Seattle gun law clarification

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

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 .

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

RCW 9.41.290 pretty much says it can't and won't happen.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, but not exactly. We lost the last court review of 9.41.290.

imported post

deanf wrote:

RCW 9.41.290 pretty much says it can't and won't happen.

Click to expand...

Pretty much, but not exactly. We lost the last court review of 9.41.290.

Click to expand...

Cite please, I hadn't heard that one.

imported post

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

imported post

deanf wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

deanf wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

deanf wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

It was another case of the judge making law, rather than following existing state law. Same deal as how Christine became Governor.