Seattle Park Gun Ban, First Sign Spotted - Page 2

Seattle Park Gun Ban, First Sign Spotted

This is a discussion on Seattle Park Gun Ban, First Sign Spotted within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by bzdog The interesting thing about this "ban" is, AFAIK, doesn't really change much for CCW carriers. Basically, if they *see* a firearm, ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Seattle Park Gun Ban, First Sign Spotted

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by bzdog View Post
    The interesting thing about this "ban" is, AFAIK, doesn't really change much for CCW carriers. Basically, if they *see* a firearm, they can ask you to leave, which is basically the same as a business.

    I didn't look closely but it seemed you could only be arrested if you refused to leave, same as a business.

    It seems to me this only really hits OCers, and AFAIK, OC is fairly rare in the city.

    All in all a big waste of everyone's time.

    Seems it is more meant to make the mayor feel good than anything else.

    -john
    Except you happen to own this business. Also it is violating the law. Nothing at all like a business.

    Michael


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    I'm not suggesting this is a lawful rule. I'm just saying this has the same amount of impact as a posted business, which, in WA, is more a declaration that "we don't like yer kind" than anything else. You are not actually legally barred from entering.

    -john

  3. #18
    Member Array mamakennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rexburg, ID
    Posts
    266
    Here is some interesting reading

    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, ... 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.

    And
    RCW 9.41.300
    Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.

    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or


    I would say there is no way a case, based on this gun ban, against a licensed CC would stand.

    Is that how everyone else reads these codes?
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws... serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Cesare Beccaria

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    Well, it is how the WA State AG reads those codes.

    I think this "ban" is a bit more nuanced tho and I think people need to careful not to run out and get arrested with the thought the case will be thrown out as soon as it makes contact with a lawyer.

    It seems he is trying to be sneaky because what you'd be charged for was trespass, not a firearms charge directly.

    In any case, I do agree it will be unlikely to stand up in the long run due to the foresight of those who wrote our state laws and state Constitution.

    But being the test case is likely to be drawn out and painful.

    -john

  5. #20
    Member Array mamakennedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rexburg, ID
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by bzdog View Post
    Well, it is how the WA State AG reads those codes.

    I think this "ban" is a bit more nuanced tho and I think people need to careful not to run out and get arrested with the thought the case will be thrown out as soon as it makes contact with a lawyer.

    It seems he is trying to be sneaky because what you'd be charged for was trespass, not a firearms charge directly.

    In any case, I do agree it will be unlikely to stand up in the long run due to the foresight of those who wrote our state laws and state Constitution.

    But being the test case is likely to be drawn out and painful.

    -john
    Your right John, for anyone to set themselves up as a test case would not be the smartest thing to do right now.

    IMO I think the members in Washington should get together and start a petition to get the ban and signs removed stating that Nickels is not only violating State Law, but also the residents of Washington's 2nd Amendment rights.
    Nickels should end up receiving some sort of punishment for the violations, but I'm not sure how that would work out legally.
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws... serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Cesare Beccaria

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Spotted one
    By WvHiker in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 12th, 2010, 06:17 PM
  2. Something I most likely never would have spotted if I did not CC.
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 16th, 2010, 09:44 PM
  3. Interesting Sign at Seattle Airport
    By JonInNY in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 29th, 2009, 03:23 PM
  4. Got spotted carrying.
    By nosights in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: January 7th, 2009, 12:06 AM
  5. 47 Senators Sign Letter On National Park CCW!!!!
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: February 16th, 2008, 02:48 PM

Search tags for this page

can you conceal carry in a seattle park
,

can you concealed carry in seattle parks

,
ccw in seattle parks
,
ccw law seattle
,

concealed carry in seattle parks

,
concealed carry seattle park
,
concealed carry seattle parks
,
laws that prohibit the carrying of arms
,
laws that prohibit the carrying of arms tend to encourage
,
open carry in seattle parks
,
open carry seattle parks
,
seattle ccw laws
,
seattle parks gun sign
,
seattle public park ccw
,
where can ccw in parks seattle
Click on a term to search for related topics.