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/arti...Appeals-Court-rules-2245312.php#ixzz1cOqIulgN​

Click to expand...

Oh No What is this World Coming To? :banana::monkey

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.

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.

Right Wing Wacko said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

gogodawgs said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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....

gogodawgs said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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-...over-seattle-gun-ban-affirms-state-preemption

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

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...

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=651234MAJ


Have fun reading.

Lightning Jeff said:

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.

Click to expand...

+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.

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.

Click to expand...

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:



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

FMCDH said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1 We should send them nice Thank You cards.

Lightning Jeff said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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...

Phssthpok said:

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

Click to expand...

Okay, let's see:

RCW 9A.80.010 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lightning Jeff said:

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...

View attachment 7266

Click to expand...

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.