NRA, others sue Seattle, Nickels over gun ban in parks

[Sun195]

Link to article is <broken link removed> .

NRA, others sue Seattle, Nickels over gun ban in parks
Four gun-rights organizations have filed a lawsuit against Seattle and Mayor Greg Nickels over the new ban on guns in city parks.

By Susan Gilmore
Seattle Times staff reporter

Four gun-rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association, are suing the city of Seattle and Mayor Greg Nickels over the new ban on guns in city parks.

They were joined by five individuals, including two Department of Corrections workers who say they need to carry their personal weapons in city parks to protect themselves against criminals.

"The city is acting illegally in putting a ban into effect," said Alan Gottlieb, with the Second Amendment Foundation, and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Lots of people in Seattle need firearms for self-protection."

Nickels in September proposed a gun ban in city parks, specifically to protect children. The ban went into effect earlier this month. It will affect hundreds of playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools and water-play areas.

If someone with a gun enters one of the designated facilities, he or she will be asked by parks employees or Seattle police officers to leave. If the person won't leave, he or she could be cited or arrested for criminal trespass, according to the mayor's office.

Nickels has argued that state law does not prohibit a property owner from imposing conditions on possessing firearms on his or her property.

The city's position, Nickels has said, is that a municipal-property owner such as Seattle may impose limits on firearms as a condition of entry or use of particular facilities, particularly those where children and other young people are likely to be.

State Attorney General Rob McKenna, however, has disagreed.

In a statement released in mid-September, he said he has a history of working to protect children's safety, but "as Mayor Nickels is aware, the Attorney General's Office issued an opinion in 2008, which found that state law pre-empts local authority to adopt firearms regulations, unless specifically authorized by law."

Gottlieb said McKenna's opinion has been included as one of the exhibits in the lawsuit.

"It is an incontestable fact that the State of Washington has the exclusive right to regulate the possession of firearms in Washington," according to the lawsuit. "It is equally incontestable that cities in the state of Washington may not enact local laws or regulations that prohibit the possession of firearms on city property."

According to the state Department of Licensing, there are 238,994 concealed-weapons permits in the state, 48,838 in King County.

The gun-ban proposal would affect 26 community centers, four environmental-learning centers, 10 pools, 30 wading pools, two small-craft centers, two specialized centers, 139 playgrounds, 213 ballfields, six late-night recreation sites, three teen-life centers and 82 outdoor tennis and basketball courts.

According to the city, more than 1.8 million people visited and attended programs in city park facilities last year.

In addition to Gottlieb's group, the lawsuit was filed by the National Rifle Association, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors.

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Winnie Chan, is a Department of Corrections employee who lives and works in Seattle. According to the suit, she often carries her personal concealed weapon when she is not on duty, because she worries that people she encounters in her line of work may retaliate against her. She said she enjoys visiting Seattle parks, but her favorite now has a no-weapons sign.

Another plaintiff, Ray Carter, is gay and past co-chairman of the Seattle Pride Parade. According to the lawsuit, he said he carries a concealed weapon because he feels, as an openly gay man, he is susceptible to becoming a victim of hate-related crimes.

The plaintiffs are asking that the city be blocked from posting any more no-firearms signs and not implement the new rule.

In response to the suit, the city's law department said, "the City's policy was put in place to protect our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens, our children. The City's most important public duty is to protect its citizens from harm, especially when they are visiting City facilities."

The city attorney's office said it is using the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe to defend the lawsuit. The firm has agreed to defend the policy on a pro bono basis

Read More

 

[Sun195]

Link to article here.

Gun-rights supporters sue Seattle over gun ban

By LEVI PULKKINEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

As promised, gun-rights advocates have sued the City of Seattle arguing that a partial ban on concealed weapons violates state law.

In the suit, filed just before noon Wednesday in King County Superior Court in Seattle, supporters object to a prohibition supported by Mayor Greg Nickels that would ban firearms in public spaces. The city effort has continued in the face of a countervailing opinion by the state attorney general, who found that state law prohibits local jurisdictions from regulating firearms beyond the rules set by the Legislature.

Reached for comment Wednesday, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, said his organization has been joined in the suit by two Department of Corrections officers, two Seattle gay rights activists and a Pike Place Market shop owner.

Gottlieb said they share his concern that the regulation, which went into effect at several locations Oct. 14, will prevent residents and those visiting the city from protecting themselves.

"Aside from the fact that it's preempted by state law, it's also bad, stupid policy," Gottlieb said. "The ideal outcome, which we expect to happen, is that the mayor is going to get slapped by the courts."

Ruth Bowman of the Seattle City Attorney's office, said the city's policy was put in place to protect "our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens, our children.

"The City's most important public duty is to protect its citizens from harm, especially when they are visiting City facilities."

Nickels' spokesman Alex Fryer said the prohibition -- which includes licenced concealed weapons -- is currently in place at 12 Seattle community centers and their associated facilities, bringing the total number of public facilities currently under the ban to 116. The city has previously indicated signs would be in place at all city facilities by Dec. 1; under the regulation, the ban is only enforceable in areas where the prohibition has been noted.

Gottlieb said a formal response from the city is expected in coming weeks. He said the plaintiffs will ask for a preliminary injunction preventing the city from enforcing the regulations until the lawsuit has been concluded.

In addition to the individual plaintiffs and the Second Amendment Foundation, the suit has been joined by the the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors, Inc., and the National Rifle Association.

 

[Sun195]

Press release from Second Amendment Foundation:

GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS FILE LAWSUIT TO STOP SEATTLE BAN


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms, arguing that the ban violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute. They are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors.

The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court names the City of Seattle, Mayor Greg Nickels and Timothy Gallagher, superintendent of Parks and Recreation, as defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC.

“This ban violates Washington’s 26-year-old model preemption statute,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The ban makes it impossible, under threat of criminal trespass penalty, to lawfully carry firearms for the protection of spouses, partners and children on public property where these citizens have a right to be. We are once again delighted to be joined by the NRA in this action. Our successful collaborations in the past stopped illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and nullified an illegal gun ban in the City of San Francisco.”

Individual plaintiffs in the case are:

Winnie Chan, a Department of Corrections employee who lives in Seattle and works in West Seattle. When she is not on-duty, she often carries her personal concealed handgun, particularly when she is going to be in unfamiliar locations, out late at night, or in large/crowded places. (DOC policy prohibits her from carrying her state-issued firearm when she is off-duty, and therefore she owns a personal firearm.) She is concerned that people she has encountered on the job may be disgruntled and pose a threat to her safety. She sometimes visits Lincoln Park for recreation, and she has seen a sign prohibiting firearms there.

Ray Carter, also a West Seattle resident employed as a car salesman at MC Electric Vehicles in Seattle. He is active in the gay community; he co-chaired the Pride Parade in the mid-1990s and founded the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols/Cease Fear. He has testified in Olympia and at City Hall regarding gun bans. The Seattle Weekly wrote an article about Ray in June 2000 entitled “Gays and Guns.” He carries his concealed pistol any place where it is legal, and he believes this is necessary because he is susceptible to hate-related crimes. Ray sometimes visits Lincoln Park and Alki Beach, and he states that he has seen signs prohibiting firearms at those locations.

Gary Goedecke, owner and proprietor of Pikeplace Marketwear, a 35-year old business at Pike Place Market. A Bothell resident, he has been actively involved with the Pike Place Market for years. Gary is an avid gun owner and carries a concealed pistol wherever he can. Gary notes that Steinbrook Park is directly adjacent to the Market and is a very dangerous place; he fears for the safety of his wife (who also works at the Market) and his employees.

Gray Peterson of Lynnwood, who often visits Seattle parks facilities with his domestic partner. Active in the Seattle-area gay community, Peterson is licensed to carry a concealed firearm and does so where it is lawfully permitted because of concerns that he is susceptible to becoming a victim of hate-related crimes. Signs have been posted at some of his favorite parks that prohibit firearms possession.

Robert Kennar, a Department of Corrections employee and resident of Federal Way. He frequently works in Seattle and visits parks and recreation facilities. Kennar has been a crime victim and he often observes criminal activity in Seattle. He is licensed to carry a concealed handgun and always carries his personal firearm when not on duty where he is permitted to do so. He is concerned about retaliation from people he encounters in his line of work. Kennar enjoys visiting Seattle parks, but one of his favorite parks now displays a sign prohibiting firearms.

“This ban affects the rights of all Washington citizens who may visit Seattle parks property and recreation facilities, and especially thousands of Seattle gun owners, many of whom are members of both organizations,” Gottlieb stated. “It essentially impairs the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms for personal protection, which is explicitly protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution.”

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna has issued an opinion that the ban is illegal. Under provisions of the ban, legally-armed citizens face arrest for criminal trespass if they enter park property.

“The parks ban is a going-away gift of sour grapes from ousted Mayor Greg Nickels to the citizens of Seattle,” Gottlieb observed. “He is leaving a mess for his successor, and the taxpayers who rejected his third term bid, to clean up.”

 

[JUSTIficatioN]

So what I would like to know is what would happen if someone chose not to follow the ban and then ended up having to use their CW in self-defense and killed the attacker. Would they try and take your CPL away? Would they prosecute you for disobeying the law? I don't see how they could do either one legally. Regardless, this ban won't be around for long when WA state law pre-empts any city or county from passing this kind of law. But then again... you never know.

 

[56kninja]

So what I would like to know is what would happen if someone chose not to follow the ban and then ended up having to use their CW in self-defense and killed the attacker. Would they try and take your CPL away? Would they prosecute you for disobeying the law? I don't see how they could do either one legally. Regardless, this ban won't be around for long when WA state law pre-empts any city or county from passing this kind of law. But then again... you never know.

Probably would have their CHL away, and they might attempt to prosecute.

But I'm betting that the DA in that area already knows that it will get thrown out if it ever goes to court.

Portland had a similar situation. They tried to ban concealed carry in the airport before the check point. In the end the law was over turned because Portland did not have the authority to make that law, and from what I understand; Neither does Seattle.

 

[AGCR]

I was happy to see the Seattle Pink Pistols are actively involved in opposing the ban.

<broken link removed>

 

[Mr.510]

It sure is nice to watch my tax dollars flushed down the drain. :angry: We have state preemption. I really, really hope that when the city loses somebody powerful sues Nickels personally for all expenses involved. When the State Attorney General (and every lawyer with a 3-digit IQ) tells you that you can't do something like this and you do it anyway I think you should be personally liable for all costs associated. I won't say what I really think or you guys would have to read the word "bubblegum" about a hundred times in a row...

 

[Sun195]

It sure is nice to watch my tax dollars flushed down the drain.

It looks like the City found some free legal help on this, so it shouldn't cost the them much (beyond the signage costs):

The city attorney's office said it is using the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe to defend the lawsuit. The firm has agreed to defend the policy on a pro bono basis

Although, in a case like this, I'm not sure if the City loses whether they will be responsible for NRA/SAF/etc.'s legal costs. I'm also unsure whether there would be other damages awarded - I doubt it; probably just an injunction or court order to cease this program.

 

[CEF1959]

Although, in a case like this, I'm not sure if the City loses whether they will be responsible for NRA/SAF/etc.'s legal costs. I'm also unsure whether there would be other damages awarded - I doubt it; probably just an injunction or court order to cease this program.

This is the sort of case where if the plaintiff wins against the government, it can be awarded reasonable attorney fees.

If I had to bet, I'd bet on the plaintiffs. But that firm representing the City will put forward the best possible defense of the City policy, I can guarantee you that. They're good.

 

[Gunner3456]

-snip-

Portland had a similar situation. They tried to ban concealed carry in the airport before the check point. In the end the law was over turned because Portland did not have the authority to make that law, and from what I understand; Neither does Seattle.

I don't know about Washington, but we're fortunate that Oregon's constitution has a stronger right to keep and bear than the US constitution does. There's nothing nebulous about the wording - no arguing it.

 

[bcp]

State of Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 27:
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

Washington:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

 

[Gunner3456]

State of Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 27:
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

Washington:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

I would prefer Oregon's. I don't really care for that last phrase in Washington's.

$.02