Seattle Mayor Nickels violates state law and state constitution - gun ban

Mayor Nickels, by executive order (shades of bush) is now implementing the gun ban

per the komo article :

"Mayor Greg Nickels says guns will be prohibited at designated Seattle Parks and Recreation facilities where children and youth are likely to be present, such as playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, swimming beaches, pools, water play areas, skateparks, and golf courses.

Anyone who enters one of the posted facilities with a gun will be asked by Parks personnel or Seattle police officers to leave the area. If they refuse, they could be cited or arrested by police for trespassing."

assuming the seattle PD goes along with his executive order (as a cop, i would not want to enforce it, since i KNOW it's against state law), and then make an arrest of a person for "trespassing" after they refuse to leave the park, the city will have a nice fat lawsuit on their hands. JUST what seattle needs in this recession.

the state attorney general (hardly a conservative fwiw) as well as several org's (i have not heard from ACLU yet) have said that this would be illegal, if mayor nickels does it.

the law doesn't apply to cops, so *i* couldn't violate it. just the normal citizens that nickels so thoroughly disregards and feels that there is no problem with violating THEIR rights.

this is my favorite part of the article:
"Officials with the Second Amendment Foundation have said the rule is illegal and planned to sue the city once the law went into effect. But Nickels doesn't believe the city is acting beyond its power, saying he is asserting the same rights private property owners have."

in terms of restricting citizen liberty, cities (and states etc.) do not HAVE rights. they have AUTHORITY(s). People have rights.

the WA state constitution, case law, and state law (which says no city or locality may place more strict requirements on firearms carry than under the state law.

sure, a PRIVATE property owner can say "no guns". a private property owner can also regulate your speech. he can kick you off his property because he disagrees with your t-shirt message. a private property owner can even ban people based on their race, as long as it's not a place of public accomodation. iow, the analogy between what private property owners can do and the CITY can do are entirely different. the city cannot violate rights. property owners have carte blanche to allow whomever they want or don't want (think about your house).

nickels is a lame duck and on his way out. i hope he is PERSONALLY sued for this, because he has been repeatedly warned it's against the law. he doesn't care. if you want to see an anti-gun zealot in action, just look at mayor nickels.

and we will soon find out if seattle pd chief is a sycophant or a real cop. if he goes along with this order, it's the former. considering he's an appointee, and based on past history, i'm not optimistic.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/64301302.html#IDCThread

What the hell's the matter with him!?

it's that he is breaking the law.

darn that pesky rule of law.

Carry on, my good Nugentian fellow!

the refuge of the scoundrel.

so sad that you do not respect our constitution (WA state) or the rule of law.

sad

Just pointing out the irony of someone advocating "rule of law" in the gun forum.

in any significant #'s flouting rule of law. i see lots of support for those that LEGALLY defend themselves.

there is a difference

I'll bet you can't.

comment. So, as long as we are protecting children, its okay to restrict Constitutionally guaranteed rights?

because a gangbanger will abide by the law. and not go into any park with their gun.

because god forbid they might get a TRESPASSING charge. which is a very minor misdemeanor.

here's a hint (i've arrested scores of bangers.)

the vast majority of bangers cannot legally carry a firearm anywhere, because they are either minors, or convicted felons.

i've arrested scores of bangers, many of whom were packing. i have never arrested a banger who was legally carrying.

every time they have a gun, it;'s either stolen, they are prohibited (VUFA), or they are under age.

Or do you CARE who rights get violated?

And make them promise not to use it unless they really, really need to.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR AND ABSOLUTE!

is the WA state constitution and WA state law we are referring to here.

but don't let facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

is clear and absolute, 'cause no one else can be trusted to understand what it means!

Otherwise, you're fiendishly disarming kids at playgrounds!

this is NOT about the 2nd amendment. it's about the WA state constitution. and WA state law.

here's a hint. ANY state can recognize greater rights than the federal constitution does. most do. the federal constitution establishes a baseline of right. in our democratic republic, no state can violate federal rights, ANY state can (and many do) recognize more extensive rights.

therefore, even if the 2nd amendment did not protect right to carry AT ALL, the WA ***state constitution*** and WA state law DOES.

grok it?

there is no FEDERAL CONSTITION ISSUE being argued here by opponents.

it's a violation of the STATE constitution and STATE law.

some people can't read. and that's sad.

Nobody said a damn thing about the 2nd Amendment.

Try and keep up.

Making a comparatively early entry there.

You'll find that the Revised Code of Washington, chapter 9.41 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41), sections 9.41.040, 9.41.042 and 9.41.240, do not permit possession of a handgun by a person under 21 in public except in very limited circumstances. Is anyone arguing against that? Why no, we're not.

And as noted by paulsby, the federal Second Amendment doesn't enter into it; the Washington state constitution and RCW are what's under discussion here, and Nickels is in violation of both.

saying seattle's , excuse me- it's not seattle's, it MAYOR NICKELS' executive order, is violative of state law pursuant to the state constitution, that gives the first person to sue a GREAT pre-written amicus brief. by the frigging attorney general. the state's top lawyer. does nickels really think he has a better understanding of the nuances of the law than the attorney general?

i also assume that most anti-gunners, and most people speaking in favor of what mayor nickels is doing, were totally pissed off when president bush pulled this unitary executive crap and decided that he had the authority to just make decrees.

this is NO different. actually, it's arguably more clear cut worse because the state's attorney general has already come out and said it's illegal.

this is not mayor nickels' fiefdom. he is not kind. he is head of the executive branch of a city. that gives him plenty of power. it does not give him the authority to usurp people's rights under the law.

nice research on the RCW.


fwiw, i was thinking of posting a list of anti-gunner canards, and i noticed you called one out here - the arm everyone canard. this is the false claim by anti-gunners that expanding the group of people who can CHOOSE to carry is equivalent to arming everybody.

some other canards are ...

the penis canard (nuff said)

the need canard (this one goes... why do you NEED to carry a gun, bla bla. nobody needs to justify their decision to engange in free speech, blog, etc. or to exercise their constitutional rights to refuse a consent search, or to hire a defense attorney, or ... but for some reason, RKBA people have to justify a NEED for them to exercise a right

etc. etc.

And it should be noted that while A-G McKenna identifies as a Republican, he's more interested in doing his job correctly than in adhering to the GOP line, either at the state or federal level. Which is why he got re-elected.

Nickels claimed that he had legal precedent on his side from PNSPA v. City of Sequim, but even leaving aside the dubiousness of that particular ruling, at least Sequim wasn't in clear violation of the state constitution.


Thank you. I'm fairly familiar with chapter 9.41 precisely because I am a gun owner, and I try to be a responsible one, so before I do something with my guns (like taking my 14 year-old niece or friends from Europe to the range) I read up to make sure I'm not doing something illegal.

Regarding the "arm everyone" canard (which is really a highly specific form of straw man fallacy http://fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html), proponents of private firearms ownership generally aren't even arguing for expanding the class of people permitted to carry, but rather, for expanding the number of locations that those persons are allowed to carry. In this particular instance, however, we're not even arguing that; we're arguing against restricting the number of locations, and even then, that's only one aspect of the issue, given Nickels' clear violation of the state constitution and preemption law.

So the Second Amendment is overruled by states?

Hmm...

The WA state constitution does not contradict the Federal Constitution. It does recognize more rights than the Federal.

When do you get to vote again? Yes, the XXVI Amendment lowers the voting age to 18, but where does it originally say in the Constitution what the voting age is? Where does the XXI Amendment list the legal drinking age? Oh, that's right; the Constitution remains silent on these matters, leaving them to the several states.

We all know that there are plenty of rights that are dependent on age, particularly whether or not you've reached the age of majority; in effect, 18. There are some rather silly holdovers that continue to deny certain freedoms to people even up to the age of 21, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice to say there's nothing inconsistent about stating the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to minors, any more than stating that the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't apply to minors when the search and seizure is conducted by a parent or legal guardian by their parents, or the right to vote, or you name it.

Or include the sarcasm tags. I cannot tell which.

they can be arrested for "trespassing". lol . i know tons of spd guys. i can't wait to ask them about this.

what *i* would do, if i worked for seattle (and thank god i don't), is if presented with such a situation (responding to a complaint, guy has a gun at the park, etc.) i would only make the arrest, if my sgt. ORDERED it, and then document that clearly in the report. i would like to say i wouldn't make the arrest even if the sgt.(or lt. or chief) ordered it, but i can't say i surely wouldn;t.

heck, anybody who gets arrested for this is LOVING it.

it will be an easy lawsuit.

no permit required. and ccw is legal as long as you have a permit (it's a shall issue state) or you are on your own property.

i am willing to be ANY amount of money (well, almost) that the first person who sues for this, if they are arrested,will win.

it's a no brainer. i've read pretty much every criminal law decision our state supreme court has made. the executive order is CLEARLY violative of the state law and state constitution

Or perhaps- a regional level.

Just like health care,

even if the 2nd amendment was repealed, WA law /constitution would still protect people's rkba in our state.

this is NOT a 2nd amendment issue (primarily). a lawsuit will win because it's CLEARLY violative of state law and the state constitution.

Along with federal (and even international) laws.

A bit off topic in a way, Paulsby- but as to public policy on public health matters such this- that's the take home message from this year's Novel Prize in economics.

Namely, that common interests are complex systems that are best dealt with bottom up- and top down.

This applies to firearms regulations- just as it does in other areas.

can do whatever they want as long as

1) they don't violate the federal constitution
2) they don't violate the state constitution

i happen to enjoy living in a state that recognizes much greater privacy rights than the federal. note the federal const. doesn't even mention privacy. my constitution does.

common interests, are often the rule of the majority. and majorities cannot restrict minority rights that are constitutionally protected.

thank god for the rule of law.

The interaction of these laws -with checks and balances was the point Dr. Ostrom was making.

In the case of firearms- you and I agree that local regulations alone make no sense (one way or another) and end up causing more problems than they are worth.

On the other hand- and this is where Howard Dean made so much sense- some areas like Vermont seem to have few problems- whereas rural areas of the southeast and lower midwest- crikey, they have more than a "fair" share of crime and preventable tragedy.

In the case of these places, federal restrictions make sense from a public health standpoint- though as Ostron noted, they'll be ineffective in and of themselves until folks in those communities realize how much each person's behaviors end up costing all.

you can't enact policy that is unconstitutional, just because you want to help people. it doesn't work this way.

we have a constitution. we have rule of law. it means sometimes blatantly guilty people get off on technicalities. it means that often cops can't search a known drug house because they don;'t have PC that meets the aguilar spineli test, it means that it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than that 1 innocent man be convicted, and it means that localities cannot enact law (in regards to firearms or anything else) that are violative of state or federal constitution/law.

period.

even IF what mayor nickels was doing would be good policy (it isn't, but even if it was), it would still be wrong. seattle is not his fiefdom, where he can ignore the rule of law and the constitution.

i don't cede my constitutional rights once i enter the city limits.

and again, i am referring to STATE constitution and STATE law.

Reading the article, it doesn't look like a violation for carrying a gun would be treated any different than a violation for carrying a beer. CALL THE ACLU!!!!

And do you always allow your personal prejudices to effect your duties as a police officer?

are protected by the state constitution and state laws.

this has NOTHING to do with prejudices. it has to do with the fact that i've actually read our constitution, as well as our state law.

if mayor nickels by executive order, enacted a law tomorrow saying it would be illegal to be in the park if you are black or a woman, would i be "prejudiced" for saying he is violating the law and the state constitution?

no.

fwiw, i am a firearms instructor for cops and i *know* firearms law. i will bet that as soon as somebody is arrested, the city will LOSE the lawsuit. false arrest.

Look at the actual press release:



So: there have been several incidents in the past where people in parks with guns have caused injuries & deaths. Therefor the mayor has a valid reason to be concerned about the safety of children who use park facilities.

And

For over a year the city has required orgs that lease park property to prohibit guns. Meaning a similar restriction is already in place. Has the city been sued yet for that? Hmm?

It also seems that the ban will remain in place even after Nickles is gone:

Mayoral candidates back Nickels' gun ban in parks.
http://www.seattlepostglobe.org/2009/09/18/nickels-proposes-gun-ban-in-parks-gun-rights-groups-promise-to-sue


The simple fact is, this is a rule to stop assholes from doing stupid things around kids that might kill them. It's not a wholesale attempt to confiscate anyone's gun.

he cannot violate state law or the state constitution.

let me explain what happened in kitsap county. they passed a similar law there (for parks). the open carry WA civil rights group decided to go to a park there .

they knew, just like i know, that kitsap's ordinance was violative of state law and the state constitution

not a single open carrier was arrested. why? because the kitsap county sheriff isn't a moron, and knew the ordinance was unenforceable.

here's what the wikipedia entry says:" On May 31, 2009, Washington OpenCarry members held an open carry protest picnic at Silverdale's Waterfront Park, a county park. Attendees openly carried handguns, in violation of posted regulations prohibiting firearms at the park. Kitsap County Sheriff's deputies were on hand, in part to explain to the public why they weren't enforcing the park's posted gun ban. State law allows the open carrying of firearms, and specifically preempts local ordinances more restrictive than the state's. Kitsap County not only has left its parks gun ban on the books, but continues to publicly post it with other park regulations. Because the law is not practically enforceable, county deputies appear to be showing disregard for the county's law, making it unclear to many gun owners what is tolerated"

this law is ILLEGAL . if it is enforced seattle will be sued and lose.

going to act any differently if this law is in place? The bigger point here is that laws and rules like this only serve to prevent the people who don't break laws in the first place, they d nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes.

they did not have a law specifically banning firearms in the parks. but there were signs at the parks stating firearms were prohibited by city code.

this was brought up at a town meeting, and town attorney agreed that there was no such restriction, that such a restriction would be contrary to state law and the state constitution AND the city agreed to change the signs.

Oh wait, it is!

In fact, it's in violation of several state laws: unlawful possession (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040), unlawful carry (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 You have to be 21 or over to get a CPL), and unlawful handling (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.270). Respectively a class C felony, a misdemeanor and a gross misdemeanor.

If only there had been an unconstitutional city ordinance in place; that would have stopped them!

The simple fact is: whatever Nickels' intent, he does not have the legal authority to do this. By imposing this executive decree (as paulsby says, shades of Bush) he is in violation of the Revised Code of Washington section 9.41.290 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290).

Why is this so hard to grasp?

"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."

is there anybody here who can justify a mayor of a city BLATANTLY violating state law "for a good cause". i hear a lot of drumbeating about rule of law, and seperation of powers, and fear of excessive executive branch control, etc.

but these same people think it's just ok , as long as it is done to BAN THE EVIL GUNZ.

that is incredibly hypocritical. either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.

It doesn't matter how well-intentioned it may or may not be. It's purely, 100% illegal. It's against State Law. He's been WARNED by the State AG that he's breaking the law.

The folklife festival shooting you cited is the only one that even applies to a current, lawfully carrying concealed permit holder, getting into a shooting in a public park.

And the accounts vary, but it appears that A) He lied to get that permit, and may in fact be ineligable (drug use), and B) the whole thing was over some 'concerned citizen' saw it in his ankle holster, and tried to take it, which he had no fucking business doing. That resulted in a physical struggle, and the gun went off, it's trigger having been pulled by one or the other in the struggle. 2 people were injured.

That's the best you've got? One incident? One person lawfully carrying in a park, wherein someone else got shot?

and to the best of my knowledge (i have done some searches) i can see no evidence that the folklife shooter was convicted of anything.

even if he DID commit a crime, he;s a tiny minority/exception if he was a lawful CCW'er.

but whether he did commit a crime is far from certain.

but A) hearsay, because no credible source would own up to it (Probable HIPA violation, medical records and all that) and B) the drug could potentially be used for other things, I don't know.

IF it's used for heroin withdrawl, then he probably lied on the form, where it asks about illegal drug use, but maybe he was having problems stopping use of some legitimately perscribed pain med, who knows. It would be a gross violation of his medical privacy to find out.

withdrawal from opioidsand/or on medication for same would not, disqualify somebody in WA state from getting a concealed weapons permit.

here is a PDF of the application form
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/10/10/2003298440.pdf

they don't even ASK about drug use in general

the only remotely close question is if you have had a firearm FORFEITED (in the last 5 years) pursuant to an alcohol or drug incident pursuant to 9.48.091(1)(e)

whether or not one is an addict, going through withdrawal and./or currently using illegal drugs is NOT q disqualifying factor.

As long as it's on the books but not enforced, Nickels can talk about 'doing something' (something in contravention of the state constitution mind you) without being exposed to suit.

the Philly DA publicly refused to enforce the illegal laws if they were passed, and the courts srtuck them down.
Cheap politics by the mayor.

mark

How Bush of him

And now a question for those who have expressed support for Nickels' action here:

Did you buy this line of reasoning when Bush Jong Il violated Federal law and the Constitution of the US?

Or is this different for you because it's your personal bete noire that's being acted against?

A hit, a very palpable hit....

flouting rule of law, case law, and the constitution , and overreaching executive branch power is BAD when bush does it.

but when nickels does it, it's ok. because he's "doing it for the children"

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/interracial-couple-denied-marriage-license-in-la-1.1525791

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.


October 15, 2009 By The Associated Press MARY FOSTER (Associated Press Writer)




So what if he's violating the law and flouting Loving v. Virginia?

It's for the children!

I can't wait till he's gone, but I'm worried what the replacement will be.

I mean whak kind of dipshit asks his AG "Is this legal?", gets a "no" and does it anyway?

What hizzoner is doing is asserting private-property-type rights over public property in order to deprive people of lawful rights.

paulsby got that right in his original posting. Nickels--quack limp quack--and I impugn differently abled ducks in so saying--is asserting the raw power of the CITY OF SEATTLE to deprive citizens of their state and federal constitutional rights. He is using private property trespass law as a wedge to erode CCW and open carry rights.

Oh but he's looking to disarm the law abiding FOR THE CHILLLLLLDRUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!

This is likely the agenda of some outside force...and he is certainly looking for new lucrative career ops. If nothing else it puts the burden of litigation on people already battered by the recession. It says loudly and clearly, you can only have your right to self protection if you're rich. Like in Chicago and NYC and DC.

Dunno how many of you are in Pugetopolis, but out here many upscale Dem/lib Pugetopolans are pissed off because this is such a strong 2A/RKBA state, among people of a very wide range of beliefs. They can't play they "ew, you're all stupid rednecks card." A lot of us have degrees, ikons of Paul Wellstone and Gene Debs, lifelong progressive activism commitments, have our paychecks direct deposited at independent bookstores, and so on.

It's fashionable since Reagan to dismiss working people, poor people, for being pro-RKBA. Ew, stupid white men!

Look at our Senators--both rich women, both totally removed from how most women live in this state. If they ever have to work swing shift, they've got bodyguards and underground parking. What do they know of going home to or through or from an unsafe place? They face angry constituents and wee themselves. "Ooo, ooo, scary mobs yelling political opinions and Beckspew at me!"

It's a lot harder for Democrats/liberals to dismiss it when queers, atheists, elders, disabled, minorities of all sorts, women, indigenous people and other darlings of the left step up and say, "From my cold dead hands." Because we don't intend to become the next victim. (My AR-15 is an antiassault rifle.) That's why the nut grabbers (heh) in another thread clammed right up about the item regarding a woman shooting the predator who came to rape her a second time. It's hard for them to face that their grabbiness would have made sure that woman was prey just as the rapist intended. It's hard for them to face their motivations around all that (inflicting on others their power to take others' power).

Nickels is trying this because he has the power to tinker with people's rights and he likes that. I'm not sure how much it owes to him representing people who deep down or sometimes right on the surface believe that others should die for their pacifist or pacifist-aggressive beliefs. People who believe that in the five seconds that a woman has to confront her rapist and figure out what to do, she should instead wait for all the kumbaya-singing to make the world a better place. In thirty or forty years. Or as a trainer once said in a "feminist" self defense class, "Well, at least if the worst happens, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you never sank to OWNING A GUN." Oh yeah. Being raped and murdered is far superior to a woman actually, like, having the power of death to secure her own life.

Actually, I'm stealing two of your phrases: "pacifist-aggressive" and "anti-assault rifle."

Masterly!

I would rec yours!

:applause:

at throwing his weight around. I hope he plans to pay the judgements in all the ensuing lawsuits.

Also, I'm willing to bet that for years to come the local, constantly relocated homeless camp will continue to be known as "Nickelsville" in his "honor".

:(