Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Seattle gun ban is illegal, Appeals Court rules Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761

    Seattle gun ban is illegal, Appeals Court rules Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-gun-ban-is-illegal-Appeals-Court-rules-2245312.php

    The state Court of Appeals affirmed Monday that Seattle's gun ban in parks is illegal, more than a year after a King County judge sided with gun-rights advocates and the city appealed.

    In 2008, then-Mayor Greg Nickels enacted a rule that banned guns and "dangerous weapons" from city parks, community centers and other city properties. In 2009, the city added another rule thar banned guns from parks where kids are "likely to be present." The rules followed a shooting at the Northwest Folklife festival that injured three people.

    They prompted a lawsuit by a group of gun-rights advocates who had concealed weapons permits. In February of last year, King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled that state law prohibits cities from enacting laws that regulate the possession of guns.The city then appealed.

    In affirming the trial court's decision, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel wrote:

    Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public.

    Visit seattlepi.com's home page for more Seattle news. Contact Vanessa Ho at 206-448-8003 or vanessaho@seattlepi.com, and follow her on Twitter as @vanessaho.

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...#ixzz1cOqIulgN
    Last edited by deanf; 10-31-2011 at 06:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Oh No What is this World Coming To?
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645
    Now what would it take to get this enforced OUTSIDE the Peoples Republic of Seattle? IE Spokane or any of the other cities that ignore the law.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    NOW is the time!

    Now is the time to send the ruling to every city, county, municipality in this state. With the expectation that any and all signs be corrected immediately. With the expectation that all city, county, municipal employees (including LEO) are immediately informed, trained and versed on the subject. With the expectation that all LEO receive a training bulletin on the subject and such training bulletin is available to the general public on the municipalities website.

    Quote Originally Posted by Right Wing Wacko View Post
    Now what would it take to get this enforced OUTSIDE the Peoples Republic of Seattle? IE Spokane or any of the other cities that ignore the law.
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    Typically ignorant story. What does the fact that the filers of the lawsuit have concealed carry permits have to do with anything?

    Plus the fact that they got the name of the permit wrong. Wish it still was concealed "weapon" permit so I could carry my knife as well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Now is the time to send the ruling to every city, county, municipality in this state. With the expectation that any and all signs be corrected immediately. With the expectation that all city, county, municipal employees (including LEO) are immediately informed, trained and versed on the subject. With the expectation that all LEO receive a training bulletin on the subject and such training bulletin is available to the general public on the municipalities website.
    I believe that a lot of this will now happen in "housekeeping" sessions of various councils.

    I got the feeling that many were just waiting for the Appeals Court ruling which has Statewide implications to come down. Now that they agreed that the State Law preempted look for signs and rules to be changed.

    Wouldn't hurt to point out in any communications with officials that they are now guilty of a crime themselves if they attempt to retain the laws.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    Washington Counties, Cities and Parks needing rule change

    I agree, time to go to work....and I would like to suggest the moderator make this a "sticky", create a new thread with the above title for a comprehensive landing page of likely candidates needing encouragement for reform as they become identified, or use the thread that is in the que started by Gene B.. Folks in corresponding areas could then identify local opportunities needed and get support and coaching for the process of change.

    A simple list, naming the park or city, if it's county managed or city, along with a link to the local boards, would go far for letter writing campaigns, along with requests for review on agendas for changes needed. It is a moment of opportunity that we now have....and don't forget other venue's like public transportation and such.

    Spokane would be first on the list, since they seem to be posturing so much, lately....
    Last edited by jt59; 10-31-2011 at 07:25 PM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  8. #8
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Now is the time to send the ruling to every city, county, municipality in this state. With the expectation that any and all signs be corrected immediately. With the expectation that all city, county, municipal employees (including LEO) are immediately informed, trained and versed on the subject. With the expectation that all LEO receive a training bulletin on the subject and such training bulletin is available to the general public on the municipalities website.
    I just sent emails to both Bothell and Kirkland.

    Kirkland council are considering a re-write of the relevant codes on Nov 15th. Hopefully, this will push them in the right direction.
    Last edited by NavyMike; 10-31-2011 at 07:25 PM.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Well, you do know they tried to write RCW 9.41.290 three times, once in 1983, again in 1985, and yet again in 1994. Finally the appeals court has sided with the legislature, ok guys you actually got the wording right this time, there is no wiggle room left for local governments.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    And here's my take in Examiner

    SAF victory over Seattle gun ban affirms state preemption

    Earlier Monday, following the announcement by the Washington State District 1 Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment Foundation had prevailed for a second time in its challenge of Seattle’s illegal gun ban in parks facilities, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb was in a content but philosophical mood.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ate-preemption

  11. #11
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    At what cost?

    I'm interested in writing a piece relevant to the cost associated with the hubris of Mayor FiveCent.

    Can anyone point me in the right direction with regard to research on this specific case?

    Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Lightning Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Duvall, WA
    Posts
    9
    This ruling, while not surprising, is absolutely welcome news, and I agree that it should be shown to any local government that still has unauthorized firearms restrictions. Kudos to SAF, etc.

    I just wanted to comment on one thing...

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Wouldn't hurt to point out in any communications with officials that they are now guilty of a crime themselves if they attempt to retain the laws.
    No offense, but I wouldn't. I understand what you're referring to - the catch-all penalty provision in RCW 9.41.810 - but I think the suggestion is faulty for a few reasons. First, statutory construction: .810 says violation is a misdemeanor "except as otherwise provided." .290, the preemption provision, states that unauthorized restrictions "are preempted and repealed" - which I would read to be a more specific remedy that overrides .810. Second, lawmakers - even those at the local level - enjoy legislative immunity which, when it applies, is absolute or nearly so. Right or wrong, no city or county council member is ever going to be prosecuted for "violating" the preemption law. Finally, it's simply unnecessary. Barring reversal in the state supreme court, this decision is enough to convince every city's and county's attorney that the preemption fight is lost. (Ask me how I know...) I think you can take the win, and forego the unnecessary and empty criminal threat - one that, to me at least, only lessens the credibility of the argument.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

  14. #14
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Jeff View Post
    This ruling, while not surprising, is absolutely welcome news, and I agree that it should be shown to any local government that still has unauthorized firearms restrictions. Kudos to SAF, etc.

    I just wanted to comment on one thing...



    No offense, but I wouldn't. I understand what you're referring to - the catch-all penalty provision in RCW 9.41.810 - but I think the suggestion is faulty for a few reasons. First, statutory construction: .810 says violation is a misdemeanor "except as otherwise provided." .290, the preemption provision, states that unauthorized restrictions "are preempted and repealed" - which I would read to be a more specific remedy that overrides .810. Second, lawmakers - even those at the local level - enjoy legislative immunity which, when it applies, is absolute or nearly so. Right or wrong, no city or county council member is ever going to be prosecuted for "violating" the preemption law. Finally, it's simply unnecessary. Barring reversal in the state supreme court, this decision is enough to convince every city's and county's attorney that the preemption fight is lost. (Ask me how I know...) I think you can take the win, and forego the unnecessary and empty criminal threat - one that, to me at least, only lessens the credibility of the argument.
    +1

    I agree, such a threat is empty, and only pushes the bounds of credibility of anyone peddling it.

    The only angle that has any backbone is the one I presented to Bothell earlier this year, with the simple reminder that the state through preemption has already de-facto repealed their parks "ordinance" against firearms, and any attempt to enforce it would result in bad press and lawsuits they have no hope of winning given recent court decisions. They are better off wiping it from their books and making sure their PD are trained accordingly to cover their butts.

    Frankly, I think this ruling is one of the very last nails in the proverbial coffin we have been waiting for. Now we need to push for legislation with teeth, such as what Florida has recently passed.

    As a closing thought, I would just like to thank Nickles and McGinn for being so dense on this subject, and for helping the 2A community in Washington by pushing such a lost cause, so that such an excellent and resounding judgment could be placed on the books against them. I think most of us knew this outcome was a forgone conclusion, but I'm glad these knuckleheads didn't.
    Last edited by FMCDH; 11-01-2011 at 02:57 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    In affirming the trial court's decision, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel wrote:

    Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public.
    So basically the court told them to read the damn state law, and compared to most lawyereze lingo, this is straight forward and easy to understand:

    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.

    To the City of Seattle:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Quad Facepalm.jpeg 
Views:	76 
Size:	27.9 KB 
ID:	7255

    But don't worry, Portland isn't far behind...

  16. #16
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    As a closing thought, I would just like to thank Nickles and McGinn for being so dense on this subject, and for helping the 2A community in Washington by pushing such a lost cause, so that such an excellent and resounding judgment could be placed on the books against them.
    +1 We should send them nice Thank You cards.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Jeff View Post
    No offense, but I wouldn't. I understand what you're referring to - the catch-all penalty provision in RCW 9.41.810 - but I think the suggestion is faulty for a few reasons. First, statutory construction: .810 says violation is a misdemeanor "except as otherwise provided." .290, the preemption provision, states that unauthorized restrictions "are preempted and repealed" - which I would read to be a more specific remedy that overrides .810. Second, lawmakers - even those at the local level - enjoy legislative immunity which, when it applies, is absolute or nearly so. Right or wrong, no city or county council member is ever going to be prosecuted for "violating" the preemption law. Finally, it's simply unnecessary. Barring reversal in the state supreme court, this decision is enough to convince every city's and county's attorney that the preemption fight is lost. (Ask me how I know...) I think you can take the win, and forego the unnecessary and empty criminal threat - one that, to me at least, only lessens the credibility of the argument.


    See also RCW 9A.80.010. IMHO Legislative immunity would not apply. They would, in fact, be acting in a criminal manner.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Lightning Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Duvall, WA
    Posts
    9
    Slightly off topic, but I saw this at a King County park a few weeks ago, and had to chuckle. A bit ambiguous, but I think I know what happened...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Prempted-small.jpg 
Views:	154 
Size:	65.0 KB 
ID:	7266

  19. #19
    Regular Member Lightning Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Duvall, WA
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    See also RCW 9A.80.010. IMHO Legislative immunity would not apply. They would, in fact, be acting in a criminal manner.
    Okay, let's see:

    Quote Originally Posted by RCW 9A.80.010
    Official Misconduct.

    (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:
    (a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
    (b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.
    (2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
    This statute was adopted in 1975. Since then, I can find no reported cases of an elected official being charged (much less convicted) under this statute - and certainly no cases involving elected policymakers. In fact, there are only two cases that even hint at a public official (elected or not) being charged with a violation of this statute. One was a chief of campus security at EWU, charged for donating "lost and found" property to Goodwill. His charge was promptly dismissed by the trial court. Issel v. State, 39 Wn. App. 485 (1984). The other involved a police officer charged with official misconduct (among other things) for entering and searching a residence without a warrant. The Court of Appeals said his charge could proceed to the jury (but no word on whether he was convicted). State v. Groom, 133 Wn.2d 679 (1997).

    Aside from that, you have two seriously ambiguous legal issues that will give any prosecutor pause: First, there's the open issue of whether absolute legislative immunity (which has its roots in common law) will apply to criminal charges brought under RCW 9A.80.010. Nothing in the statute purports to abrogate such immunity.

    Second, and equally important, is that nothing an individual member of a policymaking body such as a city council can do could constitute violation of this law. Introducing, speaking in favor of, and voting for a policy proposal is not, in and of itself "an unauthorized act" (nor is refraining from supporting the repeal of existing law). Nor is there any "duty imposed by law" to vote a certain way. There would be significant First Amendment issues with the kind of prosecution you have in mind, which wraps back around to part of the reason absolute legislative immunity exists in the first place. The answer, in the case of a recalcitrant council, is simply that the unauthorized legislation is, as RCW 9.41.290 says, automatically "preempted and repealed" and therefore void and of no effect.

    Finally, you have the practical reality: Even aside from detailed legal analysis, no prosecutor is going to file criminal charges against a council member or commissioner over this kind of issue. Again, I mean no offense. I'm a supporter with what I think is ample insight into how this stuff works and how some of these folks think. In my opinion, showing policymakers the futility of further efforts to defy preemption (with SAF looming in the shadows) is more likely to be successful than threats of something that simply isn't going to happen, and they know it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Jeff View Post
    Slightly off topic, but I saw this at a King County park a few weeks ago, and had to chuckle. A bit ambiguous, but I think I know what happened...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Prempted-small.jpg 
Views:	154 
Size:	65.0 KB 
ID:	7266
    Did you notice that Seattle only partly complied with the court order? Wonder if they could be held in contempt of court?

    "No Firearms" is still there in this picture, only the gun slashed through in the circle has been removed.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    Here: This is easier. Links directly to the .pdf

  22. #22
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    I know that when I went to the City of Lacey about their signs in the parks, they almost immediately complied. One look at the RCW by the city attorney, and he was like duh "your right!" Their signs have not been changed yet due to budget issues, but they immediately told the local police dept. to leave us alone. They said they will put up new signs when money and time allow. I know the Parks Dept. director pretty well, so I consider Lacey a done deal.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  23. #23
    Regular Member MadHatter66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    320
    I am a working with Kitsap County parks to get their signs up to date... Was just about to post a thread on it with all the info and emails I have compiled with the parks director...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

  24. #24
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by MadHatter66 View Post
    I am a working with Kitsap County parks to get their signs up to date... Was just about to post a thread on it with all the info and emails I have compiled with the parks director...
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
    I would recommend that you seek out a Commissioner as the Parks Director works for them and this may just avoid repeating yourself later if you do not get resolve with the Parks Department.

    Good luck.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  25. #25
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Jeff View Post
    Slightly off topic, but I saw this at a King County park a few weeks ago, and had to chuckle. A bit ambiguous, but I think I know what happened...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Prempted-small.jpg 
Views:	154 
Size:	65.0 KB 
ID:	7266
    Print up some round stickers with a 1911 not in a circle-slash (perhaps in a green circle) with the words "Perfectly okay - RCW 9.41.290" to stick over the blank sticker. We should do that to all the preempted signs we see.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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