imported post
Here is my response. Hopefully the City of Seattle will pay attention to it, despite me being a resident of a different City.
The Washington State Constitution, in Section 24 is very clear on carrying firearms.
"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired[...]"
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 9.41.290) is very clear on Cities passing firearm legislation that is more resrictive than state law:
"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with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality."
Furthermore, the Attorney General of Washington State has issued a written opinion (AGO 2008 No. 8) which specificaly addresses this issue.
" Dear Senator Morton and Representative Van De Wege:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked the following paraphrased question:
Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a local law that prohibits possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities?
BRIEF ANSWER
The answer to your question is no. RCW 9.41.290 “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” and preempts a city’s authority to adopt firearms laws or regulations of application to the general public, unless specifically authorized by state law. Accordingly, RCW 9.41.290 preempts a city’s authority to enact local laws that prohibit possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities."
As the Chielf Law Enforcement Officer of Washington State, the Attorney General's written opinion carries a great deal of weight and is given a great deal of respect in State Courts. Furthermore, the RCW and the Washington State Constitution are legal documents, which the City of Seattle is legally bound to comply with.
Therefore, it is my opinion that disguising this proposed legislation as an administrative rule is chicanery and an affront to the State Constitution, the Revised Code of Washington, and the Office of the Attorney General.
City property is by definition not privately owned. City property is administered by the City for the residents of the city. Since the funding to purchase city property comes from public funding (taxes, initiatives, bonds, grants, etc) the property is owned by the public, or the individual citizens, and not the City administrators. City administrators are just that; administrators.
If the City administrators have no respect for the State Constitution, State Law, and the Office of the Attorney General then the City administrators should be replaced. The City of Seattle is subordinate to Washington State, not vice versa.
Attempting to pass legislation as "administrative rules" and remove law abiding citizens from City property via criminal trespass charges is irresponsible and very possibly unlawful. The personal opinions of members of the City Council on firearms rights have no place in law, municipal code or "administrative rules."
The City needs to know its place, which is subordinate to the State and the citizens in its incorporated area.
The City should stop attempting to impair the rights of individual Washington State citizens to bear arms in defense of their lives.
The City Administrators do not own the City of Seattle. The individual citizens in Seattle own the City of Seattle.
