Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Seattle gun law clarification

  1. #1
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872

    Post imported post

    I know a few months ago Seattle mayor greg nickels came out with a statement per my understanding making it illegal to carry on anytthing owned by the city reguardless of a weapons permit To my understanding this includes parks and some bulindings. To my knowledge a mayor does not have the power to override state law. Please correct me if wrong. There are a number of activities I have comming up in Seattle and I was woundering if I am legaly allowed to carry on "city property" or not. And looking for advice on what to say if I get stoped by a cop trying to enforce what the mayor said. Any help and/or clarification would be a help, as always thanks
    -Fire Suppressor
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    As has been discussed here many times, the Mayor has no power to override state preemption. In the unlikely event you encounter an officer trying to use that executive order, I'd just say it violates preemption, and if further problems develop, be ready to call Randy Loun .
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Nothing happened, nothing changed, no low level mayor found a way to override state law.

    This is the worst thing about that stupid little stunt he pulled, people actually believe it happened, and have probably been discouraged from carrying. The stupid moron WON if even one person does that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Nothing happened, nothing changed, no low level mayor found a way to override state law.

    This is the worst thing about that stupid little stunt he pulled, people actually believe it happened, and have probably been discouraged from carrying. The stupid moron WON if even one person does that.
    The executive order banned nothing anywhere at any time. It only directed department heads to find a way to ban weapons. RCW 9.41.290 pretty much says it can't and won't happen. It was a media circus to get his name in the paper and on TV as a "do something guy." The reality is he did nothing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    RCW 9.41.290 pretty much says it can't and won't happen.
    Pretty much, but not exactly. We lost the last court review of 9.41.290.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    RCW 9.41.290 pretty much says it can't and won't happen.
    Pretty much, but not exactly. We lost the last court review of 9.41.290.
    Cite please, I hadn't heard that one.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    You've got to be kidding me. Estes v. Vashon Fire.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    You've got to be kidding me. Estes v. Vashon Fire.
    That was so wrong and the judgeignored the law so badly. I just ignore that. If Estes had appealled it it would have been overturned easily.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    You've got to be kidding me. Estes v. Vashon Fire.
    It was ruled that the Vashon fire distrcit could implement a rule banning firearms because it was in the best interest and safety of the general community becuase the people inside the fire department buildings are charged with protecting the citizens. It is not even close to being the same thing that Nichols is looking towards.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    You've got to be kidding me. Estes v. Vashon Fire.
    It was ruled that the Vashon fire distrcit could implement a rule banning firearms because it was in the best interest and safety of the general community becuase the people inside the fire department buildings are charged with protecting the citizens. It is not even close to being the same thing that Nichols is looking towards.
    It was another case of the judge making law, rather than following existing state law. Same deal as how Christine became Governor.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •