The Seattle Times reports on the much-anticipated ruling.
The rule banning firearms in Seattle parks was tossed out Friday by King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer, who said the city cannot pre-empt state law.
The city now has 30 days to remove the 116 metal signs, which are about 1 by 1-½ feet in size and show a handgun inside a red circle, with a red line crossing out the gun. In all-capital letters there is the warning: "FIREARMS PROHIBITED."
Assistant City Attorney Gary Keese said, "We will comply with the court order and are weighing with the mayor and City Council the options for appeal."
Mayor Mike McGinn issued a one-paragraph, late-afternoon statement that said, "I am disappointed in today's (Friday's) ruling. Cities should have the right to restrict guns in playground, pools and community centers where children are present ... It's time for the state Legislature to change that law."
To me, this is one of the best examples of NRA bully tactics. Does anyone really believe the nanny who walks her little charges in the park and the young couple taking romantic walks in the early evening and the dozens of other "normal" people affected by this ruling are better off? No, they're not. Because a small very vocal minority has bullied its way into the city parks of Seattle, the regular people lose.
The present and former mayors of Seattle are "disappointed," as well as the vast majority of citizens who, for a time, enjoyed the knowledge that people weren't walking around with guns. Citizens of urban communities already know that drug addicts and gang members are likely to have guns and present a danger. But what they don't want is to have to worry about the supposed law abiding gun owners too. Does anyone think the jogger or stroller who uses the park is comforted by the possibility that if some bad guy pops up with a gun some good guys will open fire and save the day?
I don't think so. It's a bad deal for Seattle, except for that small fraction who own guns and insist on carrying them around in the public places.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"The present and former mayors of Seattle are "disappointed," as well as the vast majority of citizens who, for a time, enjoyed the knowledge that people weren't walking around with guns."
ReplyDeleteCorrection: They enjoyed the delusion that people weren't walking around with guns.
Unless the parks were surrounded by walls with metal detectors at the entrances, there is no reason to believe guns were never in the parks. Like all GFZs, they are only such until someone brings a gun in.
This ban was essentially legislation for it's own sake. Malum prohibitum. It accomplished nothing. Good riddance to it.
If the majority favored the ban as you believe, it would still be in place.
As for those 116 signs, i'd like to see a gun range buy them and use them as targets
"who said the city cannot pre-empt state law."
ReplyDelete"To me, this is one of the best examples of NRA bully tactics."
So, by your own words, you believe that city governments should only abide by state laws they agree with and ignore the ones they don't.
Do you also agree that individuals should only obey the laws they like and ignore the ones they don't? Do you think it a wise legal defense to walk into court and tell the judge, "I broke the law because I don't like it?"
What do you think the judge would say?
"Because a small very vocal minority has bullied its way into the city parks of Seattle, the regular people lose."
So, you believe that gun owners are abnormal. That's very telling.
"Citizens of urban communities already know that drug addicts and gang members are likely to have guns and present a danger. But what they don't want is to have to worry about the supposed law abiding gun owners too."
Epic logic fail.
"It's a bad deal for Seattle, except for that small fraction who own guns and insist on carrying them around in the public places."
I never realized that 40-45% of the population constituted a small fraction.
Again, epic logic fail.
Face it man, we win in court. We have the rule of law on our side.
Something to consider mikeb...
ReplyDeleteIf individual cities can make their own gun laws, how would that effect those who own guns?
Right now, if I travel between states, I must be aware of the state gun laws in each state. That's bad enough but imagine the burden if I were forced to memorize every nuance of the gun laws in every town I drove through?
Just driving back and forth to work I pass through 5 different cities.
Constitutional Rights are based on citizenship, not geographical location.
"...enjoyed the knowledge that people weren't walking around with guns."
ReplyDeleteYou mean the criminals, right? 'Cause they were sure looking forward to the ban on dangerous victims.
By the way, you haven't given me your opinion on the "gun free zone liability act"
http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-billreview.htm
"Does anyone think the jogger or stroller who uses the park is comforted by the possibility that if some bad guy pops up with a gun some good guys will open fire and save the day?"
ReplyDeleteNo, but that jogger and stroller can carry and protect themselves.
Why is it always about someone protecting you? Be it the phantom concealed carrier or the policeman with the magic talisman, why do the anti's whine about someone protecting them, or needing to protect them, or protect them from the CCW holder or protect them from the bad guy. Does anyone else see the sheep theme here?
Quit worrying about the other guy. You can now protect yourself in a park as you should be able to do anywhere. If you don't want to carry a gun then fine, don't do it. You call 911 and wait.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteBecause a small very vocal minority has bullied its way into the city parks of Seattle, the regular people lose.
Was it a minority (perhaps even a tiny minority) who wanted Seattle to comply with the very clear state law? Could be--but so what? Is it your position, Mikeb, that minorities don't have rights? Is it your contention that if 51% of the people want to disenfranchise the other 49%, they should be permitted to do so (or 60%/40%, or 99%/1%, or even 99.999%/0.001%)? Not that you're likely to be impressed with the thinking of Ayn Rand, but I think this is perfect for the occasion:
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
It's not "bullying" to stop the depredations of the anti-self-defense crowd (and yes--mandated defenselessness is indeed a depredation), even if that crowd is in the majority (hell--especially if that crowd is in the majority).
The good guys won here, and the bullies lost. My suggestion would be to get over it.
Just saw this. I guess Seattle's anti-gun bedwetters are going to have trouble sitting down for a week or more, after the judicial spanking they got. Get a load of this:
ReplyDeleteTo everyone’s surprise, she also mentioned the landmark Heller ruling against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that found the Second Amendment to be protective of an individual civil right, an issue that was never brought up in the SAF/NRA legal argument. She also dissected and individually demolished the city’s legal arguments.
You tell 'em, Judge!
I've had my doubts about the Heller ruling. Sure, it's great that the Supreme Court seems to have figured out what "right of the people" means, but I've been more than a little disturbed by their obvious failure to come to grips with "shall not be infringed."
Still, though, it's hard to get around the fact that now that it's a point of settled law that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals, and that no one worth taking seriously is trying to push the "collective right" rubbish, the game has changed. That change is looking more and more fundamental, and in favor of liberty.
Can ya' dig that?
I'll say this, Zorro. Ayn Rand was a good fiction writer.
ReplyDeleteAbout "getting over it" as a couple of you have said, I don't think so. This Seattle business will go down as one of the great mal-manipulations of the great gun rights wars.
FWM, I'm not the one with the "protecting the sheep" mentality. That's you and your friends. As one of the sheep, I don't want your protection because I don't trust all of you and, when speaking of licensed gun owners, it's impossible to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones.
That would, of course, be Convicted Felon Allen Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand was a good fiction writer.
Should I take that to mean, then, that you disagree with her premise, and that you believe the majority should be able to dictate to the minority? That there are, in essence, no fundamental rights--rights, in other words, that aren't subject to being voted away?
This Seattle business will go down as one of the great mal-manipulations of the great gun rights wars.
You're pulling my leg again, aren't you? As strongly as you disagree with it, you don't really see this as more than a minor skirmish, do you?
I mean--sure, I'm enjoying a good gloat over it, but it ain't exactly the gun rights equivalent of the Battle of Stalingrad.
And you accuse us of grandiosity and hyperbole.
By the way, kaveman's point is worth repeating.
So, by your own words, you believe that city governments should only abide by state laws they agree with and ignore the ones they don't.
Do you also agree that individuals should only obey the laws they like and ignore the ones they don't? Do you think it a wise legal defense to walk into court and tell the judge, "I broke the law because I don't like it?"
The Seattle park gun ban broke the law, Mikeb. If the "authorities" have no respect for the rule of law, why should anyone else? And if no one is to be held to any respect for laws, what is the point of a law against guns?
If the vast majority of people in Seattle were so enamored of the parks gun ban, why did it get trounced so badly every time the question was put the public?
ReplyDeleteEither way, civil rights by definition are not subject to majority rule. They only become civil rights because we place them beyond the reach of majority rule.
MikeB, you don't want to be protected, fine. You don't want to protect yourself or your family, fine. But why would you want to stop me from protecting myself or my family?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that criminals will still carry weapons in parks rather guns are banned or not don't you?
As usual MikeB and his ilk enthusiastically support criminal activity, so long as it suits their goals.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold says:
ReplyDeleteThat would, of course, be Convicted Felon Allen [sic] Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation.
--JadeGold
And the "Felony" for which he was "Convicted" was tax evasion--perhaps it was an attempt to position himself for a future bid to become Obama's Secretary of the Treasury.
Of course, Gottlieb's tax evasion was tens of thousands of dollars less than Geithner's--perhaps Obama prefers large tax cheats for such an important position.
Funny that Demo, MikeB and his ilk have absolutely no problem with breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteThey support breaking the law in order to enact an illegal ban, a ban which they then expect others to abide by.
If they have no respect for the rule of law why would they expect those they govern to abide by such laws?
If anything Seattle gun owners should actively ignore this ban. A law that is illegally passed, unconstitutional and unenforcable should be ignored.
Mike W., You use the word "ilk" too often.
ReplyDeleteWhat a pity. Lots of little signs would surely have stopped people carrying guns illegally.
ReplyDeleteAnd Zorro, that is the only quote of Rand's that I have ever enjoyed. Thanks.