Seattle fights in court for gun ban again

[jpak]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Seattle-fights-in-court-for-gun-ban-again-2337921.php

Seattle officials have petititioned the state Supreme Court to review a ruling that knocked down the city's gun ban in parks, saying the city doesn't just want to protect its own residents, but is fighting for the rights of all cities in Washington to decide what's best for their parks and community centeres.

In 2009, the city of Seattle banned guns from parks and community centers under then-Mayor Greg Nickels, after a shooting at a Folklife festival injured three people. The ban, which applied to city-owned areas where kids were likely to be present, prompted six people to sue the city.

In October, the Court of Appeals sided with gun-rights advocates and affirmed that Seattle's ban violated state law, which prohibits cities from passing laws that regulate the possession of guns. The court found that only the Legislature is allowed to regulate such behavior.

On Thursday, attorneys who represent the city for free petitioned the state's highest court for another look at the case. They said the case affects not just Seattle residents, but the authority of all other cities and counties in Washington to create public-safety standards for their own parks and public places.

<more>

[Walk away]

1. These windnuts will never be happy until they shove guns down everyone's throats.

They believe their antiquated 2nd amendment rights super cede the rights of peaceful citizens who want their children to play in an area that isn't armed to it's teeth.

[pipoman]

2. The only people who want to super cede (sic) the rights of

"peaceful citizens" are those who are undeterred by laws...you know, muggers, gangsters, thieves, rapists, etc...

[Hoyt]

3. "Peaceful citizens" don't carry guns in parks, nor do they promote gun proliferation.

[PavePusher]

4. I do.

And I'm pretty dang peaceful.

Where does your mis-information come from?

[SteveM]

12. mis-information comes from #1 above. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Peaceful citizens are no risk to anyone no matter what causes they support

[ileus]

8. I do

And will continue to do so...

Along with millions of others, just because you believe it doens't make it true.

[Hoyt]

15. Nor, does your believing it's perfectly OK and good for society, make it so.

[Fair Witness]

9. I can't even begin to grasp a way to properly address that sort of idiocy.

It's just too goofy.

[Hoyt]

14. "Goofy" and "Idiocy" are walking around in public with a gun or two.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Sez you.

[ManiacJoe]

22. The sad part is that Hoyt honestly believes that.

[spin]

10. I carry in parks. I also carry in public. Why would carrying a firearm in a park ...

be more dangerous than carrying in a crowded public environment? Crime can occur in both locations.

Of course I realize that you also oppose carry in public. You have every right to that opinion but my views differ from yours and concealed carry is legal in the state where I live. Nothing you have ever said has caused me in the least to consider stopping my habit of carrying a concealed weapon. I doubt if any of your arguments has caused any other individual who carries on a regular basis to stop.

I consider myself a peaceful citizen as I have never been arrested or charged for any violent crime nor have I ever engaged in any violence against another person. That may be why I was granted a concealed weapons permit by the State of Florida. Had I had any record of committing violence the license would have been denied. That's why those who are licensed to carry concealed have such a good record of handling their weapons in a responsible manner. They are simply non-violent people. That in no way means that they can't employ lethal force when attacked in a manner that would cause serious injury or death. Nice people who rarely or never show anger and avoid confrontation can still have the ability to fight, they just have control of the "warrior" side of their personality.

I'm not sure what you mean by promoting gun proliferation. I don't believe that everybody should own a firearm nor do I feel that those who do should run out and get a carry permit. Guns are NOT for everybody.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Yes I do.

I carry.
I encourage other law abiding citizens to acquire firearms.

I live by the non-aggression principle, and am completely peaceful, until.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. The concept is that of state premeption, not guns

The big picture is that if the courts knock down state preemption on guns, the rest of state law goes into flux. This is not going to happen.

[SteveM]

11. Not possible: Just post a sign, and all the guns go away, right?

Repeat after me:

Guns will go away by posting signs (click heels twice);
Guns will go away by posting signs (click heels twice);
Guns will go away by posting signs (click heels twice)....

You're getting sleepy, sleepy, sleepy...

There's no place like fantasy...sy...sy...z-z-z-z-z..........

[DonP]

5. Hell, it's not like it's their money they're using

I'm sure the gun control supporters on this board are probably already writing checks to the defense fund for the city and that Brady will provide full legal funding to support their cause.

Or maybe not.

Maybe the citizens of Seattle will just get another property tax hike like here in Chicago. 38% in one year - but it has nothing to do with the millions pissed away on the mCdonald case and Daley's other ego driven projects.

[SteveM]

13. Hear tell the citizens of Seattle are rich and litigious. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. They are always ready to put others' money where their mouths are.

I daresay I've given more money to the Bradys than 99% of the gun control shills here, present company included. BTW, it was worth it if only to recieve their inadvertently revealing begging letters...

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. I should clarify by saying that I was *not* referring to DonP in that post.

I could have worded that better.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If we allowed local municipalities to exceed state law, I wouldn't be able to carry

on a local hiking trail upon which I have encountered bears.

Fuck Seattle, they can eat shit, and follow the state law like everyone else.

[ManiacJoe]

21. It is amazing how short people's memories are!

Washington did not always have state preemption on guns. There were a few years (back in the early 1980s?) where the state removed the preemption. Some cities (and counties?) did as expected and create a mismatch of laws by adding their own. After a few years of allowing this nonsense to continue, the state then asked how well these new laws had helped reduce crime. The answer received was that zero people had been arrested, say nothing of convicted or even brought to trial.

As a result, the state put the preemption back and made the firearms laws uniform across the state again.