Mayor, Councilmembers:
In addition to this comment, I will be attending the December 15 hearing. I am disappointed at this proposal, as I believe that the mayor and each of you know full well that you are attempting to put into place a ‘rule’ that is illegal and cannot and will not be enforced.
The State Attorney General’s Opinion (2008 No. 8) provides you with the legal interpretation that you should follow. Your legal staff is giving you bad advice on this issue. I know that falling revenue from property taxes and sales tax is going to impact the city for some time. The economic downturn should make you cautious on what you waste your citizens’ tax dollars. From the AG web page; “While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts.” If implemented, this will end up in court. I think that all of you know that you will not prevail.
While it might appear that you are dealing with a purely Seattle issue, other cities are choosing to follow your same game plan and let you and your citizens foot the legal bill. I think your strategy is to lay the groundwork for the elimination of state preemption through the legislature. Good luck with that. You might want to review the last state initiative results from 1997, the Handgun Safety Act (I-676). It failed by 70.6% to 29.4%. The whole state is watching and you are about to unleash a backlash that will dwarf the I-676 trouncing.
You should read two cases. Cherry v. Metro and PNSPA v. City of Sequim, which flows from Cherry. These are both covered in the AG Opinion. You should read them for yourselves to see the very thin ice that your legal counsel and mayor have put you. They are not long and not difficult to understand. Please also have your legal staff explain the implications of 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, and 42 USC 1988 and how these might personally affect each of you. These are federal codes regarding deprivation of rights under color of law.