• 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.

McGinn Has Authority To Shut Down Gun Sales On Street, During Gun Buyback...

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
This morning, on KIRO radio, McGinn was questioned about his authority to shut-down street firearm sales/purchases during the city buy-back program. McGinn stated that he has the authority to shut down street sales/purchases in Seattle.

Sorry, looked, and looked, for the footage, but couldn't find it...just getting it out there.

For some reason, they don't have the entirety of the interview from this morning.

Here's the link, though...maybe there is someone more internet savvy than I: http://kiroradio.com/listen/9952094

You know, it just dawned on me that this is not OC related...so, if it needs to be moved, move it, powers that be. Thank you!
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,265
Location
In My Coffee
Last edited:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I am unable to find anything that would provide for a restriction of citizens buying or citizens only businesses and then cannot be more restrictive then any other business operation.

It might be his interpretation of (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold,but, except as provided in (b)

I do not see that as their ability to restrict firearms sales or purchase of citizens, again only with businesses and then cannot be more restrictive then any other business operation.

This might well be another legal battle to be fought in the courts.

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.
RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.
(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,279
Location
Montana
The cite given in the article is SMC 15.17 URL:http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/toc/15-17.htm

When reading this its in regards to vending. An individual standing on a sidewalk with a sign, is not vending, selling or displaying merchandise. I don't see any authority here for the city to cite anyone for anything. Additionally, this is specific to street and sidewalks, if you stay off the sidewalk (perhaps in a private parking lot, grass area), this section would not even apply.

Plus there is this gem, that I think could apply:
SMC 15.02.027 First Amendment rights; personal freedoms

This Street Use Ordinance shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 11 of the Washington Constitution.
I see nothing within SMC 15 - (STREET AND SIDEWALK USE) that could apply.

I think he is just trying to scare people away...

An individual is not a business. Even if he claims your a business outside where your regulated to be, he would still have to establish the claim that your a business... Not happening.
 
Last edited:

SeattleWingsfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
188
Location
Lakewood, Washington, United States
I agree that's why I asked Carl for a cite and reasoning that leads them to believe they can shut down private sales.

That article has been edited 3 times atleast and that cite and fine info was not present in the first two versions.
 
Last edited:

SeattleWingsfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
188
Location
Lakewood, Washington, United States
Vendors are selling items, those who bought guns at the previous gun buy back were not selling, correct?

I think they could consider the person giving you the gun as vending.

I think I will go to the next one with a sign that says. "Helping Seattle get guns off the street, cash donations for unwanted guns"

Or maybe we all set up in a parking lot and have a couple sign dancers like fast-food places directing people to the parking lot.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
is there a way we can go to court and get a TRO issued against the city pending a challenge (which can be dropped once the buy back is over?)

?

or some kind of injunction against the city?

where is Rapgood? does anyone here know an attorney good with municipal code to comment?
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,332
Location
Okanogan Highland
I am unable to find anything that would provide for a restriction of citizens buying or citizens only businesses and then cannot be more restrictive then any other business operation.

It might be his interpretation of (3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold,but, except as provided in (b)

I do not see that as their ability to restrict firearms sales or purchase of citizens, again only with businesses and then cannot be more restrictive then any other business operation.

This might well be another legal battle to be fought in the courts.
The part that is wrong with this is the private will not be selling, they will be purchasing. If the city is purchasing, and the sellers are not licensed, then if the selllers should not need a license to sell to a private party either...NO

Remember, we will be purchasers, not sellers.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
587
Location
Stanwood, WA
The part that is wrong with this is the private will not be selling, they will be purchasing. If the city is purchasing, and the sellers are not licensed, then if the selllers should not need a license to sell to a private party either...NO
Remember, we will be purchasers, not sellers.
I read it that way. Someone do a PDR to the City Attorney seeking the basis for his representation of the authority he contends the mayor has. Get that, and we possibly may have a basis for a TRO and PI.

For the City to attempt to restrict sales (donations, gifts, whatever they want to call it) to Seattle only, and not to allow sales (donations, gifts, whatever they want to call it) to private parties potentially violates a whole bunch of Constitutional provisions and protections, both U.S. and State.
Subject to the "authority" described in the PDR results produced, there may exist one or more strong bases for equitable relief. I have a couple of other tricks up my sleeve that may be applicable, but don't need to be stated here. They read these boards, too!
--Rev
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,463
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
The part that is wrong with this is the private will not be selling, they will be purchasing. If the city is purchasing, and the sellers are not licensed, then if the selllers should not need a license to sell to a private party either...NO

Remember, we will be purchasers, not sellers.
Did you miss this portion I posted ?

"I do not see that as their ability to restrict firearms sales or purchase of citizens, again only with businesses and then cannot be more restrictive then any other business operation."
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,386
Location
in front of my computer, WI
I seem to have read that statute differently from most of you.
Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms...
Everything before the "but" is generic. I think it applies to anyone selling firearms.
After that, it starts talking about businesses, so you can probably ignore that part.
My reasoning would go something like: since the city is purchasing firearms here, obviously this area is appropriate & acceptable for selling firearms.

SeattleWingsfan said:
I think they could consider the person giving you the gun as vending.
hermannr said:
If the city is purchasing, and the sellers are not licensed, then if the selllers should not need a license to sell to a private party either.
Remember, we will be purchasers, not sellers.
Yeah, but you know they won't harass the person wanting to get rid of the gun, they'll harass the people who are "interfering" with their "buyback" - that is, the good citizens who are not part of the official posse.
:mad:

SeattleWingsfan said:
I think I will go to the next one with a sign that says:
"Helping Seattle get guns off the street, cash donations for unwanted guns"
I like that.
 

skeith5

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
357
Location
United States
I read it that way. Someone do a PDR to the City Attorney seeking the basis for his representation of the authority he contends the mayor has. Get that, and we possibly may have a basis for a TRO and PI.

For the City to attempt to restrict sales (donations, gifts, whatever they want to call it) to Seattle only, and not to allow sales (donations, gifts, whatever they want to call it) to private parties potentially violates a whole bunch of Constitutional provisions and protections, both U.S. and State.
Subject to the "authority" described in the PDR results produced, there may exist one or more strong bases for equitable relief. I have a couple of other tricks up my sleeve that may be applicable, but don't need to be stated here. They read these boards, too!
--Rev
What is a pdr?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
...An individual is not a business....
It depends.

If you go there for the purpose of reselling, you are engaged in a business, even if you were to eventually lose money.

But if you are going there to enhance your personal collection, at whatever price, you are not engaged in a business, even if you were to eventually resell and make a huge windfall profit.

It comes down to intent, and the burden of proof would be on the party claiming you are doing it as a business.
 
Top