (township, city, county) may pass a gun law more restrictive than state law.
2) Washington is an "Open Carry" state, which means it's perfectly legal for me to carry a weapon, exposed, on my body and walk down the city streets of the People's Republic of Seattle, and there is not a da*ned thing you or the police can do about it unless I do something illegal with it (threaten another person, etc).
3) Washington is a "must issue" state regarding Concealed Weapons Permits. What that means is that the state MUST issue the permit unless there is a legal reason not to, unlike California, which is a "may issue" state - the state MAY issue you one if they desire to, or they MAY deny you one if they desire. Which do YOU think they do most often?
4) Mayor McCheese can pass all the laws he wants to restricting your and my right to carry. They are defacto unconstitutional and unenforceable because of state law. If I was arrested for legally carrying a weapon, I would immediatly sue for false arrest and WIN.
All y'all can whine all you want and try and change it all you want. I dare you to try and change this law. Please. Try... We'd LOVE to see you Demotards thrown out of office!!!
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 1:58PM
Julie says:
State law overides city law, which means that the Mayor has no legal right to change, or enact new laws. Mayor Nichols seems to be forgetting the financial situation his city is in; he has required city employee's to take leave of up to 14 days without pay to help the city's financial situation, but it's ok for him to waste tax payers money to create a law that will not be recognized or allowed? It's ok for him to create a law that will allow tax payers to file lawsuits against him, the city of seattle, and the city council, just so he can create a much larger financial strain on the city of seattle? Sounds like an experienced politician to me! Maybe the taxpayers of Seattle should have the Governor sit him down and give him a basic 3rd grade lesson on the levels of government and how those levels work; Good luck Seattle............you can keep Mayor Nichols.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 2:00PM
Dick Burkhart says:
Hurray for Nickels! The fewer guns the better.
Next step: gun registration.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 4:55PM
David says:
I used to think the Seattle Weekly was just bird cage liner and ignored it. Amazingly the Seattle Times, KOMO and KING are all ignoring the story. I'm not surprised this worthless fat corrupt mayor is unable to read either the Federal nor state constitution. Amazingly women have alot more to lose with this one and the silence is deafening. Maybe he should ban heroin users from the parks instead so people would want to use them in the first place.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 5:00PM
Jeff says:
You can't bring a gun with you into certain parts of airports. Is that unconstitutional? Same with the court house, I believe. How about schools? Seems like there are a few places in this state that can ban firearms. Any legal scholars out there that can explain how and where the line is drawn?
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 7:38PM
ghoo says:
Since the City and Mayor are deliberately breaking the law, anyone who is raped or the survivors of someone killed in a city park should have every expectation of winning a lawsuit against the Mayor personally and the City of Seattle for forcing them to be victims.
Since the Mayor doesn't give a whit for the law, why should I? Hmmm. Now that I think about that, it's pretty liberating.
Yeah! From now on, I'll do as I please and force everyone I can hoodwink to acquiece to my self-proclaimed rule.
New rules coming soon:
1] No motorboats on the lake.
2] No non-native animals as pets.
3] Everybody must be nice. OK...I don't have to always be nice. But YOU DO!!!
4] No more of those noisy leaf blowers.
5] Get rid of the street lights!
6] If you're not cognitively disabled and attain the age of 10 without reading or performing math at a 3rd grade level, you don't get any presents or deserts until you show continual progress. After 10 you can not be more than 2 years below grade level reading and math or you must meet the same criterion to get presents and deserts.
That's all...for now. Admit it. Life will be better.
Sincerely,
Your Royal Highness GHOO
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 9:47PM
Tomas - University Place, WA says:
Jeff, just read the very simple and straightforward law that answers your questions at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41
As a person with a concealed carry license, I made it a point to know the law, and periodically re-read it.
Tom
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 9:48PM
hopefloats says:
Hal says:
"The NRA militants don't care about anything but their guns.
They would elect Bin Laden if he promised them lax gun laws.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 9:34AM
Now here's an example of critical thinking to add the discussion!
*****
L.A. says:
"Mayor McCheese"? That's so typical of gun nuts who can't back up their position with facts and therefore always must resort to ad hominem attacks. The fact is Nickels is the mayor and he has the authority and the duty to make us as safe as possible."
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:03AM
The facts are, you fool, the constitution guarantees our right to bear arms, state law recognizes the constitutional law, and a "license to carry" furthers the right to carry!
I think south central LA is the place for you, since only the criminals are packin'.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:25PM
Jeff says:
Thanks, Tom, that was very helpful. In particular, looks like RCW 9.41.300 is where it's all spelled out. There are specific exceptions for airports, courthouses, jails and bars, but otherwise, looks like we have the right to carry. I didn't study it carefully, but didn't see anything about schools.
Perhaps we should consider revising the state law to allow for a few other places where people could expect to be firearm-free. It doesn't seem like too much to ask to add, say, schools and city parks to the list.
Posted On: Tuesday, Mar. 24 2009 @ 11:48PM
drool says:
I presume the Mayor will also give up his armed escort to set a good example.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 1:39AM
Dave Workman says:
For an explanation, see the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner.com:
http://tinyurl.com/dzx26f
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 7:26AM
Rich says:
Well the Mayor does not belieive that laws apply to him in his fyfdom. Great example.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 7:59AM
Rdz says:
In the US constitution it clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'."
It doesn't say 'the right of people to keep and bear arms in THEIR HOME shall not be infringed'. Any law preventing and person from keeping and bearing a weapon anywhere on their person is a blatant disregard of the Constitutional law. Especially if they aren't waving it around. Nickels I have news for you, the executive order you want to issue is un-constitutional. I also will disregard your "order" when I am walking around Seattle, I will have my pistol and my permit. I say bring it! I want to see you try to enforce this order. I will sue your rear, Seattle Police, and any other individual that openly endorses your "order", all the way to D.C. and make a example out of all of you.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 9:14AM
Former Resident of Ft. Lewis says:
L.A., I hope those are just initials and no indication of where you are originally from. People of Seattle, I am completely with you on this. I am a current resident of California, a second amendment activist, and a life member of the NRA. People like L.A. do not speak for everyone in California, but unfortunately, this person is the kind of sheeple that we have to endure because they are too lazy or too stupid to realize that protecting the Second amendment is about protecting freedom and not just carrying a gun in a park. Unfortunately, McKenna seems to forget that as well or just doesn't care.
As my title would indicate, I was stationed with the 296th Military Police Company at Ft. Lewis many years ago, and I obtained my Concealed carry license after a member of my unit was shot and nearly killed at a 7-11 in Lakewood.
In California we are fighting our own battles. Currently, we have two progun bills working their way through the legislature, and one court case waiting for a decision. All of these have the potential of restricting our legislators and law enforcement managers abilities to put a stranglehold on our 2A rights. Unfortunately, there are McKenna's everywhere, and we as freedom loving patriots must continue to stand against them and oppose any infringment on our right.
Jeff has brought up the question:
"You can't bring a gun with you into certain parts of airports. Is that unconstitutional? Same with the court house, I believe. How about schools? Seems like there are a few places in this state that can ban firearms. Any legal scholars out there that can explain how and where the line is drawn?"
Jeff, you don't have to be a legal scholar to understand that the feds have made it illegal to bring guns into airports, and the state made it illegal to bring guns into courts and schools. Obviously, they are greater than the city of seattle, which goes back to pre-emption. Does that mean that the laws are unconstitutional? I would say yes, because it infringes on a law abiding persons freedoms instead of dealing with the criminals. And that really is the problem. Politicians make laws that only the law abiding obey. There are 20,000 laws governing guns in the United States, and not one of them stops a criminal that is intent on committing rape, robbery, and murder. Politicians like McKenna know this, but they continue to make laws, not to protect us from crime, but to protect their own political skin, because if they can get everyone to think like L.A., Jeff, and Hal, then they can secure their job. People, it's all about control. Does the government control the people and make them subjects, or does the people control our government and keep them as servants to us? That's what it is all about.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 9:35AM
Former Resident of Ft. Lewis says:
Oops, made one mistake. Swap Nickels for McKenna. :)
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 9:44AM
John says:
Jeff, regarding your post on the 24th @ 11:48pm.
Your expectations are not based in reality. The mere presence of a firearm does not increase the level of danger. It is the intent of the person in posession of the firearm that dictates the level of danger.
Those who are intent on doing harm will not pay attention to firearm ordinances. The presense of responsible citizens, like Tom, who carry concealed, actually increases the level of safety. And in the absent of law enforcement, Tom, and those like him, are your only chance of evening the odds.
Long before firearms were invented, since the dawn of time, societies have consistently been plagued with preditors. Cowardly people who prey on those they think are weaker than themselves. Laws mean nothing to them. They take what they want, kill whom they wish, and defy us all to stop them. The only thing they understand is force. The only way to deal with them is with equal or superior force.
That is why there is a 2nd Amendment to the USC, and why most State Constitutions include a "keep and bear arms" clause. So that citizens may defend themselves against the preditors be they criminals or a tyranical government.
You are responsible for your own safety and that of your family. Not the police, not the government, not the Mayor, you.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 10:48AM
Jagermann says:
Gun control is unconstitutional and does not make anyone safer. PERIOD. I'm so sick of scumbag politicians trying to strip us of our freedoms.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 12:34PM
Melvin says:
Being a former resident of the Pacific Northwest with family living in Federal Way I have observed the Pacific Northwest decline from men being governed by the rule of law to the Statists promoting the rule of man IE rule of the mob.
And Basically this is what Mayor Nichols and his supporters feel that they should govern by decree rather than governing by our Constitution and Washington State law.
Statists like Mayor Nichols are populist type political bureaucrats who constantly feel that the governed need more and more regulation to force the masses to comply with their social re-engineering to make those who are freedom loving into docile and obedient government controlled zombies.
Mayor Nichols is spending copious amounts of resources that could be best utilized elsewhere to fight an imaginary bogeyman that isn't really there, but he still knows he is going to lose the battle and cost Seattle more resources.
My goodness Seattle, the man can't even keep the streets clear in Winter and you expect this bureaucrat to keep the City of Seattle safe from those criminals elements who scoff at the pudgy bureaucrat?
Come one Seattle, you can and will do better.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 12:45PM
Melvin says:
My apologies for spelling the Mayors name incorrectly,what can I say I'm just a product of government run indoctrination system.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 12:50PM
Earthquake says:
Americans have more to fear from than guns. Nickels is who you should fear. He walks in the very foot steps that other infamous neo fascists walked in like Mao Se Tung, Hitler, PolPott, Castro. All of these disarmed the God Fearing and replaced God with false idols. Also, Nickels prefers Homosexuals to guns and we all know that homosexual via aids kill more innocent american than guns every have.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 1:19PM
Jake says:
"C'mon Seattle! You should trust your local government, they know what's best for you!
You should know that law abiding citizens will follow the law to make the streets safer with all of those gun-toting concealed carry permit holders around!"
^the sad part is people actually think like this. It's a good thing I'm a high school teacher and I "educate" young men and women on how important it is for citizens of countries to have the right to bear arms. I normally mention this after we cover the Holocaust, the deeds of Mao Zedong, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini and Hitler.
Education on the facts is the only way, sorry pro gun users, it'll take 10 years before they spread the truth. ;)
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 1:29PM
Jake says:
Sorry for the last comments, I was not clear.
It will take some time before those of whom I educate on the 2nd Amendment will take those correct ideas that law abiding people will only follow the law and any anti gun legislation will only hurt the honest people with them and hopefully they will properly educate their children so idiot politicans get the message. Believe it or not there are 65 democrats in the legislative branch of our U.S. Government who are pro-gun, they KNOW that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only increased crime.
If you are still not convinced please look up the gun crime statistics of Great Britain and Australia, when they sanctioned a nationwide ban on firearms, the honest people turned them in, guess what, the criminals doing what they do best just did not follow the law and now they and only the police only have fireams.
Just the way Hitler would have liked it.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 1:37PM
Jack says:
Why is it that guys like Nickels, who enjoy 24/7 armed police protection, think that the common man and woman should not be able to protect themselves. Is he saying that a woman with a CWP, who has a protection order against a stalker or a rapist, can't carry a pistol in a city park or building to protect herself? What is wrong with this picture? Nickels would rather she be vulnerable to an attack while she tries to dial 911 and meanwhile be beaten or killed while the SPD tries to get to her location in what, 10 minutes or so time? Huh?
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 1:58PM
Stan Blau says:
Regardless as to your position on guns, every American should be adamantly opposed to elitist leaders who believe they are above the law. Unilaterally Enacting and enforcing laws in contradiction to those established by the democratic process is the very definition of tyranny. When the people permit such behavior, a dictator is born and none are safe.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 3:22PM
charles brown says:
just remember what its like in most of the rest of the world.the 2nd admendment says what it means and means what sayes. to bad bleeding hearts!!
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 5:30PM
Bruce says:
People like Hal an LA think that if gun are outlawed that the criminals with give up their guns. But as an police officer know's, the criminal will be the only ones with guns an crime will sky rocket.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 5:49PM
Joe says:
I was thinking about taking a job and moving my family to Seattle. I will not move there though if the -
MAYOR NICKLES IS FORCIBLY TAKING AWAY THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION FROM HIS "SUBJECTS."
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 6:36PM
Dan says:
Welcome to Seattle. Where the criminals are the only ones who can protect themselves. I am sure they will obey your executive order. This is a typical liberal mayor who just wants to do away with your rights. Wake up Seattle and vote this guy out of office. Your first admendment rights are next.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 9:03PM
Tomas - University Place, WA says:
Jeff, the schools are covered very well in existing law. Check http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280 for some detail.
As to outlawing legally carried concealed weapons from public parks, though, I must disagree.
As a disabled person unable to run from an attacker and unable to adequately defend myself without assistance, I may have to depend on my firearm for protection of myself or others in a park.
Do not take my only defense from me unless you intend to provide equivalent protection 24/7. (That protection is not and cannot be provided by the police, nor are they actually required by law to provide individual protection to citizens, other than those incarcerated.)
Remember, only the law abiding citizens will follow any "no guns" law - criminals, by definition do not obey the laws.
Take care,
Tom
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 9:06PM
Doug says:
Criminals by definition are not restrained by any law.
The mayor is deluding himself and denying law-abiding citizens protection under the law.
Seattle badly needs a new mayor.
Posted On: Wednesday, Mar. 25 2009 @ 9:13PM
Chris says:
I think the mayor and police are conspiring to deny CPL holders their civil right to carry concealed weapons in city parks. Isn't denying people their rights under color of law a Federal crime? And wouldn't planning with police to enforce this "illegal law" make up the added crime of conspiracy?
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 5:39AM
Don Ingram says:
LA,
Last time I checked, the police and politicians are not duty bound to protect us private citizens as stated by the United States Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts as well. You folks can call 911 and be a victim, but don’t expect the rest of responsible gun owners to be a victim.
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 7:26AM
Dan says:
WoW!!! That's all your state needs. More criminal safe havens. What is absolute amazemet to me is there are those that actually believe that less guns make for a safer society.
To me it is the essence of naieve. By the mentality of some Virginia Tech, Mumbai, malls, churches, and schools should be the utopia of safe. Psycho's and criminals are not choosing our local rod and gun clubs for their killing sprees. There is a reason the criminal picks places that don't allow guns. Their criminal intent would be reversed.
There is a reason why Chicago and Washington DC have the highest crime ratios in the country and Rapid City, South
Dakota one of the lowest. Could it be Rapid has reasonable gun laws? People should watch DC since the Supreme Court determined them to be unconstitional in their suppression of the 2nd amendment. Watch crime go down. What will be published about that? Probably nothing.
48 states have legislation in place governing CWC. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states left prohibiting CWC. Legislation is relatively recent in most of the 48 and not carry overs from the Boston Tea party.
The gun doesn't kill any more than a spoon got Rosy O'donnel fat. There is a saying: When you only have seconds the police are an hour away.
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 3:03PM
Al says:
Let me get this straight........Seattle mayor seeks to subvert the US Constitution and Washington State law! Looks to me like tyranny and he must be immediately removed from office, incarcerated and tried for crimes against the people and the Constitution. The only difference between the mayor and the usurper in the White House is the mayor probably has a birth certificate proving he was born in America. Technically their both
Communists and are anti-American.
Hey mayor, while your at it, I would outlaw all vehicles in Seattle because they are injuring and killing innocent people at an a rate that is off the charts compared to firearmsI I'm a vet, I carry, I'm a patriot and the mayor can go to you know where.
Oh, if he intends to carry through with this charade I will sue him personally for violating my Constitutional rights and assuming the title of tyrant while hiding behind the title of mayor. I have the resources to take him on. We the people subject to his dangerous behavior would be at the mercy of the criminals because as previously stated the police can't help.
Remember, he works for us and we all pay his salary!
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 3:24PM
Al says:
Let me get this straight........Seattle mayor seeks to subvert the US Constitution and Washington State law! Looks to me like tyranny and he must be immediately removed from office, incarcerated and tried for crimes against the people and the Constitution. The only difference between the mayor and the usurper in the White House is the mayor probably has a birth certificate proving he was born in America. Technically their both
Communists and are anti-American.
Hey mayor, while your at it, I would outlaw all vehicles in Seattle because they are injuring and killing innocent people at an a rate that is off the charts compared to firearmsI I'm a vet, I carry, I'm a patriot and the mayor can go to you know where.
Oh, if he intends to carry through with this charade I will sue him personally for violating my Constitutional rights and assuming the title of tyrant while hiding behind the title of mayor. I have the resources to take him on. We the people subject to his dangerous behavior would be at the mercy of the criminals because as previously stated the police can't help.
Remember, he works for us and we all pay his salary!
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 3:24PM
Anonymous says:
RCWs > Title 9 > Chapter 9.41 > Section 9.41.290
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 4:48PM
2nd Fundamentalist says:
Ah, Democrats. The party that coddles criminals and terrorists and wishes to criminalize law-abiding gun owners.
The 2nd Amendment is the first right among free Americans. That right is worth fighting and dying for.
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 26 2009 @ 5:48PM
Minnesota says:
SEATTLE!!!
Vote this guy out!! He is like asking Colonel Sanders to baby sit your chicken.
LA is best served by staying right where he is at. But Seattle? Beautiful city. Keep it that way. You don't need a Watts. Let LA deal with with Watts and the cartels in Santa Ana. Leave him with his 911 for security. He won't be around long.
We can all argue with Colonel Sanders' chickens but they will never change their emotional reliance on protection from the Colonel. The arguments are always the same and they don't even have the decency to change the rhetoric. Guns=bad=unsubstantiated=head where the sun does not shine.
England=Australia=India=holocaust=Turkey=Somalia=Hitler=Saddam Hussein=Virginia Tech=Mumbai=Tibet=mayor McCheese=Boston Tea Party.
The poultry are not getting it folks. Don't waste your time. But never forget. It is our obligation and responsibility to be trained and willing to protect them.
There are sheep. Then there are sheep dogs. The 2nd Amendment gives us teeth. Protect our teeth Seattle. Vote your mayor out.
Now I can go back to watching the Vikings lose and not shoot anyone over it. Maybe a Packer fan or two.
Minnesota has your back Seattle.
Posted On: Friday, Mar. 27 2009 @ 7:35AM
traaxx says:
A Dangerous weapon is any thing that can cause serious injury or scaring. This could a screw driver, a bat, a baseball, a firearm ( a Deadly Weapon), a knife ( a Deadly Weapon), etc. Anything design purpose to injury or kill is a "Deadly Weapon", this include stun guns and peper spray. Anything that could be used to injury or casue bodily harm ( including scaring) is a "Dangerous Weapon", this could be a brick, rock, car, a makeup mirror with sharp edges, etc.
The state preemption law should stop this, but I'm sure they will interpet it in a way that it won't. Just like the Constitution and Bill of Rights anything on paper is at the will of the reader, unless backed up by 'Deadly Force' = in this case that should be the police and justice system. Since that's corrupt and no longer pertains to citizens then what?
How do disenfranchised 2nd class residences regain their rights?
What would our forefathers do regain theirs?
Whatever
Traaxx
Posted On: Saturday, Mar. 28 2009 @ 3:11PM
Anonymous says:
Dick Burckhart must be missing a body part named after his first name. Wonder what he'd say if free speech was made illegal?
Posted On: Sunday, Mar. 29 2009 @ 1:22AM
muddsliger says:
afqdgDWB
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 1 2009 @ 3:47PM
Lane Giard says:
What a jerk.
Posted On: Monday, Apr. 6 2009 @ 3:54PM
H. R. Block says:
Mayor nickels is still pushing his "executive order" for a city ban, even if it violates state law, per his attorneys. This is to protect his gang friends, and to divert attention from his other ongoing scandals.
While attempting to disarm law abiding citizens that have concealed carry permits recognized statewide, he will continue to have 24/7 personal security, an additional taxpayer expense. The value of this service not available to anyone else, provided by a public agency needs to be reported on his income tax return. I suspect that like many politicians, he is another tax cheat not noticed by the IRS.
Posted On: Monday, Apr. 6 2009 @ 6:37PM
Patriot says:
Any liberal gun grappers willing to report us for carrying "dangerous weapons" in public parks so we can all get arrested and sue the city? Come on down, smoke some dope in the park and watch us get arrested. It'll be fun!
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 9 2009 @ 8:53AM
Perry says:
When one stands in the way of your right to carry and many have died to make sure we have that freedom to do so I say is a traitor and should be held for treason. I love the USA and when thugs like this guy try to take away my rights just because he thinks he can well
we the people need to take a stand.Its not about what I want or he wants its about our rights. I love the USA!
Posted On: Sunday, Apr. 19 2009 @ 11:02AM
steve valenta sr says:
I can't believe what these politicians try to get by with these days. Look at the lies Portland mayor told and is still in office. We need to make sure and remember this when Nickels wants to be relected
Posted On: Sunday, Apr. 26 2009 @ 4:55PM
cap'n says:
This is a bit after the original article.
After the narrow defeat of the Thune-Vitter amendment, I started to look at similar articles.
I corresponded with Congresswoman Patty Murray regarding this amendment, she voted against it.
The recent Heller decision stated: The right for the individual to carry a weapon for defense, is a God given right. No government can give or take it away.
We are rapidly becoming another footnote in history, as to what doesn't work. To be taught at another HS class in the future. (If history will even be taught then)
I am working overseas.
I did not hear about any uproar during this years festival.
Wake up America!
If you want you rights.
You need to be forever vigilant.
Posted On: Sunday, Jul. 26 2009 @ 8:33AM
Mayor McCheese says:
Every single gun owner in Seattle voted against Greg, how does that feel, retard?
Wave bye-bye now.
Posted On: Friday, Aug. 21 2009 @ 3:32PM
SGCB says:
Read Washington State Law:
RCWs > Title 9 > Chapter 9.41 > Section 9.41.290
9.41.280 > 9.41.300
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.
[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 28 2009 @ 8:47PM