• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle declares martial law, bans weapons

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Yep. The only person in the state who can legally declare a state of emergency and prohibit guns outside the home is the governor:

RCW 43.06.220

State of emergency — Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation.
(1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:
(e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;

But, since that goes directly against Section 24 of the state constitution:

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.

and provides no exception for a state of emergency (although another exception is included), whether such a prohibition would hold up in court is debatable.

Further, the since the city and the PD receive federal funds (homeland security grants especially vis-a-vis the police), they would also run afoul of the Stafford Act:

Sec. 706. Firearms Policies (42 U.S.C. 5207)*
(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms - No officer or employee of the United
States (including any member of the uniformed services)
, or person operating
pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under
control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer,
(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the
possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law,
other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a
criminal investigation;

(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by
Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or
order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person
where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or
local law; or

(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely
because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision
of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or
emergency.
(b) Limitation - Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in
subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a
condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or
evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such
temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or
evacuation.
 
Last edited:

jddssc121

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
282
Location
, ,
I already sent an email to the Mayor's office. I encourage others to do the same.

The Mayor's emergency order issued today is in direct conflict with state law as it does not contain an exemption for firearm possession.

RCW 9.41.290 gives the State exclusive domain over all issues related to firearms.

RCW 43.06.220 grants the power to the Govenor to restrict the poessions of firearms in public during a delcared emergency, but makes no provision nor delegation of power for a City/Mayor to do the same.


How can this get rectified?
 

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
I wouldn't knowingly walk into a riot. Unfortunately, for the people who live there, they don't have much of a choice. Confiscating a lawfully carried firearm from a LAC, would be foolish even during this situation. Of course, the mayor has no athority to enact marshal law according to state law already stated. Isn't SPD's policy to shoot anyone who has a weapon? I mean a brick and 2x4 would be much more threatening than a carving tool.
 

HK_dave

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
144
Location
Puyallup, WA
I already sent an email to the Mayor's office. I encourage others to do the same.

The Mayor's emergency order issued today is in direct conflict with state law as it does not contain an exemption for firearm possession.

RCW 9.41.290 gives the State exclusive domain over all issues related to firearms.

RCW 43.06.220 grants the power to the Govenor to restrict the poessions of firearms in public during a delcared emergency, but makes no provision nor delegation of power for a City/Mayor to do the same.


How can this get rectified?

i'd have added: "you'd think you people would know this by now"
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I don't care if the president declares this to be an order. I will not give up my guns ... its an unlawful order and one we should resist.
 

Levi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
188
Location
Tacoma
Isn't the reason we have the right to bare arms exactly for moments like this?
 

xxx.jakk.xxx

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
467
Isn't the reason we have the right to bare arms exactly for moments like this?

"being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

I think that it is here for exactly that reason.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
We're on it. Do NOT violate the mayor's order by openly carrying. You will be arrested, and the law enforcement officers will have qualified immunity despite Chan.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Whoa, time out!!!!

Nobody declared martial law. Where the hell did that come from?

Gray's advice about not OCing right now is good advice. The cops may not stop you, but a herd of Black Bloc nuts just might get in your face to see how far they can push.

As for the rest, give this a read. I just filed the story.



Seattle mayor’s emergency order not aimed at legally-armed citizens?

Responding to the acts of black-clad thugs in downtown Seattle Tuesday, Mayor Mike McGinn issued a proclamation that slaps down hard on the so-called “Black Bloc” anarchists.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bre...ncy-order-not-aimed-at-legally-armed-citizens
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Nobody declared martial law. Where the hell did that come from?

Gray's advice about not OCing right now is good advice. The cops may not stop you, but a herd of Black Bloc nuts just might get in your face to see how far they can push.

As for the rest, give this a read. I just filed the story.



Seattle mayor’s emergency order not aimed at legally-armed citizens?

Responding to the acts of black-clad thugs in downtown Seattle Tuesday, Mayor Mike McGinn issued a proclamation that slaps down hard on the so-called “Black Bloc” anarchists.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bre...ncy-order-not-aimed-at-legally-armed-citizens


One police source told Examiner late this afternoon that if a citizen is walking down a street (inside the emergency proclamation zone) with a legally-concealed handgun, he shouldn’t have anything to worry about. Police are not stopping people and frisking them for weapons.

With all due respect, no $hit. A concealed handgun wouldn't be seen by police.

Your article seems to have an apologist tone to it.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
With all due respect, no $hit. A concealed handgun wouldn't be seen by police.

Your article seems to have an apologist tone to it.

No, it has a FACTUAL tone to it.

You know, sans the hyperbole and bull-squat that surfaces in a discussion like this.

I'm one of the guys at SAF who sued Seattle over the parks gun ban and kicked their butts. I'm no fan of McGinn. But I'm not going to hand out tinfoil hat B.S. either.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
From Dave's article:



So, Dave, do you HONESTLY think the same "courtesy" would be extended to a citizen walking down a street (inside the emergency proclamation zone) with a legally-openly carried handgun? REALLY?

I honestly think that if you trot down a street in Seattle in the middle of a civil disturbance right now with an openly carried firearm, you just might be looking for a confrontation, and I honestly think you just might find one.

:)
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I honestly think that if you trot down a street in Seattle in the middle of a civil disturbance right now with an openly carried firearm, you just might be looking for a confrontation, and I honestly think you just might find one.

:)


That's funny; I had no idea that my exercise of a right is subject to whether or not I happen to be within an arbitrarily-defined proximity to criminals. In fact, I thought that was the purpose of carrying for protection. Silly me.

So if a citizen without a CPL is walking from his vehicle to his home, legally exercising his right to be armed, and he happens to be within the "proclamation zone," he is looking for a confrontation? That's rich.
 
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Seattle mayor’s emergency order not aimed at legally-armed citizens?

Dave it is in the wording and all it would take is for one officer or one prosecutor to act on it regardless of the Mayors intent.
SECTION 1;
B. Within this zone, all persons are prohibited from possession, transporting, or transferring any weapon….

Any definition I know of related to a weapon includes firearms, poorly worded maybe but still a threat to the law abiding in a time where self defense my be paramount.

I have no issue with the Mayor/Law Enforcement acting on these thugs carrying out the violent acts.
 
Last edited:
Top