Mayor proposes gun ban on all city-owned property

You’ll hear about this in citywide media but with so much park land and other city property in West Seattle, it seems important to link here too — Mayor Nickels just announced a proposal “to prohibit firearms on all property owned by the city of Seattle, including parks and community centers,” according to the official city news release; read it here. The announcement says a public hearing is planned, but also notes that City Council approval is not required for the rules the mayor wants to put in place. You can send comments to the mayor’s office here.

30 Replies to "Mayor proposes gun ban on all city-owned property"

  • concerned June 9, 2008 (2:01 pm)

    Are guns that much of a problem on city owned properties? I was unaware of being concerned about being shot the last time I walked my dog at the park.

    Also, has he thought about the idea that the people who shoot others in public places are likely to ignore this law anyway – mainly because they are criminals? Are we going to have to go through check points to get into parks? Will we have male and female guards to pat us down? Will my dog be patted down?

    This is just another stupid idea from Nichols that will do nothing to solve any gun problems we may have in this city. it is an empty law used to appeal to those who don’t think things through and vote with emotion rather than logic.

  • CM June 9, 2008 (2:10 pm)

    Hmm. Another knee-jerk reaction from hizzoner. Whether you’re for or against guns, do you think he’s actually given thought to the West Seattle Rifle Range (under the stadium) or the P.A.L. range where the Seattle Police practice and qualify?

  • Pete June 9, 2008 (2:17 pm)

    I was under the impression that cities and municipalities could not enact or seek to enforce rules and regulations that are more stringent than state or federal rules and regulations. I guess this along with spending money on park rangers and cameras in our parks are far more important expenditures than figuring out how deal with all of the folks sleeping on our streets or coming to our food banks…..can anyone say priorities?

  • Chuck & Sally\'s Van Man June 9, 2008 (2:44 pm)

    Rarely do I ever write any of our public officials, but this is too much. For the record, I am a concealed-carry permit holder. I typically carry as I stroll through Lincoln Park (GASP!!!), in part for my own safety and for my pet. Last night was an excellent example: I had left my sidearm behind on this particular outing, and while walking my lab came across a gentleman who was barely able to constrain his two 100 pound-plus Bull Mastiffs who were menacing and trying to break free of his control. Had they gotten loose they most certainly would have attacked both my dog and perhaps myself. Without a firearm to end such an attack I hate to imagine the outcome. These dogs had no business at a public park–they were that menacing and out of control. If Mayor Nickels had his way I would not have the ability to protect myself or my property. I think that is wrong and said as such–thanks WSB for the link.

    Dear Mayor Nickels,

    I am outraged by your attack on the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones while visiting Seattle parks and other city-owned properties. Banishing concealed guns legally carried by permit holders does nothing but give the upper hand to the multitude of thugs who have never and will never abide by our society’s laws. Your attempt to make Seattle “safe” does exactly the opposite, and I am appalled by your simplistic attitude and knee-jerk reactions to a recent shooting at the Seattle Center.

    The citizens and families of Seattle deserve better and you can be sure I will make my opinion heard at the next election.

  • Anne June 9, 2008 (3:05 pm)

    So now what-the city (taxpayers) pays for metal detectors?Or will everyone get patted down?What about the cost of extra security/police to man the machines or do the pat downs?
    Does anyone in city or county government have a clue about what the average citizen wants or needs?From the ridiculous ideas of outrageously expensive porta-potties,to banning beach fires,to cutting law enforcement-government just seems to be so out of touch with people!

  • CM June 9, 2008 (3:17 pm)

    I just noticed something else. Hizzoner proposed a ban on ALL city owned properties. That would mean any police station, precinct or new jail. I really don’t think I’m going to be able to get behind Nickels in the next election (just like last time) and I’m starting to wonder if I’m not alone in this.

  • For the Record June 9, 2008 (3:32 pm)

    If it makes people feel all nice and fuzzy, whatever. But UNDERSTAND that this is NOT about your safety, but about prosecutions after the fact. Unless you put 12′ high chain link around every park, and use airport style metal detectors to enter and leave every city space, you can not physically stop someone from carrying a gun into a park. All this is about is fining someone after the fact. It doesn’t make you safer, it just makes politicians look like they’re “doing something” as they’re pandering.

    If someone, god forbid, meant harm, and wants to carry a gun onto public property, or ram a car into crowd and start stabbing people (Tokyo), there’s honestly nothing you can do to prevent it. Crazy people are crazy, luckily there’s just not that many of them.

    Lets just tighten up the permits, so people with felony records or mental health issues don’t get gun permits. But banning guns is a nice ‘feel good’ but pointless. Anyone meaning to do harm (murder) doesn’t give a rats butt if there’s a law banning the gun, they’re already willing to commit murder.

  • R June 9, 2008 (3:35 pm)

    Another political move without thinking – the shooting at the folk festival was tragic. BUT, maybe, just maybe if we enforced the laws we have (like not letting a mentally ill person get a CWP!) then we would not have to take away the rights of everyone.

  • willow June 9, 2008 (3:53 pm)

    All of the Morons that have posted their right TO CARRY AND KILL innocent citizens.

    Many years ago (50+-_ to be exact), I took rifle and gun lessons from an Original NRA member, Roger Dahl. He stressed that you do nothing to harm any creature that you DO NOT WANT TO KILL.

    Innocent birds, cats, dogs, rats – are exempt – do not kill innocent creatures because you might feel like a “MAN”.

    I exempted rats, because I hate them.

    Have you exempted people that you do not agree with? Am I your rat?

  • grr June 9, 2008 (4:04 pm)

    I think the mayor has finally lost it. Sheeeeeesh. Bet all the crack dealers are shaking in their boots now, and won’t carry their pieces with them as they wander the parks and streets.

    VanMan..I’m with you 100%. Those of use who have gone thru the effort, expense, and training to EARN a concealed weapons permit should NOT have that right taken away.

  • willow June 9, 2008 (4:14 pm)

    grr – Unfortunately, some of us do not realize that it involves one hell of lot of responsibility, to walk around with a LETHAL weapon – under our pants, in our shorts – READY to defend our manhood.

    Hopefully, all you will kill are coyotes, and I would love to face off with you and coyotes _ I HAVE A BIGGER GUN.

  • Courage Over Fire June 9, 2008 (5:08 pm)

    “Effort, expense, and training?” Give me a break. If you’re so afraid of humanity that you need to gird your loins for battle every time you go outside, learn karate or hostage negotiation or something healthy and useful like that. THAT’S going to “effort, expense and training”. A weekend or two with your buddies at the range? I don’t think so.

    The weak and the fearful may need to secretly arm themselves against the rest of the world, but the rest of us really wish they wouldn’t. If you’re that afraid when out and about, please stay home and keep your bullets reserved for those in the privacy of your own home.

  • old timer June 9, 2008 (5:38 pm)

    IMO, he’s just laying in the foundation for general ‘population control’. After a few more incidents, caused by local whack-os, or something on the scale of 9/11, he will already have us accepting the ‘idea’, and we will accept airliner type screening measures, not only in the parks, but on the streets. Probably random ‘checkpoints’ in the Downtown shopping area, maybe on Capital Hill and/or the U-District, all ‘known’ trouble spots.

    The ignorant pollyannas will offer the usual “It shouldn’t bother you if you’ve got nothing to hide”, completely ignoring ‘innocent until proven guilty’, ‘right to privacy’ and all the rest of what is fast becoming the American myth.

    I think “They” are trying to prepare for the upcoming chaos as more and more of us slip off the crumbling edges of a debt based economy.

  • concerned June 9, 2008 (8:50 pm)

    It is the little losses of our civil liberties that come one after another. Each seems so small and insignificant until you realize just how much freedom you have given up. Be careful about how much you are willing to give up in the name of safety or “just saving one life”, because you can never get those freedoms back. Knee jerk reactions to the actions of the mentally ill serve no purpose other than to give a false sense of safety.

  • grr June 10, 2008 (12:53 am)

    sadly, Courage, you simply don’t understand. You have no idea what kind of ‘training’ someone may have. Frankly, your ‘gun range’ comment is an insult, especially to anyone who’s served, or been the victim of a sensless attack.

    Contrary to what you MIGHT think, many people DO care enough about the responsiblity of proper gun ownership to be -properly- trained…in many forms of self defense.

    Willow..size isn’t everything :)

  • mel June 10, 2008 (7:50 am)

    To be honest- for me- who used to live in a part of Europe (most parts of Europe have that laws) where it is not alowed to carry guns – it is very scary to know that people are walking around with guns. I’m feeling more and more unsafe here in Seattle since I read about all this shootings in the last few month-and weeks.

  • Tonya42 June 10, 2008 (8:35 am)

    Well Mel – as someone who’s lived 6 months out of every year in Europe, I cannot at all relate to what you are saying. I can walk freely here without being accosted by the so called “youth” who may or may not have guns (usually they do).

    I much prefer Seattle and I feel a thousand times safer here than pretty much anywhere in Europe, east or west.

  • TeresaP June 10, 2008 (10:09 am)

    And we are going to put ANOTHER Liberal in the White House??

    Can’t wait!

  • Courage Over Fire June 10, 2008 (11:22 am)

    Yes grr, you’re right. I don’t understand. Because as it stands today, nothing about this makes any sense.

    Prior military service is not relevant because it’s not a requirement of a concealed weapon permit. If you have served, thank you. I grant you that in that case you have had the associated arms training, but is a war zone comparable to a Seattle park? Prior police training would seem to be more relevant because it focuses primarily on civilian engagements.

    Similarly, whether or not you’ve been a victim in the past is not part of the vetting process so is not relevant to the conversation. That terrible event is more likely to cloud your judgment in the future than to clarify it.

    What does make sense is that civilian confrontation scenarios are almost never made “safer” by a responsible but adrenaline-clouded individual introducing handguns to it. What does make sense is that plenty of cw permit holders have been granted that permit based on no more than by passing a limited background check, paying a few hundred bucks, and taking a weekend course at the range.

    If this insults you, it’s not my intention. I’d rather you be insulted than me getting shot. I can tell you this though: if you want me to accept and respect your decision to carry a concealed handgun with you, when you’re standing next to me on the street, you should be fighting for much more stringent permitting and training requirements, and not weaker ones like the gun-related political advocate groups continue to push. With great power (and I’m assuming we at least agree that carrying a handgun grants you the greatest power of all– life and death) comes great responsibility, and the minimum training and requirements today are nowhere near equal to that responsibility.

  • barmargia June 10, 2008 (11:48 am)

    maybe I’m stupid, but how many of these shootings lately have been by people that have a concealed weapons permit? Aren’t most of the gang shootings, and the recent festival shooting by people who haven’t bothered to go out and get a permit? Or they weren’t supposed to carry weapons for whatever reason? I have no problems with someone carrying a gun if they have gone about it in the legal manner and if they have a license for it. I think it’s ridiculous that someone who has legally gone about getting a gun should be penalized because someone who didn’t legally get a gun kills someone. People can think whatever they want, but I think it’s ridicilous that people think that legal, safe, responsible gun owners are using them in an irresponsible manner. I’m way more afraid of the drive by shooters that have the semi-automatics, not the guy next door that has a hand gun and a license.

  • RGreen June 10, 2008 (4:53 pm)

    I am finished being quiet. Mayor Nickels is infringing on our human rights. This is why we have a second amendment. Intrusive government taking away our rights. Punish the criminals, not the law abiding citizens. These type of bans hurt communities more than help. Seattle’s Marxist (excuse me …) Progressive policies are getting too controlling. Just like the mayor most of us want the city to be safe. Overreaction to bad or horrible events usually prompts bad laws and mandates to be made. Mayor Nickels executive order will be fought. Remember, this Mayor wants us to get rid of our cars and use transit. The viaduct situation is a disaster and his tunnel plan was the most expensive and is still unresolved. Will I get reimbursed for the monorail debacle Mr. Mayor? Remember the sky is falling because of global warming and if you don’t seperate your recyclable items from your garbage YOU WILL BE FINED!!! All of these taxes, laws and mandates are Nickels and diming us way to much.

  • Victim June 10, 2008 (6:56 pm)

    I was outside a grocery store, with a baby. There was a King County Sheriff’s substation in that store. (Cascade Center QFC, Renton).

    A bunch of teen thugs followed me out of the store. Circled me in a nearly empty, dark parking lot. I turned my cart around and they saw just the grip of my pistol coming out.

    They stopped. The said “Wrong aisle”. They left.

    What was going to happen to me if I they didn’t see that I was armed? I didn’t have to find out.

    I’m a stay at home mom. I’m a pretty liberal vegetarian. But do I pack heat? Yes. And thank goodness for that. My friend who was raped and left for dead was not so lucky. That guy didn’t even have a gun. But imagine if she HAD!

    For those who would stereotype people who carry, you have NO idea what you’re talking about. I didn’t have some “make my day” attitude or even think about shooting one of those cowardly criminals in the back. I was happy I was safe. End of situation. That’s the point.

  • chris June 10, 2008 (7:53 pm)

    actually, you should be forced to separate recycled and garbage items. to not is an obscene and absurd waste – and i don’t consider myself a green, just conscious of what i throw away has an affect on things beyond where i live. it’s effing common sense, and the right thing to do because we should be stewards of the earth, not rapists of it.

    when i lived in germany, our bi-weekly output of waste fit inside 1/2 a 5 gallon bucket.

    btw, carrying a gun on city property isn’t a “human right”. do you even know what the constitution is or do you just babble your recycled limbaugh talking points?

  • Barbara June 10, 2008 (8:27 pm)

    Chris, where in the constitution does it talk about recycling?

  • chris June 10, 2008 (9:20 pm)

    i wasn’t referring to the constitution when i was talking about recycling. i was pointing out that mayor Nichols (not Nickels, clowns) wasn’t infringing on “human rights” as rgreen falsely declared. the “enter” on my screen didn’t carry over to the posting, so my topics weren’t separated. geepers am i glad i left behind the morans (sp!) in west seattle. i’m really looking forward to when the viaduct collapses and overpriced home values tank. hallelujah, amen.

  • WSB June 10, 2008 (10:23 pm)

    Actually, no, he is Nickels.

  • RGreen June 11, 2008 (6:20 pm)

    I noticed I did spell “to” wrong at the end of my rant. Yes, I do use Limbaugh and Levin talking points. So What! They are correct in my opinion. Isn’t this about ideas, and sometimes theirs are better than mine. I was being a bit facetious about “human right” but it is a constitutional right. And, I was already recycling because I do care and honor the earth. I find it annoying to be ordered by the government to recycle. Incidentally, I am not represented very well in this area. McDermott (Dem) other McDermott (Dem) Nickels (Basically Dem) Murray (Dem) Cantwell (Dem) Gregoire (Dem) Sims (Dem). Very few evil conservatives in office around here. Since the Dems have been mostly in control in this area for about the last 20 years, I am guessing that progressive thinking people should be most happy with life around here. I personally like it here but many do not want to hear the “right” side of aisle speak. Yeah, you are correct that homes are expensive. So are a lot of things lately. Good Luck with that. Have a nice day. Vote in the fall so you have the right to complain. Just remember, you can only vote once legally. C’mon, just having fun.

  • JoB June 13, 2008 (11:23 am)


    it’s a shame that anyone would have to be ordered to recycle.. but that’s pretty much what it takes to create a public program that carries enough recycling to pay for itself… too many people won’t go to even limited extra effort. And that’s sad.

    like you.. we recycled long before it was popular or mandated because it is the right thing to do…

    if more people did the right thing without needing laws to enforce responsible behavior.. we wouldn’t need the laws…

    I would hope that we all vote.. it’s just one more of those responsible things to we all should do…

  • Just Bill September 9, 2008 (5:53 pm)

    No one ever thinks they will be threatened in a situation or need to come to the aid of someone else being threatened. The America we live in today is not the same country our grandparents experienced.
    The fact is that guns in the hands of good people can help deter the crimes of bad people. Good people with legal gun permits do not suddenly turn into villains and go on killing sprees because the gun feels so good in their hands. They also don’t holster their weapons and cruise the streets looking for bad guys.
    Bad people make poor choices and do bad things. The guns and other weapons of bad people have typically been obtained illegally and will most likely be used to commit crimes. We know what a weapon in a criminal’s hands will do. As long as there are bad people, no gun control law will prevent criminals from obtaining all the guns they desire.
    There are hard-working Americans who either carry because of their exposure to the criminal element from their jobs, or they keep a gun in their house to protect their families. We live in a dangerous society where the criminal element seems to have no regard for human life, let alone the ability to leave people alone. We need to take a more courageous attitude toward the safety and welfare of our fellow law-abiding citizens and teach our children to have the same values. And if it is deemed that carrying a firearm is necessary to protect ourselves and others – then so be it. Decay starts from within – and so does the cure.

  • New to West Seattle September 12, 2008 (12:45 am)

    Riiiiiight. Yet another debate where everyone thinks they are right because they grew up with either the knowledge of firearms being good or bad. In my opinon these debates are generally between the educated and people who don’t know anything about firearm safety. I’m just going to bump in and ask about the rifle range that was mentioned earlier. With it being city owned, is it open to the public? Is it rifles only or are there sidearm distances/targets? And to anyone who is offended that I carry concealed…you’ll never know anyway…unless you’re one of those oh too common crack heads downtown seatown and you try mugging me. Anyway, thanks and keep up the good spirit!

Sorry, comment time is over.