West Seattle, Washington

18 Thursday

57℉

Park/community center gun ban: City response to lawsuit

October 28, 2009 3:46 pm
|      48 COMMENTS
 |   Safety | West Seattle news | West Seattle parks

As many expected would happen, the city says it’s being sued over the park/community center gun ban that just took effect (with signs like the one above, photographed by Hillary at Lincoln Park and discussed extensively here a week ago). Here’s its statement:

The City of Seattle issued the following statement on today’s lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association and others challenging the City’s recently adopted policy prohibiting the carrying or display of guns in designated areas of parks where children are likely to be present.

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 has secured the services of the Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. In order to avoid expense to the City, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe has agreed to defend the policy on a pro bono basis.

Seattle Times (WSB partner) has more on the lawsuit itself, including a link to the court documents. ADDED 9:30 PM: The news release about the suit itself says that two of the plaintiffs are West Seattle residents, Winnie Chan and Ray Carter.

Share This

48 Replies to "Park/community center gun ban: City response to lawsuit"

  • Johnny Davies October 28, 2009 (3:58 pm)

    Aren’t a lot of the gun-toting “thugs” in fact, children?

  • westSeattleCyclocrossRacer October 28, 2009 (4:08 pm)

    Must be outdated… isn’t there supposed to be a “No Bicycle Riding” sign underneath?

  • Fiona October 28, 2009 (4:31 pm)

    The best part of that sign is when I tell my 5 year old that he can’t play “shooters” on the playground, I can say “it’s the LAW”. I guess he’ll just have to apply for his concealed imaginary weapons permit…

  • Smitty October 28, 2009 (5:09 pm)

    Now why didn’t I think of that!?

    Let’s just take this one step further and simply ban guns everywhere and – voila! – no more gun violence!

    Dang, this will be sooooo easy!

  • JamminJ October 28, 2009 (6:04 pm)

    stupid law… but not being a gun owner myself… what is the law that prevents one from entering a courthouse without a gun??? and why is there no challenge to that gun restriction?

  • WSB October 28, 2009 (6:12 pm)

    Do you mean “prevents … entering a courthouse WITH a gun?” I can’t find it on first quick try but the issue here seems to be the contention that only the state can pass gun laws – I would guess the courthouse gun restrictions are state laws, not city laws – TR

  • Linda October 28, 2009 (6:16 pm)

    Oops- the right to keep and bear arms? Outlawed? The constitution is just guidelines or should it be upheld?

  • D.C. October 28, 2009 (6:23 pm)

    I highly doubt this would hold up in court if a citizen with a legally carried firearm was arrested and charged for having it in the park. I also don’t think(hope) the police would waste their time hassling someone with a permit, when there are plenty of actual bad characters out there for them to focus on. I’m guessing this is more of a political middle finger to those on the gun rights side of things, than any actual attempt to make our parks safer.

  • JamminJ October 28, 2009 (6:23 pm)

    yes, thanks for the correction.
    .
    whether it’s state law or city law… isn’t it still a restriction on the second amendment – park or courthouse?
    .
    NRA willing to challenge city law, but not state law?
    .

  • Shane October 28, 2009 (7:34 pm)

    RCW 9.41.290

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. 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.

  • HMC Rich October 28, 2009 (9:06 pm)

    Maybe this was covered somewhere but I would like to know the numbers of people who have been shot or apprehended with guns at a park in Seattle. I think it would be beneficial to have statistics support or argue against the ban.

    Wasn’t this originally triggered (sorry) by guns and gangs at Seattle Center?

  • Jose October 28, 2009 (10:31 pm)

    Oh, good… a law.
    .
    Which, of course, will only be followed by those of us who are law-abiding and have a carry permit…
    .
    Leaving us further exposed to, and at the mercy of, those who are law-breakers anyway and will carry a gun no matter what the law says.

  • JamminJ October 28, 2009 (10:37 pm)

    “will carry a gun no matter what the law says.”
    .
    asked earlier… just trying to understand.
    .
    so a municipality says you can’t carry in a park, NRA files suit.
    .
    But there are obvious places where the law trumps the 2nd amendment – courthouse, airport come to mind – public places… do you forgo second amendment in those places?
    .

  • shane October 29, 2009 (5:59 am)

    Jammin, as I was trying to point out above, the state law specifically states that local law may not be more restrictive than the 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.”

    This is really the issue.

    As for the courthouse, if you read the actual RCW, its only portions of the courthouse that are off limits(It’s far too early for me to go digging it up),although I will grant you that from a practical standpoint there is no way you could really carry your weapon into the building (at least not without attracting lots of attention)

  • J.S. October 29, 2009 (7:50 am)

    If “The City’s policy was put in place to protect our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens, our children”, then why doesn’t the city also ban abortions????? Mayor Nickels?????

  • Jim October 29, 2009 (8:02 am)

    It’s not the law that’s the problem. The problem is that we have multiple people in leadership positions who actually think that if they put up a “No Guns” sign and create a “No Guns” zone then they have fulfilled their civic responsibility to protect children. It’s this kind of naivete that should be criminal. All they have accomplished is a distraction and an inevitable drain on city resources (despite the pro bono legal work).

  • Ex-Westwood Resident October 29, 2009 (10:01 am)

    No Gun Zone = Killing Field

  • D.C. October 29, 2009 (11:52 am)

    Courthouses and airports are places with extremely strict security that have specialized risks associated with them. Parks, on the other hand, are unsecured open public areas.

  • John Hardin October 29, 2009 (12:59 pm)

    JamminJ: Many more law-abiding firearms owners are affected by a parks ban than by the courtroom ban. The state bars carrying in courtrooms, jails, mental hospitals. Carry in the controlled areas of airports is federal law. A firmer base of precedent for firearms rights would need to be built before state- and federal-level bans could be challenged, and I don’t think anybody feels a courthouse, jail or mental hospital ban is unreasonable.

    The SAF filed suit because this is a new restriction, and one that violates state preemption law. It’s an easy win, and will provide precedent.

    HMC Rich: No, it was triggered by the folklife festival shooting, where a CPL holder attending the festival got into a scuffle and fired his pistol when it was not justified. That got a lot of press, and Nickels saw an easy way to make political hay.

  • mark October 29, 2009 (1:31 pm)

    John,

    The one wiggle zone you are missing is the right to carry a weapon (with permit of course) in a bar. It can and will be argued that a gun mixes as poorly with booze as it does children. If there was ever a time I felt the need to carry its in a bar full of drunks, not a public park.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident October 29, 2009 (1:55 pm)

    Mark,
    .
    And we have seen just how effective the ban of guns in bars has been. It’s NOT.
    .
    The ONLY people who will abide by this ARE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The gang-bangers, wannabes and others that do not get a CWP will obey this law as well as they obey all the rest of the gun laws…NOT AT ALL!!!!
    .
    It is THOSE people that represent the GREATEST risk to us, NOT legal gun owners.

  • datamuse October 29, 2009 (2:09 pm)

    Mark: I’d have no objection to that, as long as you’re not drunk yourself. I was at that show at Studio 7 earlier this year where a barfight turned into a shooting outside the club. Studio 7 has a no firearms policy and it’s not clear that the shooter had the gun on him when he was in the club, but there were kids at that show. The whole incident was pretty unbelievable. (AND the shooter was a soldier, i.e. really should’ve known better. Bad scene all around.)

  • mark October 29, 2009 (2:31 pm)

    Studio 7 might have a gun control policy, but its the same “policy” that every other bar in the state has. No Weapons allowed. Period. Guns are not allowed in any bar, and that law would appear to fly in the face of state law. Why not city parks too?

  • bobby October 29, 2009 (2:59 pm)

    not being a lawyer i dont know the actual law on that, but my guess would be that there is a difference between private and public property. if i own an establishment i can make a rule to not allow firearms inside, but the city cannot make an ordinance more restrictive than the state law on firearms.

    however, i have to say, unless the posters above are all vigilantes toting guns to protect people against criminals, i don’t see the point in them wanting to carry guns in parks. but of course vigilantism is would just turn you into a criminal as well.

    think it through: thug brandishes gun in park, demands money, you do what, pull out your gun and start firing, creating an obvious health and safety risk for those you are supposedly helping?

    i think guns are good for hunters and marksmen, but i have yet to see how they actually keep you or your loved ones safe.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident October 29, 2009 (3:22 pm)

    Mark,
    .
    It is a STATE law that guns are NOT allowed in bars. Because it is a STATE law it does not fall into the same situation as this stupid gun ban in public parks because it is a CITY that is imposing it. That is in violation of the WA Constitution.
    .
    If the state were to pass a law that bans guns in parks that that would meet the conditions and adhere to the WA Constitution.
    .
    The city of Seattle, or ANY other city or county, CAN NOT pass a law that is MORE restrictive than the state gun laws on the books. THAT is in violation of WA Constitution.
    .
    The state has laws banning guns in ALL City, County and State courts and places that serve alcohol, maybe one or two more places, but i’m not sure
    .
    The airport and federal building are covered under Federal Gun Laws, which ban the carrying of weapons (ALL weapons, not just guns) in to them.

  • mark October 29, 2009 (4:34 pm)

    I know its a state law, but its a law because it does not, for whatever reason conflict with the state constitution. If it did conflict, it would not be a law. The state has no right to pass laws that conflict with the state constitution. If a law is on the books that bans gun in bars, why not parks?? Bottom line, guns don’t belong in parks any more than they do in bars.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident October 29, 2009 (5:18 pm)

    Mark,
    .
    Because the current ban on guns in parks IS NOT a state law. If it was, I don’t thnk that anything could be done to fight it.
    .
    But because Seattle is has passed a law that is MORE restrictive that the state law AND only covers Seattle it is against the RCW below.
    .
    RCW 9.41.290

    The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. 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.
    .
    Pay particular attention to the bolded portions of the RCW.

  • mark October 29, 2009 (6:11 pm)

    Oh I know that. But guns still don’t belong in city parks. Period. I wish the legislature had the gonnads to do something about it. It was still a good move by Nickels, even if it conflicts with current statutes. Maybe it passes muster, we can all hope it does.

  • rob October 29, 2009 (6:47 pm)

    why don’t guns belong in city parks?

  • mark October 29, 2009 (7:03 pm)

    Why don’t guns belong in city parks? Um, maybe because there are kids there? Why do you need one there might be a better question. I can’t think of any parks near me that I need a gun to feel any safer in.

  • rob October 29, 2009 (7:08 pm)

    kids are everywhere, what makes parks special?

  • What Now October 29, 2009 (7:24 pm)

    Mark, I’m sorry you don’t like guns and would like to deny their existence, that would make a beautiful world. Unfortunately it is not the one we live in, what is your issue with it specifically? For all you know I have stood next to you at the store, in the park, at the gas station, or maybe I was next to you at the theater or the next booth over, Armed all the while. Please buy a shirt that says I am Mark and I support banning firearms, and I promise I will respect your rights and not use mine to help you. But I will tell you you should feel a lot better that there are intelligent skilled people like myself and others in this fine city carrying a firearm in your presence. Because in most instances the criminal element will be long gone before the police can respond. I think you would lose your mind if you knew how many people are walking around day to day armed, and I think you would be further surprised at how many of these people take the responsibility very seriously, and are receiving training or even shooting competitively. Bars, Courts, Airports, etc. I get it bad idea (unless your not drinking see Arizona’s new Bar carry law http://www.examiner.com/x-25100-Phoenix-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Arizona-law-to-permit-concealed-carry-in-restaurants-beginning-September-29-2009) Bottom line is it’s rule all they can do should they discover you are carrying is ask you to leave. Refusal will get you arrested for Trespass Chicken S!!! and Mark using your logic we should disarm the police department. Obviously I would need one should someone else come through the park with a firearm looking to kill his ex-wife, girlfriend, employer, ex-employer, the ex’s new boyfriend, someone that looked like his Step Dad, Me, and on and on. Got It?!

  • mark October 29, 2009 (7:37 pm)

    Parks are intended as safe areas, for kids and adults. Oh, and dogs,in some parks!!

  • rob October 29, 2009 (8:01 pm)

    hopefully everywhere is intended as a safe area for kids and adults.

    sometimes bad people hang out in our nice parks. sometimes they deal drugs in them. sometimes they mug people. sometimes they try to rape joggers (sometimes they succeed).

    i don’t carry a gun but i can see why some people may want to.

    what i can’t see is why people would like to take that right away from good people because of things done by people who don’t follow the rules, particularly when the good people don’t cause any problems. crimes committed by people legally carrying guns are almost non-existant. meanwhile, crimes committed by thugs illegally carrying them are plentiful.

    i also can’t see how exactly anyone thinks that telling law abiding people they can’t do something is in any way going to stop thugs from doing it.

    this past summer my wife and i had gone to the playground in the picture on this post with our daughter. when we got home my wife realized she had dropped her sunglasses somewhere. i went back to the park about 8:00 (still light out and still people in the park) to look for them, and hanging around that same playground by the zip line ride were a group of younger guys, probably early 20s, all dressed in gangsta gear, smoking dope, and hassling some of the people walking through. no idea if any of them were armed, but it wouldn’t surprise me. pretty brazen to go to a public park, smoke dope, and harass and intimidate random people. i called the police when i got back to my car and told them there were people smoking dope at the playground, but somehow i doubt they ever went down there.

    am i going to start carrying a gun because of stuff like this? no. i can understand why some people want to though. being in the middle of a big park like that and outnumbered, if something did go down who is there to help you?

    telling the jones’ they can’t isn’t going to do anything but make thugs more brave.

  • rob October 30, 2009 (6:54 am)

    Guns are illegal at schools and universities so why not a park?

    Hey, Big man with a gun in your hand, do you feel strong?

  • What Now October 30, 2009 (8:41 am)

    I am strong rob so the answer is YES I do, I don’t pull my gun and beat you or anyone over the head with it, I don’t flash it or flaunt it. I carry it so if a criminal tries to commit a violent crime in my presence I have the means to do something about it. Yes this means statistically I am 6X more likely to be killed in an altercation, IMHO it beats being an unarmed target. I don’t know about how you were raised or what kind of a person you are but I am not one to sit on my hands and let bad people do terrible things to good people, it’s just not how I was raised or who I am. For instance I would not have walked past a girl being brutally raped at a High school dance I would have interviened, if that means a rapist loses his life I won’t lose any sleep. If that means I lose my life I won’t miss the sleep I lose, I’ll be dead. But I will not live with the knowledge that I stood by and allowed a horrible thing to happen without standing up for what is right. You and I will not see eye to eye on this issue taking your point of view and turning a blind eye to violent crimes is just not something I am prepared to do. So again please get your self a T-shirt that says I support gun bans and I will respect your right to be a victim as well.

  • D.C. October 30, 2009 (5:06 pm)

    i think guns are good for hunters and marksmen, but i have yet to see how they actually keep you or your loved ones safe. – bobby

    Here’s a item from Today’s Boston Globe:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/30/da_says_mgh_shooting_justified/


    Pinned to the floor by her enraged, knife-wielding patient, defenseless against his frenzied stabbing blows, Dr. Astrid Desrosiers could do nothing but scream. As clinic colleagues fled, another doctor tried to pull the 250-pound man off her, but fell back when the patient slashed at him.

    Paul Langone, an off-duty security officer carrying a concealed handgun, may have been her only chance, authorities said yesterday.

    Providing new details about Tuesday’s savage attack at a Massachusetts General Hospital psychiatric clinic, prosecutors said Langone’s fatal shooting of Jay Carciero, a 37-year-old in treatment for bipolar disorder, was legally justified.

    He almost surely saved Desrosiers’ life, they said, and possibly the lives of others in the vicinity.

    This is a single example of something that happened this week. Very few incidents of thrawted crimes/murders make the news front page.

  • JohnN October 30, 2009 (5:17 pm)

    This was all pretty well hashed over in the previous post – follow the link in the article “discussed extensively here a week ago”.
    .
    But, some highlights:
    .
    Q: What’s wrong with the ban?
    A: The part about it being illegal. The question of the ban was submitted to the state AG, who responded saying such a ban would be contrary to state law:
    http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188
    .
    Q: What if we could make it illegal?
    A: Criminals would ignore it and you would have no options to protect yourself.
    .
    Q: Aren’t you some sort of police or superhero wannabe? Aren’t you just looking for an excuse to go save the day?
    A: Most CCW holders don’t want trouble, and are not interested in attracting attention to themselves. It is very common for CCW holders to be much more diligent in avoiding potentially dangerous situations.
    .
    Q: How can I trust you with a gun?!
    A: The same way you trust me on the freeway. Cars are potentially very dangerous, yet most of us drive one. In fact, we are more likely to get killed by a car than a gun. And even less likely to be killed by a legally carried firearm.
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=auto+fatalities
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
    .
    Q: If you are so scared you need a gun, why don’t you go somewhere else?!
    A: I’m neither scared, nor over-confident. I just choose to have options.
    A: Violence can happen anywhere.
    .
    Q: But I don’t want to carry a gun!
    A: OK. But please don’t sue the police if something happens to you and they don’t protect you.
    .
    Q: Won’t you feel stupid if you have your gun and you still die?
    A: No. You choose to fight, run or comply. No matter what you choose, it may or may not work. But it my right to be able to decide which I do, and it is your right to be able to decide which you do.
    .
    Q: What if we could wave our magic wand and make guns go away?
    A: Then you leave the weak at the mercy of the strong. Exactly why should your daughter not be given the tools to protect herself from a couple of big guys intent on doing her harm? Or your grandma?
    .
    Q: Isn’t this the police’s job?
    A: The police are not and cannot be responsible for your safety. And despite their best intentions, they probably won’t be there when you need them.
    .
    We need to remember our personal safety is our personal responsibility and no one else’s.
    .
    How you wish to approach that is up to you. You can, rely on the police, give them what they want, fight back with martial arts, run away real fast, or legally carry a concealed firearm.
    .
    But it is up to you. It is your right, it is your responsibility.
    .
    But personally, if I had a child, I’d fight tooth and nail to protect them, and I’d find the most effective tool to do so.
    .
    And certainly, I don’t feel it moral for us to attempt to deprive those who are weak to be at the mercy of those who are strong.
    .
    It is contrary to the concept of “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
    .
    -john

  • JohnN October 30, 2009 (5:19 pm)

    More reading from a lady here in Washington:
    .
    http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx#Why
    .
    -john

  • JohnN October 30, 2009 (5:21 pm)

    Comment by rob — October 30, 09 6:54 am:
    “guns are illegal at schools and universities so why not a park?”
    .
    Actually, guns are not *illegal* at universities here in Washington, simply against school policy.
    .
    They can throw the student out, but it isn’t against the law.
    .
    -john

  • JohnN October 30, 2009 (6:33 pm)

    Comment by mark — October 29, 09 6:11 pm #
    “But guns still don’t belong in city parks. Period. I wish the legislature had the gonnads to do something about it.”
    .
    The problem is, there are no “safe” or “off limits” places. Violence happens everywhere, even parks.
    .
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/california.gang.rape.bystander/index.html
    .
    All the wishing in the world won’t fix it. And prohibiting law abiding citizens from protecting themselves only makes us less safe.
    .
    -john

    -john

  • What Now October 31, 2009 (1:44 am)

    Well said john

  • common sense October 31, 2009 (2:46 am)

    when did the city make the signs ?
    what was the total bill to have them made and installed ?
    does anyone know – its a matter of public record isnt it ?

  • WSB October 31, 2009 (3:10 am)

    We already reported that in our last story. Follow the link in the first line of this one – TR

  • Rich October 31, 2009 (6:17 am)

    Show me a place where violent crime never happens and I will not need to carry a firearm for self defense at that location. In actuality no-guns zones attract vilent criminal since they know law abiding citizens are defenseless. Schools, Post Offices, are prime examples. We can all think of criminals that go there to take over defenseless people. Stop the insanity, trained, criminally and mentally background checked, and government sanction CCW holders should be encouraged to carry in such areas. To imagine gun free zones exist is insanity. Criminals carry everwhere.

  • JohnN October 31, 2009 (7:34 am)

    As noted, the cost was reported in the previous post:
    “The grand total for the cost of fabricating all the signs is around $10,000.”

    -john

  • Ken Grubb November 1, 2009 (4:48 pm)

    There’s no legal basis for the ban. The City doesn’t get to overrule state law in the matter of firearms. This will cost the residents of Seattle when the city loses the lawsuit. Not sure why Mayor Dipstick felt the need to spend money so needlessly.

  • Bob Warden November 12, 2009 (2:09 pm)

    Lincoln Park sign was no longer there as of November 11.

Sorry, comment time is over.