| Author | Post |
|---|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
I wonder who will challenege this and how - I don't see how any the City can enforce criminal trespass charges against those refusing to leave a public place while lawfully carrying guns any more than they can declare parks a "no speech" area upon penalty of tresspass.
The article is not clear - is open carry banned too? Or now required?
-----
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366336_guns10.html?source=rss
-----
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004466873_webguns09m.html
Nickels bans guns from city facilities in wake of Folklife shooting
By Sharon Pian Chan
Seattle Times staff reporter
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels today announced a ban on guns at all city facilities, including parks, Seattle Center and community centers.
The announcement comes two weeks after three people were injured in a shooting at the Northwest Folklife festival at Seattle Center.
"The reason for this order is simple," Nickels said at a news conference with Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. "Our parks, our community centers and our public events are safer without guns."
The executive order, which does not require City Council approval, will apply to anyone with a concealed-weapon permit.
Violators will be considered trespassers and asked to leave city property, but the city does not have authority to impose fines or jail time.
Nickels said the city will start by posting signs in city buildings such as City Hall.
The mayor said he hopes the city will not have to require pat-downs or metal detectors in city buildings, but suggested those measures as a possibility for festival organizers of events such as Bumbershoot at Seattle Center. The new rule would take effect in about a month.
Washington state law pre-empts all criminal laws on firearms.
"I would not be surprised if there is a challenge to our authority on this," Nickels said. He said a recent lawsuit involving the city of Sequim may give him authority to ban concealed weapons on city property.
State Sen. Jeanne Kohl Welles, D-Seattle, and state Rep. Eric Pettigrew, D-Seattle, also spoke at the news conference in support of the mayor.
Last edited on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:16 pm by Mike
|
M1Gunr
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
Adding the story from the Seattle PI, which allows comments if you register.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366336_guns10.html?source=rss
|
compmanio365
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:34 pm |
|
I wonder what the process would be on challenging this order? Any legal people here want to clarify on this? I never have done anything like this before, but I'd be willing to put my name on something and work on it to get this overthrown, especially seeing there is state preemption and this is illegal........
EDIT: Don't have a lot of money though.......if we could find a way to do this without spending a ton of $$$$ that would be great.......
Last edited on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:36 pm by compmanio365
|
rysa
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 08:50 pm |
|
| I would LOVE to see seattle try and enforce this. I have a house i could pay off with the monies from the resulting lawsuit.
|
deanf
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:08 pm |
|
Well I just sent an email to Leland Bull, the president of the Washington Arms Collectors. I asked him what we are going to be about this? I told him I want us to be agressive in fighting this, and that I expect more out of my membership dues that free admit to the shows. WAC is the logical organization to challenge this in court and seek an immediate injunction against enforcement until the issue can be heard in court.
|
deanf
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
Just talked to WAC office. She didn't have a lot of info, but it is on their radar. She did mention the phrase "these things take time" when reading from an internal email about the subject. I hate that phrase. It shouldn't take more than a week to get a temporary restraining order or injunction to stop enforcement. Dave Workman's name was mentioned, as well as Alan Gottlieb.
Off to PM Dave Workman . . . . .
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
compmanio365 wrote: I wonder what the process would be on challenging this order? Any legal people here want to clarify on this? I never have done anything like this before, but I'd be willing to put my name on something and work on it to get this overthrown, especially seeing there is state preemption and this is illegal........
EDIT: Don't have a lot of money though.......if we could find a way to do this without spending a ton of $$$$ that would be great.......
Contact your local legislator and have him contact the State Attorney General's office or do it yourself. Then there is always the Federal Procecutor as this is a "color of law" violation. Seem there is a criminal running the mayor's office, the state law doesn't apply to him.
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
Here is an interesting exerpt from the PNSPA vs Sequim supreme court case that is mentioned. I personally think the bold print is the key to this whole thing for us.
A municipality acts in a proprietary capacity when it "acts as the proprietor of a business enterprise for the private advantage of the [municipality]" and it may "exercise its business powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation." Hite v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County , 112 Wn.2d 456 , 459, 772 P.2d 481 (1989); Branson v. Port of Seattle , 152 Wn.2d 862 , 870, 101 P.3d 67 (2004). When acting in a proprietary capacity, a city may enter into any contract " 'which is necessary to render the system efficient and beneficial to the public.' " Hite , 112 Wn.2d at 460 (quoting Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 , 17 Wn. App. 861 , 864, 565 P.2d 1221 (1977)); see also Stover v. Winston Bros. Co. , 185 Wash. 416 , 422, 55 P.2d 821 (1936). By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner. ¶32 The preemption clause does not prohibit a private property owner from imposing conditions on the sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290 . Applying our reasoning in Cherry , it follows that a municipal property owner like a private property owner may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests. For the same reason that a municipal employer may enact policies regarding possession of firearms in the workplace because a private employer may do so, a municipal property owner should be allowed to impose conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a private property owner may impose them. The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
|
thewise1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 211 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:46 pm |
|
Interesting potential loophole he found there.
|
deanf
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
Is that emphasis yours or the courts?
|
compmanio365
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/19669854.html
By Associated Press
SEATTLE (AP) - Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has signed an executive order that asks all departments to come up with a plan within 30 days to ban guns at all property owned by the city.
The mayor's office says a public hearing will be held to gather comment on Monday's order but it does not require city council approval.
Nickels says the added gun restriction is needed because of a shooting at last month's Folklife Festival at the Seattle Center that wounded two people.
Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske says the mayor's order will help protect people at civic events.
Sounds like some people need to show up to this public hearing...........I'm in; I can take a little time off work for that........
Last edited on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:56 pm by compmanio365
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: Here is an interesting exerpt from the PNSPA vs Sequim supreme court case that is mentioned. I personally think the bold print is the key to this whole thing for us.
A municipality acts in a proprietary capacity when it "acts as the proprietor of a business enterprise for the private advantage of the [municipality]" and it may "exercise its business powers in much the same way as a private individual or corporation." Hite v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County , 112 Wn.2d 456 , 459, 772 P.2d 481 (1989); Branson v. Port of Seattle , 152 Wn.2d 862 , 870, 101 P.3d 67 (2004). When acting in a proprietary capacity, a city may enter into any contract " 'which is necessary to render the system efficient and beneficial to the public.' " Hite , 112 Wn.2d at 460 (quoting Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 , 17 Wn. App. 861 , 864, 565 P.2d 1221 (1977)); see also Stover v. Winston Bros. Co. , 185 Wash. 416 , 422, 55 P.2d 821 (1936). By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner. ¶32 The preemption clause does not prohibit a private property owner from imposing conditions on the sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290 . Applying our reasoning in Cherry , it follows that a municipal property owner like a private property owner may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests. For the same reason that a municipal employer may enact policies regarding possession of firearms in the workplace because a private employer may do so, a municipal property owner should be allowed to impose conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a private property owner may impose them. The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
This is a case of violating the intent of the state preemption law. I wasn't aware that I needed a permit to walk thru a city park or into city hall, hell there isn't even a permit available from the city. Pure unadulterated case of flipping the bird at the state and the mayor need his gonads stepped on hard.
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
deanf wrote: The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
Is that emphasis yours or the courts?
Oh sorry. The emphasis was mine. But it is clear to me that since the new EO sets out regulations that affect the general public it is not enforceable or in agreement with this court ruling.
|
ducttape2
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: Here is an interesting exerpt from the PNSPA vs Sequim supreme court case that is mentioned. I personally think the bold print is the key to this whole thing for us.
By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner. ¶32 The preemption clause does not prohibit a private property owner from imposing conditions on the sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290 . Applying our reasoning in Cherry , it follows that a municipal property owner like a private property owner may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests. For the same reason that a municipal employer may enact policies regarding possession of firearms in the workplace because a private employer may do so, a municipal property owner should be allowed to impose conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a private property owner may impose them. The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
However, it does not address the issue of common use. If you do not enter into contract with the city, then how can they support the claim of use in in a private contract (that is beneficial to the citizens).
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
ducttape2 wrote: joeroket wrote: Here is an interesting exerpt from the PNSPA vs Sequim supreme court case that is mentioned. I personally think the bold print is the key to this whole thing for us.
By issuing a temporary use permit, the city was leasing its property to PNSPA and acting in its private capacity as a property owner. ¶32 The preemption clause does not prohibit a private property owner from imposing conditions on the sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290 . Applying our reasoning in Cherry , it follows that a municipal property owner like a private property owner may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of its property in order to protect its property interests. For the same reason that a municipal employer may enact policies regarding possession of firearms in the workplace because a private employer may do so, a municipal property owner should be allowed to impose conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a private property owner may impose them. The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
However, it does not address the issue of common use. If you do not enter into contract with the city, then how can they support the claim of use in in a private contract (that is beneficial to the citizens).
Thats what this answers. This basically says that because the laws did not affect the general public due to the contract held between Sequim and PNSPA they did not then fall under pre-emption. But since the EO does affect the general public that they would fall under pre-emption.
The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.
|
BobCav
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:11 pm |
|
| No surprise he'll violate whatever laws are in place as long as his true allegiance is to the Axis of Evil, er I mean the Bloomberg Coalition of Illegal Mayors Against Guns.
|
Agent 47
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
This is actually really good news for me, sorry everyone else.  But when this gets struck down, as it most certainly will be, I will have a irrefutable bit of case law to bring to the Everett city attorney to get the ban on carry in libraries repealed.
|
compmanio365
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:18 pm |
|
| As soon as I find out when/where the actual hearing that supposedly is going to take place actually happens, I'll be there with a copy of state law showing state preemption and how this is completely illegal, null and void before it ever gets signed........
|
sandy
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
This won't change a thing for me. I'm happy to be a test case here. Using trespass law to enforce a ban that they could not otherwise legally enforce is too obviously underhanded to withstand judicial scrutiny.
--Sandy (WA)
|
maclean
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 10:37 pm |
|
The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
|
Current time is 06:15 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|