Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
West Seattle Blog… Park gun ban: First sign sighting in West Seattle

What an incredible waste of tax payer money for these hideous signs that will be showing up in parks all over Seattle. Our AG will not support this ban created by lame duck mayor Greg Nickels. If arrests are made these signs will cost tax payers even more money in litigation.

Why not invest the sign money into hiring new LEOs or provide additional training for the ones we have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Absolutely, what a joke. I believe this will end up being another stupid ban on the books so the mayor can attach his name to it for 'doing it for the children'. However with no legal basis behind it will just fade away and never backed up.

What has this really accomplished? Just a waste of time and money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
I love Washington, it is wonderfully beautiful place with so many out door activities year round... :happysad:
That being said, I'm glad to have moved. My childhood stomping ground is turning into a little California with new laws and restrictions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
If arrests are made these signs will cost tax payers even more money in litigation.

Why not invest the sign money into hiring new LEOs or provide additional training for the ones we have?
The first couple $10M civil rights abuse cases will start to get the attention of municipalities.

It's too bad that politicos get to essentially do what they please until a court battle occurs. Trouble is, prior to that day, an untold number of citizens are going to get cuffed-and-stuffed for obeying state law, and those citizens will have to expend an untold amount of money and damage to their reputations in order to swat down the stupidity. All the while, the politicos don't get damaged in a single way.

What SHOULD happen is that the court should weight-in on the question of survivability of statutes prior to their becoming law, else they cannot become law. The mere wish of a political hack to have something done should not be sufficient. It should first pass legal muster, at least when we're speaking of crimes and punishments. At minimum, a check as to the basic legality and viability of a municipal ordinance or state statute should occur, prior to it going into effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Wow, great letter with the picture though.

I saw the sign for the first time today, and was very disturbed by both the content and the placement of the sign. We moved from the East Coast over a year ago, and settled near Lincoln Park because of the peaceful community ambience of the Fauntleroy/Arbor Heights area. Had I seen these signs in Seattle parks as a prospective home buyer, I would have chosen the ‘burbs, assuming there must be firearm problems if there have to be signs on playgrounds. (Which, now that I live here, know is not the case). Signs and laws don’t dissuade gang members from wielding their guns in any public location, unfortunately. As far as I’m concerned, the only things these signs accomplish are decreased property values and creating unnecessary fear in law-abiding citizens.

I had to respond to my 2 year-olds questions about “The sign with the gun on it” today…. Maybe they should also post “No Drugs” and “No Sex” signs at the park. I’d love to have to explain those things to him while he’s still in preschool. (I am, of course, angrily sarcastic).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
I was looking at the picture again, is that writing on the bottom a time when the ban is enforced? Like 8-4 or something?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
The cost to defend these ordinances ought to fall upon the originators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
I was thinking the proper PR stunt would be to have a CCW BBQ in the park, but have no one carry (but don't tell anyone that). Signs saying CCW Guild of Seattle BBQ or whatever. News show up, people talk about CCW, talk about the "law". Police called, people show permits. Asked to leave. On what grounds?

It would be in the true spirit of Mayor. Comedy of errors.

-john
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Anybody can post their thoughts or comments at the end of the blog....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
Yah, I just posted a comment.

As for why not carry vs open carry, why give the mayor what he wants? Arresting a bunch of open carriers on the news would just make him happy. Getting all wound up and finding there was nothing there in the first place.... frustrating.

Just a thought.

-john
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,703 Posts
Yup, that sign will keep everyone safe! :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top