• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

City of Seattle Wants your opinion

R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

Here is my post to the city's "feedback" site:

I cannot understand why you continue to press this issue in the face of negative advice of the State Attorney General (AGO 2008 No. 8) overwhelming public opinion and the obvious conflict with State law (RCW 9.41.290), the Constitutions of the United States (Second Amendment) and of the State of Washington (Article XI, section 11), as well as 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. Your staff is giving you bad legal advice.

The response to your proposal is inevitably going to be litigation, which you cannot win. It is beyond my understanding why you want to bankrupt the City of Seattle in stressful economic times for such a losing cause.

The whole purpose of RCW 9.41.290 was to eliminate the confusion created by inconsistent policies of all the various municipalities and counties in the State. By enacting preemption, the legislature created uniformity throughout the State. Your proposal is a huge step backward in this issue.

As a practical matter, your prohibition of the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens is not only unconstitutional and illegal, it will not solve the problem of gun violence. A firearm lawfully carried is the citizen’s protection against criminals when the police cannot be on the scene in time to prevent a crime. Your proposal to disarm law-abiding citizens is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is unconscionable.
 
K

Kildars

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
536
Location
Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
imported post

Posted my response:

I would like to know where you believe you're getting your authority to ban legally carried firearms on city property. I thought that state law RCW 9.41.290 is clear that, "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."

You are also in violation of state law RCW 9.41.300 (2)(a):
"(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

(a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others;"

Regardless of the laws of the state your answer to do a sweeping ban of all legally carried firearms does not address the issue of violence in our state, it only allows violence. There are reason why Chicago, and WA DC, have one of the highest murder rates in the country while also having the toughest gun laws. You are endangering the citizens of this state, the tourists, and opening up the city of Seattle to lawsuits. I ask you to vote down this ban.
 
S

spike89

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
110
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

I'd be curious to find the statistics for injuries and deaths on Seattle public property and compare firearms-related vs other (such as bicycles, heart attacks,etc).
It may show that the mayor would be better serving the public by banning the use of bikes and double cheeseburgers from city property.
 
R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

spike89 wrote:
I'd be curious to find the statistics for injuries and deaths on Seattle public property and compare firearms-related vs other (such as bicycles, heart attacks,etc).
It may show that the mayor would be better serving the public by banning the use of bikes and double cheeseburgers from city property.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to find the statistics for injuries and deaths on Seattle public property and compare firearms-related vs other (such as bicycles, heart attacks,etc).

Irrelevant.

banning... double cheeseburgers from city property.

Careful. I believe New York City has sucha ban, or something very close to it. Don't put ideas in his head.
 
S

spike89

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
110
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

My point is that he is trying to ban firearms in the interest of public safety, with no real record that they are any more responsible for injuries/deaths on city property than various other things. His edict is arbitrary and capricious.
 
R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

Yeah, sv:

Yah, me too. Poorly made form as well. A person could send that in dozens of times with different comments, and I'll bet money they don't have a filter for using the same IP address...

I just sent in mY THIRD :lol:comment, as follows:

You argue that the City is somehow governed by the same laws as private property owners by your statement:



State law allows private property owners to prohibit the presence of firearms on their property.[/i]



If your intent is to use the criminal trespass law (RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080) in the manner of a private property owner to ban firearms you are very seriously misguided. There is no court in this state that will consider you anything but a municipality under every definition at law. Private property owners are not governed by the principle of preemption; as a municipality, you most certainly are. Your attempt to abuse the trespass laws is no more than a veiled attempt to have yourselves considered as private property owner-operators, in order to subvert the intent of the long-established doctrine of preemption as set forth in RCW 9.41.290. I will not belabor the fact that others have argued well that your proposal violates several state and federal laws, as well as the United States and Washington constitutions. The principle of stare decisis [/i]has been well established with regard to case law. I would strongly advise you not to proceed in the face of these precepts
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

The Mayor is trying to make a case for regulating firearms on the basis that the City OWNS the properties. The mayor needs to remember who actually owns the property. I believe that would be the citizens of Seattle, not Mayor Nickels or the City Council.
 
R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

amlevin wrote:
The Mayor is trying to make a case for regulating firearms on the basis that the City OWNS the properties. The mayor needs to remember who actually owns the property. I believe that would be the citizens of Seattle, not Mayor Nickels or the City Council.
Click to expand...
You are partly right, but the point I was making is that Nickels is trying to claim he's entitled to the same rights of ownership as those of a private property owner. And this whole premise is the chink in his armor that will demolish his case when it comes to court. As all the Members who have posted here have so well documented, he is in violation of numerous state laws, all of which presume that a local government is subject to the doctrine of preemption, which he is so obviously trying to subvert.
 
T

Triple Tap

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

I would love to see all the answers people posted on this topic to the city. Maybe a RFIA is in order. I would like to know the percentage of for and against and such. Who do you think is the right contact, and is there some type of form?
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Triple Tap wrote:
I would love to see all the answers people posted on this topic to the city. Maybe a RFIA is in order. I would like to know the percentage of for and against and such. Who do you think is the right contact, and is there some type of form?
Click to expand...

The request for input is under the "banner" of the Mayor's office. That's where I would file the information request. Just make it simple. Something like "What was the nature of responses to your request? How many responses? How many support a ban? How many oppose?"

Of course you could request copies of all e-mails recieved and they could provide them on a couple of CD's or DVD's. Would most likely make for a lot of reading.
 
CrossBow33

CrossBow33

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
74
Location
Thurston County, Washington, USA
imported post

My input...



Will, then, the City of Seattle guarantee my safety and that of my family when we are traveling in Seattle? Is the City of Seattle prepared to reimburse my survivors if, as a result of this short-sighted policy, I am killed or disabled on city property? Money spent settling the inevitable lawsuits might be better spent on notifying and educating the public on the safe and legal carrying of firearms.
Is the city prepared to address prospective city tenants' and contractors' lawsuits regarding policies that discriminate based upon otherwise legal actions?
 
T

Triple Tap

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Update...The city of Seattle has responded to my RFIA. They are now trying to see how they can get me the information as the way they set this up on the website was that each entry generated an email. Its not in a database format.

There are over 1900 emails from this survey.:shock:

Is that all we could generate? :cool:

If I can get all the emails electronically, I am going to try to put them into a spread sheet. I just don't know if I can get it done before the meeting for some statisics for us.
 
S

spike89

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
110
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

Triple Tap wrote:
Update...The city of Seattle has responded to my RFIA. They are now trying to see how they can get me the information as the way they set this up on the website was that each entry generated an email. Its not in a database format.
Click to expand...

LOL, how efficient of them! Heaven forbid they script the output of the form so that each entry appends to a big text file with a datestamp and all the data in CSV format. They'd rather clog their email server!

How do they get the stuff to you? Do they know how to use the "forward" function of their email program? Ha ha ha ha ha.
 
R

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

Triple Tap wrote:
Update...The city of Seattle has responded to my RFIA. They are now trying to see how they can get me the information as the way they set this up on the website was that each entry generated an email. Its not in a database format.

There are over 1900 emails from this survey.:shock:

Is that all we could generate? :cool:

If I can get all the emails electronically, I am going to try to put them into a spread sheet. I just don't know if I can get it done before the meeting for some statisics for us.
Click to expand...
Well, mythree certainly helped the stats. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top