Another shootdown for parks’ gun ban, but city still fighting

(Short-lived gun-ban sign photographed by Hillary at Lincoln Park in 2009)
Remember two years ago, when a man challenged the then-new gun ban at Seattle Parks facilities by trying to enter Southwest Community Center with his concealed weapon (WSB coverage here)? That was just one of the challenges to the ban. The court fight over it has continued all the while – and today, the city has announced that, while an appeals court ruled against the ban last month, it’s now taking the case to the state Supreme Court. From the office of City Attorney Pete Holmes:

Because an appeals court misread earlier holdings of the Washington Supreme Court, the City on Wednesday asked the state’s highest court to reverse a ruling that struck down Seattle’s ban on guns in areas of parks, community centers and other facilities where children are likely to be present.

Attorneys for Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, which represents the City on a pro bono basis, told the Supreme Court — in a petition seeking review from Division 1 of the Washington Court of Appeals — that Seattle was seeking a second look not only on behalf of its residents but for all forms of local governments in the state that want authority over their own properties.

The news release continues:

“The [appeals court] ruling in this case affects the authority of hundreds of county and municipal governments to set conditions for use of properties they own, in order to meet the needs and wishes of their citizens,” the attorneys wrote. “This petition asks the Court to decide a question of significant interest to many Washington citizens—whether the State’s intent to fully occupy the field of firearms regulation abrogates the prerogatives of local governments throughout Washington to set conditions for the safe and secure use by visitors of parks properties that the local governments own.”

“Seattle did not attempt to ban firearms for all City property,” said City Attorney Pete Holmes, “just parks and playgrounds frequented by families with children. The notion that Seattle can’t protect their most vulnerable residents on the City’s own property is inimical to the principles of local autonomy. Every Washingtonian should be alarmed that state law has been interpreted to prevent such reasonable common-sense local controls.”

The Oct. 31 appeals court ruling said that, except as expressly authorized by the Legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public. The three-judge court upheld a ruling by a King County Superior Court judge, who initially heard the case brought by six people with concealed weapons permits who were individually turned away from City parks and facilities for carrying firearms after the ban went into effect in 2009 under then Mayor Greg Nickels.

The City’s petition also stated that the Legislature’s preemption statute was intended to eliminate conflicting municipal criminal codes and to advance uniformity in criminal firearms regulation while Seattle’s ban includes no criminal penalty.

35 Replies to "Another shootdown for parks' gun ban, but city still fighting"

  • Neighbor December 1, 2011 (9:56 am)

    When an organization that was started by the KKK has more power than everyday citizens who just want to take their families to the park safely the world really has turned upside down.

  • GRG December 1, 2011 (10:20 am)

    What a total waste of money. The city is short on funds in countless areas that matter to every day citizens — roads, fire, safety, yet there always seems to be money for crap like this — even if a firm is representing it pro-bono, its still a waste of time and dollars that could be used elsewhere.

  • sven December 1, 2011 (10:29 am)

    It’s not like the sign is a magic forcefield that halts anyone with a gun from entering the park. It’s a symbolic feel-good measure that won’t actually stop those who want to shoot people from shooting them. Not everyone follows the law, especially people who want to shoot other people.

  • WSTroll December 1, 2011 (10:31 am)

    My family would be safer if I could bring my gun to the park. Yours would be too.

  • Another neighbor December 1, 2011 (10:36 am)

    Wow, Seattle City government was started by the KKK? Amazing. Thank goodness for the second amendment. Families can be safe if people have their right to bear intact.

  • DRS December 1, 2011 (10:49 am)

    Neighbor,
    What organization are you referring to? If you mean the NRA I think you need to get your facts straight. The NRA was founded in New York by Union soldiers.
    Responsible gun ownership and racial hatred are two separate issues and shouldn’t be linked when talking about how to effectively protect our children from gun violence.
    I’m all for banning guns in parks and community centers but let’s not get off track.

  • phil December 1, 2011 (11:10 am)

    It is by state law Unconstitutional to ban the right for citizens to carry firearms.
    ALL this will acomplish is wasting our money.
    Criminals don`t read signs.

  • sam-c December 1, 2011 (11:30 am)

    DRS- ha ha- that was on jeopardy last night.

    ban or no ban, criminals wouldn’t pay attention to that sign. Another neighbor points out the self-defense issue.

    me, I have no guns and don’t plan on getting any.

    (the last time I carried anything for self defense..the mace spray proved itself useless as some drunk college age guys drove by me walking on the sidewalk and threw a beer bottle at me)

  • Wendell December 1, 2011 (11:47 am)

    If guns are outlawed, only your crazy inlaws will carry guns.

  • mike December 1, 2011 (11:49 am)

    Bears with guns, hope they don’t carry them loaded with the safety off.

  • Jeff December 1, 2011 (12:05 pm)

    Waste of money. Bad actors will ignore the law anyway.

  • Reformed smoker December 1, 2011 (12:07 pm)

    Let me pose a situation.
    I’m in Lincoln Park, walking my toy poodle.
    Several youths come upon me, with knifes drawn,
    telling me to give them all my valuables or else.
    I pull out my concealed pistol,(permit in my wallet), the would be knifers run off.
    I fill out a police report and to my disbelief I am written a ticket for displaying a firearm in Lincoln Park.
    Am I at fault for protecting myself?

  • WestSeattleDrew December 1, 2011 (12:14 pm)

    Another waste of tax payer’s dollars…..

  • Gawdger December 1, 2011 (12:33 pm)

    I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Basically, I’d accept any punishment handed down if I knew my family was protected because of my defensive actions.

  • JAT December 1, 2011 (12:38 pm)

    you should have just given them the poodle…

  • Gerry December 1, 2011 (12:55 pm)

    What is really laughable is that the city claims the parks are the “City’s own property”. It is PUBLIC property. The same PUBLIC that has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

    The PEOPLE own the parks and the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. The city is trying to claim that they own the parks separate from the PEOPLE and can therefore deny rights on property they “own.”

    They City operates the people’s parks for the people. It doesn’t own the parks.

  • Reformed smoker December 1, 2011 (1:31 pm)

    @JAT, That made my day.
    You made me laugh.

  • golfer December 1, 2011 (1:47 pm)

    I hate this whole “right to bear arms” debate. I have a hard time believing that the more people carrying guns, the better. Carrying a weapon might make YOU safer, but it doesn’t make SOCIETY safer. I just hope someday we can find the balance between the two. This might be a relatively pointless court case, but it’s still a valid issue.

  • frank December 1, 2011 (1:58 pm)

    Love it. Apparently, disarming law-abiding citizens is *protecting* them.

    “The notion that Seattle can’t protect their most vulnerable residents on the City’s own propery…”

  • visitor December 1, 2011 (2:07 pm)

    people LOVE their guns.

  • Adam K. December 1, 2011 (2:12 pm)

    These signs will do nothing to keep firearms out of our parks. What this park really needs is a “no smoking” sign. I see a lot of parents smoking cigarettes around our kids, especially in the park pictured above.

  • J December 1, 2011 (3:22 pm)

    Gerry, the city IS the people, so the city (which is the public) DOES own the parks. The city isn’t some foreign entity.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident December 1, 2011 (4:02 pm)

    Golfer,
    Do a search on two cities. One in Ill the other in Georgia. One banned ALL private gun ownership, the other encouraged gun ownership and made it easier to buy and own guns.
    In one city crime shot up. In the other city crime became almost non-existent.
    Care to guess which was which?
    Oh and while you are searching that, do yourself (and other anti gun people should do this also) see if you can find the statistic on gun crime committed by ILLEGAL gun owners vs. LEGAL gun owners.
    The answers to those two searches will surprise you and other anti-gun folks.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident December 1, 2011 (4:05 pm)

    If gun bans worked New York and Washington DC would be the safest cities in the US.
    Read this:
    http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/guns-safer.html

  • Daddy December 1, 2011 (4:06 pm)

    Golfer- it certainly doesn’t make society safer if ONLY the outlaws are carrying guns. The right to bear arms is not a debate…it’s a constitutional RIGHT. And yes, me having my gun does make society safer. Cuz the first time a guy like in Norway shows up at a park I’m at, indiscriminately killing people, how much would you thank the citizens that shoot that maniac down in his tracks before he can gun down you and your family?
    Regardless the reason, it is my right, I will excersize tha right, and in the end the society in west Seattle is a safer place because of it wether you think that’s a debate or not doesn’t really matter-it’s the truth.

  • Gerry December 1, 2011 (4:19 pm)

    @J, the city represents the people, they don’t own the property separate from the people.

    The city is in Washington, see Washington Constitution Article 1, Section 24 – Right to Bear Arms; and the US, see the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment.

    These documents guarantee the rights of the people, those same people represented by Seattle, to keep and BARE arms.

    Seattle is subject to both the State and the US constitutions.

    I think we can find common ground. The parks and the City belong to the people. The City should not be allow to abridge a right that is inherent to the people that own the city.

    If you don’t like the Constitutions, there are means to amend them. Go ahead. If you are successful I will support and defend those Constitutions. Good luck with that.

  • getwithit December 1, 2011 (6:27 pm)

    Just because the government says it’s ok (or not) isn’t any reason to think that’s actually the case. One of the biggest lies of civilization is that we aren’t living in an anarchy that is dominated by manipulative liars that call themselves “leaders”. 2nd amendment or not, legal or not, people who feel the need to load down with weapons are generally selfish paranoid cowards.

  • orca December 1, 2011 (8:46 pm)

    It actually looks like liberal West Seattle has a bit of a conservative side.
    I actually feel safer knowing the evil doers are not the only ones running around with guns.
    Stop a couple of these punks breaking into our homes with a loud bang and I think it would come to a pretty quick slow down.

  • Mike December 1, 2011 (9:08 pm)

    It amazes me how people read the news articles about the 2nd amendment but have not actually researched the amendment itself.
    .
    I’m not anti gun, but I am anti idiot. Statistically, concealed weapon carrying folk are more likely to shoot themselves than protect themselves or anyone else. No joke, it’s a fact. So go on, carry away… all the way to the hospital. Just don’t let a stray bullet hit me or my family, I might have to protect myself and ruin your life with a lawsuit.

  • orca December 1, 2011 (10:15 pm)

    Mike
    Why is it that someone who disagrees with your political viewpoint is an “idiot”? What a self righteous attitude. Just stating ..”it’s a fact”..does not make it a fact. Just another dumb statement.
    You may be very surprised at who you know and associate with everyday are carrying a weapon. I wonder if you would classify them as “idiots” too.

  • faber December 1, 2011 (10:41 pm)

    Ok for people who are PRO gun ban and pro signs in parks, what are you really affraid is going to happen?? What do you think is going to happen? Do you think there is guna be Bruce willis style shoot out in the park? Do you think people who commit crimes car about stupid signs?

  • Mike December 1, 2011 (10:56 pm)

    Orca, I have many friends who have permits and carry. I’ve told a few they are not to bring it into my house. I have a few friends who have permits and I do allow in my house with their side arm. One is a cop who holds the same gun handling values I do. I grew up hunting, killed my fair share of wildlife. Been there, done that, seen people nearly shoot their kids hunting. Not self righteous, just not ignorant.

  • WS Born & Bred December 2, 2011 (7:30 am)

    Stricter laws on who can own a gun or obtain a concealed weapons permit, not where you can carry. How about mandatory gun safety courses in order to get your concealed? My other half has his concealed (though he never carries) and we were both surprised by how easy it was to obtain.

  • JoAnne December 2, 2011 (7:31 am)

    An armed society is a polite one.

  • Gawdger December 6, 2011 (12:35 pm)

    @WS Born & Bred: It’s easy to obtain when you do not have a criminal record and/or have not required mental health treatment. Also, any level of domestic violence or drug use prevents issuance.

Sorry, comment time is over.