PDA

View Full Version : Seattle Mayor Bans Firearms from Public Land by Decree Alone


Doheny
05-03-2009, 7:44 PM
Looks like the Mayor of Seattle is in for a fight.


Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles is still at it. Undaunted by public outcry against his actions, Nickles is moving forward with banning all firearms from Seattle’s parks by executive order. By his word alone, Nickles looks to violate Washington laws on concealed carry of firearms and preemption, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, and the concept of a representative democracy.

Last June I reported that Nickles was intent on banning firearms from city parks (http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2008/06/12/seattle-mayor-violates-state-law-attacks-right-to-carry-in-washington-state/) and other public locations solely on his executive decree. This executive order would prevent all legally armed citizens with a concealed weapon permit from carrying a firearm for self defense on public property. Outraged citizens attended public meetings, flooded the mayor’s office with calls, and called their state legislators for help.

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly warned Nickles (http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=21188) that his anti-gun fiat is illegal under Washington’s preemption laws.
And still Nickles persists with his unilateral decision.

The executive order was issued by Nickles (http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/executive_orders/E0708-GunSafetyAtCityFacilities.pdf) on June 6, 2008, and it makes it illegal for anyone other than a police officer to have a “dangerous weapon”, including firearms, on city property. Since that time, Nickles has been trying to get city departments to submit plans to implement his order, but those pesky citizens keep getting in the way by showing up at commission meetings and the like.

Nickles claims in the order that the decree is in line with Washington laws regarding firearms, however, Nickles is on video (http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=5010773) at a Joyce Foundation sponsored anti-gun conference in December of 2007 stating “The state of Washington preempts us…from adopting regulations that are stronger than those [of the state].” So he clearly knew that Washington law prevented him from issuing this order just six months prior to issuing this executive order.

Let me direct this directly toward Nickles: You, sir, are a public servant, elected by free citizens, not lord and king over the subjects in your realm. Your illegal fiats injure us, and are just another example of a government that is no longer serving the people who have established it. Mayor Nickles, your arrogance offends us, and your unlawful power grab will not be tolerated. Govern yourself accordingly.

I encourage everyone to contact the mayor’s office at (206) 684-4000 or via email by clicking here (http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/citizen_response.htm). The mayor’s mailing address is, P.O. Box 94749, Seattle, WA 98124-4749. For information on how to contact your state legislators, please click here (http://www.capwiz.com/nra/state/main/?state=WA&view=myofficials).

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2009/03/25/seattle-mayor-bans-firearms-from-public-land-by-decree-alone/

BroncoBob
05-03-2009, 8:10 PM
Looks like Seattle has their own Gavin Newsome

Shadowdrop
05-03-2009, 9:07 PM
Mr. Nickles, meet Nordyke.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051125/images/ninth430.gif

nick
05-03-2009, 9:13 PM
Can he be prosecuted or personally sued?

Roadrunner
05-03-2009, 9:17 PM
If police try and arrest someone under these clearly illegal city ordinances, can the police be arrested?

kermit315
05-03-2009, 9:17 PM
well, when he has been advised that what he is doing is illegal, I would think that would remove any immunity he has, but who knows.

I would love to see him both criminally and civilly taken to the cleaners and kicked out of office.

ivanimal
05-03-2009, 9:27 PM
They need to move out of that communist state, its their own fault for voting for him. Welcome to servitude.................Do I sound like every other forum talking about CA?:confused: Or just the guy on the GB forum?

1911su16b870
05-03-2009, 9:29 PM
Someone is going to legally spank Seattle and Mr. Nickles (for mucho dinero)!

Roadrunner
05-03-2009, 9:31 PM
They need to move out of that communist state, its their own fault for voting for him. Welcome to servitude.................Do I sound like every other forum talking about CA?:confused: Or just the guy on the GB forum?

Unfortunately citizens of Seattle bought the snake oil he was selling, and now they are reaping what they have sewn out of their laziness. Mayor Nickels is the quintessential used car salesman turned politician.

Hopi
05-03-2009, 9:32 PM
Looks like the Mayor of Seattle is in for a fight.




won't be much of a fight...

Fate
05-03-2009, 10:30 PM
won't be much of a fight...
No, but sometimes it's fun to watch a buttwhippin'.

VW*Mike
05-03-2009, 10:34 PM
i like Seattle, it would be better if all the tree hugging liberals were gone though. I was up there at Christmas a few years ago, Seattle apparently thinks its "un-P.C." to recognize Christmas. No decorations, nothing........

MP301
05-03-2009, 11:55 PM
I think we need to start a "two weeks" support group... Its so hard to be patient waiting for the crap to hit the proverbial fan from Heller and Nordyke....

Sam
05-04-2009, 12:12 AM
Mr. Nickles, meet Nordyke.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051125/images/ninth430.gif

owned.

sgtlmj
05-04-2009, 12:20 AM
Should read: "Nickles throws thousands of tax payer dollars away defending RKBA lawsuits. Moves in with Kwame Kilpatrick, former Detroit mayor. Reality show talks in the works."

kap
05-04-2009, 12:37 AM
Ruling by decree, where have I heard that before ...

Rule by decree passed for Chavez (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm)

N6ATF
05-04-2009, 12:41 AM
Mr. Nickles, meet Bubba.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/08/05/cooey_wideweb__470x453,0.jpg

Fixed.

Jpach
05-04-2009, 12:47 AM
The executive order was issued by Nickles on June 6, 2008, and it makes it illegal for anyone other than a police officer to have a “dangerous weapon”, including firearms, on city property.

Sooo does this mean this is OLD news? Or did it just take effect?

Sinixstar
05-04-2009, 2:05 AM
Mr. Nickles, meet Nordyke.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051125/images/ninth430.gif

Nordyke actually said that the County has the right to restrict carrying/possession/display of guns on it's own (public) property. That was kind of the center of the Nordyke issue.

Remember, the Nordykes personally lost their case. It was only a win for the greater pro-gun movement because the courts decided to include the bit about incorporation. Even with the incorporation bit - the court was pretty clear that government has the ability to restrict where people carry on goverment owned (public) property.

The mayor here isn't gearing up for a fight, the Nordyke ruling gave him the cover he needed to do it in the first place.

Sinixstar
05-04-2009, 2:08 AM
Ruling by decree, where have I heard that before ...

Rule by decree passed for Chavez (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm)


Executive order? What?

This is the exact same thing that was prohibiting CCW from national parks. There was no legal fight put up there that I recall. In fact, it would be fairly easy for the mayor to argue that's where he got the idea for it, and the fact that it flew at the federal level means it should fly at the local/state level.

Especially given what I said about Nordyke. Protected the local entities ability to restrict possession on public property, and looking at the incorporation issue - the mayor is simply following what had been done previously at the federal level.

MrSigmaDOT40
05-04-2009, 3:51 AM
*AAHHHCHUUU*:pinch:.. AAHH-TYRANT *COUGH COUGH* *SNIFFLE*

Damn this Swine Flu!:mad:

Maestro Pistolero
05-04-2009, 6:49 AM
Nordyke actually said that the County has the right to restrict carrying/possession/display of guns on it's own (public) property. That was kind of the center of the Nordyke issue.

Remember, the Nordykes personally lost their case. It was only a win for the greater pro-gun movement because the courts decided to include the bit about incorporation. Even with the incorporation bit - the court was pretty clear that government has the ability to restrict where people carry on goverment owned (public) property.

The mayor here isn't gearing up for a fight, the Nordyke ruling gave him the cover he needed to do it in the first place.

But the state of Washington has the jurisdiction here, not the Mayor, and the Mayor has been warned and warned.

Sinixstar
05-04-2009, 10:54 PM
But the state of Washington has the jurisdiction here, not the Mayor, and the Mayor has been warned and warned.

And that would be a situation to be taken up in a state court - as the issue isn't whether or not he has the legal authority under Nordyke to place restrictions on carrying in a public place - it's whether or not he has the authority to ignore the pre-emption laws of Washington state.

Under Nordyke, nothing he did was illegal or out of line. I don't see this rising to the level of scotus, as this is an individual state issue about a mayor imposing a rule of law that does not jive with the state law. The fact that it has to do with guns is more or less irrelevant.

Gray Peterson
05-04-2009, 11:32 PM
A few things to keep in mind, since I do actually live up here and have been keeping an eye on things.

1) The executive order was a directive to the departments to actually draft up rules and regulations so that he can draw up another executive order putting those regulations into effect. The rules have not actually taken any sort of effect, YET.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009164506_guns03m.html

2) Unlike California, we have a very strong preemption statute in RCW 9.41.290.

3) Unlike California, we have a state constitutional provision, Article 1, Section 24.