joshmmm
Regular Member
imported post
I just recently had a class in which Gil Kerlikowski (Seattle Police Chief) was a guest speaker for an hour. A time came during the class when questions were posed to the Chief and an important one pertaining to gun rights was asked.
The chief was asked something similar to the following:
You mentioned that sometimes the City of Seattle passes laws (he mentioned that the city declared itself nuclear free, and then he allowed a nuclear weapon carrying navy frigate into Elliott Bay without challenging it with his 40-foot patrol boat) that should/can not be enforced.
In light of what the NOPD did after Katrina with illegally seizing firearms, and in light of Mayor Nickel's proposed gun ban that flies in the face of state pre-emption, what is the police response if the mayor orders gun seizures against state law and/or passes ordinances banning guns from city property?
His response: (not verbatim at all!!!! paraphrased completely)
The police will not enforce illegal laws-- we would likely advise the mayor that we can not enforce laws that are illegal...
However, it seems like a good idea to ban guns from crowded areas--that said, it would be impossible to enforce such a ban so it is a moot point. We simply have no way of keeping guns out, so it really doesn't make any difference from our standpoint.
My analysis:
It seems that he knows the proposed ordinance would be pre-empted and has no plans of ever enforcing it... however, he seemed to not want to simply come out and say that...
Nobody asked about Open Carry, which he could obviously enforce (as the gun would be visible)... but since he knows he can't enforce pre-empted laws, I would presume that means he would leave open carriers alone (even if the gun ban passed.)
Interestingly, the Chief plans to attend a debate in NYC called "More guns, less crime" soon... I think that is the title of John Lott's book, IIRC. Hopefully we aren't paying for this trip....
He seemed to think that the person who posed the question was anti-gun--and that of course they would like to keep guns out... but he didn't want to say he can't and he didn't want to say he won't... but he sure implied he can't and won't do anything to keep guns out of Seattle city property...He did say that he did not understand why the NOPD confiscated guns that were legally possessed--except that he thought when they took guns out of abandoned houses it was probably a good idea, but that they should have left alone allguns that were possessed by a person.
Anyway, thought these responses were interesting... would have loved to hear more from him, but he was more talking about terrorism and data collection...
(oddly, he did not come with any other officers and he was dressed in a suit (jacket off) with no gun on... an ankle holster or a kel-tec sized gun in his pant pocket would have been the only possible way for him to have had a gun with him...)
I just recently had a class in which Gil Kerlikowski (Seattle Police Chief) was a guest speaker for an hour. A time came during the class when questions were posed to the Chief and an important one pertaining to gun rights was asked.
The chief was asked something similar to the following:
You mentioned that sometimes the City of Seattle passes laws (he mentioned that the city declared itself nuclear free, and then he allowed a nuclear weapon carrying navy frigate into Elliott Bay without challenging it with his 40-foot patrol boat) that should/can not be enforced.
In light of what the NOPD did after Katrina with illegally seizing firearms, and in light of Mayor Nickel's proposed gun ban that flies in the face of state pre-emption, what is the police response if the mayor orders gun seizures against state law and/or passes ordinances banning guns from city property?
His response: (not verbatim at all!!!! paraphrased completely)
The police will not enforce illegal laws-- we would likely advise the mayor that we can not enforce laws that are illegal...
However, it seems like a good idea to ban guns from crowded areas--that said, it would be impossible to enforce such a ban so it is a moot point. We simply have no way of keeping guns out, so it really doesn't make any difference from our standpoint.
My analysis:
It seems that he knows the proposed ordinance would be pre-empted and has no plans of ever enforcing it... however, he seemed to not want to simply come out and say that...
Nobody asked about Open Carry, which he could obviously enforce (as the gun would be visible)... but since he knows he can't enforce pre-empted laws, I would presume that means he would leave open carriers alone (even if the gun ban passed.)
Interestingly, the Chief plans to attend a debate in NYC called "More guns, less crime" soon... I think that is the title of John Lott's book, IIRC. Hopefully we aren't paying for this trip....
He seemed to think that the person who posed the question was anti-gun--and that of course they would like to keep guns out... but he didn't want to say he can't and he didn't want to say he won't... but he sure implied he can't and won't do anything to keep guns out of Seattle city property...He did say that he did not understand why the NOPD confiscated guns that were legally possessed--except that he thought when they took guns out of abandoned houses it was probably a good idea, but that they should have left alone allguns that were possessed by a person.
Anyway, thought these responses were interesting... would have loved to hear more from him, but he was more talking about terrorism and data collection...
(oddly, he did not come with any other officers and he was dressed in a suit (jacket off) with no gun on... an ankle holster or a kel-tec sized gun in his pant pocket would have been the only possible way for him to have had a gun with him...)
