• 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.

Mayor To Announce Gun Restrictions On Seattle City Property

DrewGunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
363
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

SEATTLE -- Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has called a news conference where he is expected to announce restrictions on concealed weapons on city property.

Nickels has said the restriction is needed because of a shooting at last month's Folklife Festival at the Seattle Center that wounded two people.

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske also is scheduled to attend Monday's news conference.


The mayor can issue an executive order directing policies for city properties and actions of city employees and agencies.

Link: http://www.kirotv.com/news/16548261/detail.html?rss=sea&psp=news&gg=true
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

They are planning to post city property under last year's State Supreme Court ruling on the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Assn. case.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

Under the EO law enforcement is exempted but only with a "department issued" firearm. Backup gun or personal arm would be banned!

Get asked to leave under threat of arrest and you have standing! Kaching!
 

G20-IWB24/7

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
886
Location
Tacoma, WA, ,
imported post

Last time I checked, there was already a law against shooting peopleduring a minor argument, so why would this help? I don't get it?
 

thewise1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
383
Location
Moscow, ID
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
State preemption........anyone? Is anyone in office paying attention to the LAW regarding anything about this??
Nickels thinks he IS the law
 

phoneguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
447
Location
, ,
imported post

Just called OLY 360 664 6616. The lady that answered says that what the mayor is doing is wrong and illegal. So my question is if any one gets arrested because of this new "law" Can that person sue the city? Wow I need some money!
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave,

do you have any more detail or a link about the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Assn. case? i'd love to read it to see if this will have any teeth.

Bobby
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
imported post

Thanks Joe! you make good motorcycle gear.:) i read the case. it seems to me that this isn't applicable with regards to Heir Nickels ban. in the case, the city approved the permit for use of its facility with certain (15) conditions including no sales by unlicensed dealers. the show goers didn't like it, sued saying it violated 9.41.290 and 9.41.300 and lost. appeals court agreed, supreme court agreed. the city did NOT however ban firearms from the premisis as Nickels is trying to do. two totally different things here. Nickels IS violating .290 and .300. he knows it. how can he not? his EO won't fly.

its nice to see that the firearms community is coming together to fight this but frankly, its a battle that doesn't need to be fought. its self defeating. all we have to do is sit back and watch it not pass muster. if Seattle tried to enforce it, it'll go to court, charges will be dismissed and the ban will prove as useless as Nickels himself.

sure the city is a land owner but its also a municipality which is covered under .290 and .300.

so, as they say, carry on.

Bobby
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Bobarino wrote:
Thanks Joe! you make good motorcycle gear.:) i read the case. it seems to me that this isn't applicable with regards to Heir Nickels ban. in the case, the city approved the permit for use of its facility with certain (15) conditions including no sales by unlicensed dealers. the show goers didn't like it, sued saying it violated 9.41.290 and 9.41.300 and lost. appeals court agreed, supreme court agreed. the city did NOT however ban firearms from the premisis as Nickels is trying to do. two totally different things here. Nickels IS violating .290 and .300. he knows it. how can he not? his EO won't fly.

its nice to see that the firearms community is coming together to fight this but frankly, its a battle that doesn't need to be fought. its self defeating. all we have to do is sit back and watch it not pass muster. if Seattle tried to enforce it, it'll go to court, charges will be dismissed and the ban will prove as useless as Nickels himself.

sure the city is a land owner but its also a municipality which is covered under .290 and .300.

so, as they say, carry on.

Bobby
I agree my gear is the best.:lol:

The point of the majority ruling he is using for this EO is that they say that municipalities may regulate firearms when they are doing business the same as a private party. What Nickels and his lawyers fail to see is that they are not acting as a private party in the sense that no one is entering into a contract with him to lease the city property.

I see his outlook and reading of the ruling but he is reading it very narrowly and conveniently overlooking the important parts that matter in the ruling.
 
Top