Mayor proposes gun ban at many Seattle Parks properties

Big news in West Seattle with so many Parks Department properties here: Mayor Nickels is proposing a gun ban in parks facilities “intended for children and youth.” (The prospect of new city rules on guns in parks also came up at an Alki Community Council meeting this summer, during discussion of recent incidents involving firearms, like this one in June, although it does not appear the ban would include beach parks like Alki.) Here’s the full text of the city announcement, plus information on how to formally comment on it:

Mayor Greg Nickels today proposed a rule to prohibit firearms in Parks and
Recreations Department facilities intended for children and youth, such as playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, swimming and wading pools, and water play areas. [Full proposal can be read here]

Signs will be posted notifying the public that firearms are prohibited as a condition of entry into the facilities.

“These are the places where our children and families gather and it is common sense that community centers, playgrounds and swimming pools are safer without guns,” said Nickels.

After a man shot and injured three people at the 2008 Folklife Festival, Nickels directed city departments to evaluate rules, policies and leases related to guns. The suspect in last year’s shooting had a concealed weapons permit and a history of mental health problems.

After gathering public input, the city is now moving forward with an administrative rule that will prohibit firearms at designated park facilities where children and youth are likely to be present. Parks personnel will ask individuals with guns to leave these areas. If they refuse, they may be subject to citation or arrest for criminal trespass by Seattle police. Locations covered by the proposed rule include:

* 26 community centers

* 4 environmental learning centers

* 10 pools

* 30 wading pools and water play areas

* 2 small craft centers

* 2 specialized facilities (tennis center, performing arts center)

* 139 playgrounds and play areas

* 213 ballfields

* 6 late night recreation sites

* 3 teen life centers

* 82 outdoor tennis and basketball courts

In 2008, more than 1.8 million people visited and attended programs in Parks Department-owned community centers, pools, teen life centers and environmental learning centers. More than 108,000 children and youth visited wading pools and more than 59,000 youth events were scheduled at sports fields.

The city will take public comment on the proposed rule over the next two weeks. Residents can submit comments by Oct. 4, 2009, at www.seattle.gov/firearmsrule or send comments to: Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, 100 Dexter Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103.

In 2008, the city introduced a policy requiring organizations that lease Seattle Center and other city property to take reasonable steps to prohibit guns during their events. If individuals bring guns to special events at Seattle Center, such as the Folklife Festival, Bumbershoot and the Bite of Seattle, they may safely store their guns in lock boxes provided at the Seattle Center. The lease policy will now be formalized as an executive order.

Nickels has urged lawmakers in Olympia to ban assault weapons, require criminal background checks at gun shows and require trigger locks and safe storage of firearms. Nickels has long advocated tougher laws that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In April, the state legislature passed a law prohibiting the possession of firearms by adults and juveniles who are involuntarily committed for 14 days or more for mental health treatment.

The city of Seattle has been actively working on local, regional and national strategies to reduce gun violence. Nickels is a founding member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is promoting federal legislation to assist law enforcement in combating gun trafficking.

41 Replies to "Mayor proposes gun ban at many Seattle Parks properties"

  • Jiggers September 18, 2009 (10:58 am)

    How are they going to control a person bringing a gun to the park? Are they going to put in metal detectors…lol

  • celeste17 September 18, 2009 (11:00 am)

    My thought was how are they going to enforce this law? Will it be citizen arrest?

  • mark September 18, 2009 (11:24 am)

    Are you both thinking before you type? Just because they make it illegal does not mean they have to add measures to enforce it. Heroin is illegal in city parks, but they don’t pat you down when you enter. You would hope people would obey the law and if they get caught, they pay the price, as with most laws we have.

  • toddinwestwood September 18, 2009 (11:38 am)

    i am sure all the people who are carrying gunsinto parks really give a sh**!

    more “feel good” legislation.

  • rockyraccoon September 18, 2009 (11:47 am)

    Can’t Nickels just go away quietly? This gun-ban garbage is completely useless. A prime example of what’s been wrong with this area’s politicians for at least the last decade.

  • mark September 18, 2009 (11:53 am)

    I love the edit feature but the idea hit me too late. I think the smart move if you see anyone committing a crime in a public park is to call burlarbustingdad, we know he gets the job done. Is it too late for a mayoral write in?

  • Doc September 18, 2009 (12:02 pm)

    I am all about not having guns around kids but the problem is that doesn’t stop other people. If somebody is going to go to a place to shoot someone any fact that it is a gun free zone is irrelevant. I would prefer to be able to carry a handgun to parks, on campus, etc. A sign will not stop a person on a rampage, another gun may have the chance.

    As for parks directly, it gets dark around 7:30 now, around 4:30 in the winter yet the park does not close until 11:30. I’m sure that most kids will be gone by dark but many people who you don’t want to run into unarmed may very well be in the park. If you have to put a law out, why not something more like, “Don’t shoot people”. No, that one is already published…

  • Maria September 18, 2009 (12:49 pm)

    The problem with this law is that the individuals who you don’t want taking guns into parks, aren’t the kind of people who follow the laws. I think we should be able to carry guns in all parks, as long as we are permitted to be carrying one.

  • old timer September 18, 2009 (12:51 pm)

    Sentiments are great, but short of a total lockdown for the entire city, or a staffing of an airport/TSA type of operation for the parks, which I am SURE we can fund with yet another levy (sarcasm), the people who are bent on doing evil with their guns will find a way to do so, law or no law.
    At the risk of being really tired and out of date,
    I can only offer the following:
    “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

  • What? September 18, 2009 (1:13 pm)

    Honest question, but I know people will start cussing and name calling anyway.
    But I have to ask;

    Do people of West Seattle really feel they need to bring a loaded gun to community centers and tot pools?
    As a person who doesn’t own a single gun I always have questions.
    Do people really feel that unsafe here?
    Or is it about arbitrary signage?
    I notice “Gun Free Zone” signs at elementary schools here in Seattle.
    Do people disagree or agree with that?

  • bsmomma September 18, 2009 (1:50 pm)

    I have absolutely no legal background and I am not for or against Mayor Nickels. BUT wouldn’t a gun ban in parks just mean harsher punishment for the person with the gun? The way I make sense of this is it’s like the Drug Free Zone and special speed limits in school zones… some people are going to do it regardles but when they get caught it’s a double speeding ticket and whatever extra they throw on for doing drugs in the drug free zone. I think it makes sense. Am I totally off on this one?

  • mark September 18, 2009 (2:35 pm)

    The only people who “need” a gun in a public park are drug dealers, criminals, the paranoid and those who suffer from “little man” disease. I have never been in a situation where I have ever needed a gun in a park. Why would anyone ever enter a park they didn’t already feel safe in anyways?

  • miws September 18, 2009 (2:49 pm)

    I’m “on the same page” as bsmomma.

    .

    I understand the arguement that the bad guys will get guns no matter what, and it would be hard, if not darn near impossible to enforce across the board. But, wouldn’t having the law on the books put more teeth into the punishment end of it, should one of someone outright injure, or kill soemone with a gun in a park?

    .

    Now, that’s going under the pretense that no existing laws come anywhere close to punishing, as strongly as this one would. And aren’t most of us, no matter our political/social/etc leanings, and opinions on guns, sick and tired of criminals, especially the more dangerous, or potentially dangerous ones get the proverbial “slap on the wrist”? On the surface, it seems that something like this could be just what the cops and courts need to keep those convicted of such behavoir locked up for (hopefully) a much longer time.

    .

    Sure, this proposed law is more reactive than proactive, essentially waiting for an incident to happen. And, admittedly, I get a bit weary of some saying, in regards to certain situations, “Let’s just wait to see if something happens, and then deal with the situation, and any of those involved, properly”. By then, it’s too late, and one or more person’s life may be changed forever. Whereas proactive measures, could have prevented the situation altogether, and in many of these cases in my opinion, had little impact on others rights.

    .

    I realize, short of having metal detectors and guards in parks, to search people, such a situation is all but impossible to handle proactively, so about the only choice is to deal with it reactively.

    .

    I hope what I’ve posted here makes sense, in the sense that it’s understandable, not just in the sense of whether one agrees, or disagrees. :)

    .

    Mike

  • Westside forever September 18, 2009 (3:15 pm)

    This is little more than political posturing. From a practical perspective, it’s not enforceable. It likely violates state law which supersedes city rules. But it is also confusing. Legal carry will stay legal, but in some public parks and not others? I just don’t see the public benefit of this ban.

  • Civik September 18, 2009 (3:15 pm)

    BsMomma, you hit the nail on the head. The law is essentially a token law meant to punish someone further if they commit a crime in a seattle park.

    I do find it kinda funny(not in a ha-ha sense) that this law was inspired by someone with known mental stability issues somehow allowed a ccw permit. Maybe thet should change those laws too.

  • WestSeattleDrew September 18, 2009 (3:33 pm)

    Google gun free zone shootings. There’s a list longer then my arm. They don’t work.

    Law abiding citizen ought to be able to defend themselves.

  • RS September 18, 2009 (3:37 pm)

    Of course this isn’t enforceable. But if some repeat-offending loser like, oh Skylar Hailey, gets arrested with a gun in a park then prosecutors could give said loser more than just a “slap on the wrist” or help keep him a little longer in the “revolving door prison system” that people always seem to be complaining about…

  • lighthouse September 18, 2009 (3:40 pm)

    It would help if people actually knew the gun laws in WA before posting…
    .
    RCW 9.41.280 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280) says that it’s illegal to have a firearm on school property (or property being used for a school event). That’s why schools have a “gun free zone” sign. (Even this has an exemption for someone picking up or dropping off their child.)
    .
    RCW 9.41.290 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290) says that the state has “preemption” regarding firearm laws. What this basically means is that local laws can’t change state law. Since state law does not prohibit firearms at parks, that means the city can’t do so.
    .
    The best way to look at this is that this is no different from alcohol laws. The state says the drinking age is 21, and a city can’t change that. If Seattle tried to make the drinking age 25 (or Pullman tried to make it 18 ;) ), the city ordinance would be illegal.
    .
    RCW 9.41.290 is the section of the law that the AG cited when he issued an opinion last year that Nickel’s proposed ban on firearms on city-owned property would be illegal. (http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188)
    .
    So can the mayor and city council pass an ordinance that prohibits firearms in city parks? Sure. But it will get thrown out via court challenge the first time someone is arrested under it. Does it really make sense for the city to waste time and money to enact a law (printing up and posting signage, etc.) and paying the city attorney to defend it when they know it will be thrown out? Personally, I don’t think that’s a responsible use of taxpayer money.
    .
    If you don’t want guns in city parks you can either a) get a state law passed that bans guns in parks or b) repeal the state preemption of firearm laws so cities can do whatever they want regarding firearm laws.

  • WestSeattleDrew September 18, 2009 (3:42 pm)

    miws wrote “But, wouldn’t having the law on the books put more teeth into the punishment end of it, should one of someone outright injure, or kill someone with a gun in a park?”………….

    I’m pretty sure we have laws against shooting people. Do you really think that if someone wanted to shoot somebody that they would stop at the entrance to the park and say “oh man, I can’t bring my gun in there.” ????? If your going to murder someone, who cares about the trespassing charge. Am I missing something????

  • LivesInAlki September 18, 2009 (3:43 pm)

    This won’t be enforceable. Federal law supercedes state, county, city, etc. I had looked this up for the Alki Community Council, but can’t remember the codes off the top of my head and my research doc is on a different computer. They (city and mayor) can try to impose a new law, but there will be lawsuits since our CONSTITUTION allows us the right to bear arms. I understand they are trying to keep people from shooting each other, but banning guns in public places won’t do it. It is already illegal to carry a gun without a permit – so what will this ban do? What the mayor needs to think about is what his goal is. I presume it is to keep *illegally* carried guns out of public places. Well, that is already law. People who legally carry guns aren’t the people we read about shooting each other. Correct me if I am misspoken here.

  • West Seattle September 18, 2009 (4:19 pm)

    Ahhh, meaningless gestures, gotta love ’em. How about banning gang bangers and gang banger wannabes?

  • LB September 18, 2009 (5:12 pm)

    Mayor McCheese strikes again.

    These rules and city bans are outside the law, without merit, unenforceable and an affront to law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

    I suppose being dumped by the Seattle voters is a clear enough message, but maybe Mr. Nickels is in denial.

    Good riddance Mr. Mayor, to you and your political grandstanding.

  • miws September 18, 2009 (6:00 pm)

    WestSeattleDrew, I understand your point, and agree that this proposed law, if it could be enforced, would not prevent such an incident as you described.

    .

    Sure, someone could stand out on the sidewalk, just outside of the boundries of Lincoln Park, and shoot someone within the range of the weapon, who is inside the park. However, if the intended target was down on the beach of the park, or otherwise deep enough in the park that the shooter had to enter the park to commit the deed, then the authorities would hopefully have the ability to have the shooter charged, and hopefully convicted, of a crime that will draw a much harsher sentence. I’m not sure this proposed law is the answer, and if there were existing laws that pretty much had zero tolerance when another person is wounded or killed by the intentional, or highly negligent discharge of a weapon, no matter where the incident took place, which would result in the shooter being locked up for life, or at least something like fifty years or so, no parole, then we wouldn’t need laws such as this proposed ones for specific areas.

    .

    Again, as I stated before, it would be nice to have a way to prevent such incidents from happening in the first place. But since there is no way to 100% prevent form one person shooting another, wouldn’t it be nice to have one more option to keep the shooter from being back on the streets, (or in the parks ;) ) in a ridiculously short time?

    .

    (Oh, and sorry for any run on sentences, folks. Sometimes my brain just can’t come up with a more concise way to convey my thoughts! :o )

    Mike

  • mark September 18, 2009 (6:19 pm)

    Are you actually arguing about the enforceability of a law as if that’s a reason for or against it? I suppose that would be another good reason to drop all the drug laws, most traffic laws (impossible to ticket all the speeders) rape laws (most still go unreported) just to name a few. Duh

  • owlafaye September 18, 2009 (7:33 pm)

    Pure Foolishness…Concealed Weapon Permits and the 2nd Amendment are both being infringed upon. Trouble happens in parks and kiddie areas also, and you would want saomeone to step in and protect you/your child if appropriate, wouldn’t you?

    Yes, political posturing…scum bag electioneering.

  • JamminJ September 18, 2009 (9:19 pm)

    Not a constitutional scholar or anything, but curious…
    .
    I do feel this is just a feel good measure (just like other legislation the mayor has proposed, ie. bag fee), with no real outcome.
    .
    But curious as those who are knowledgeable with the 2nd amendment. Does the law argue that a citizen can lawfully can carry a weapon anywhere???
    .
    what about a legal citizen being able to carry a concealed weapon on an airline? that is clearly restrictive, but we don’t see people outraged at that law and arguing the 2nd amendment. maybe… well, I won’t go there.
    .
    just curious for those who are outraged at banning guns in one area, but forgoe the 2nd amendment in other areas.

  • LB September 18, 2009 (9:57 pm)

    Hi JamminJ:

    Those are excellent questions and gets right to the heart of why people are so angry with Nickels over this “Ban”.

    .

    Under Washington State’s long standing firearms preemption statute, the Mayor of Seattle has NO authority to impose gun laws, rules or bans that are more restrictive than state gun laws. In Washington State private citizens may legally carry concealed handguns on public property if they’re licensed to do so. This includes public spaces, parks, etc.

    .

    Why does Nickels fly in the face of the rule of law? Good question. Maybe he is playing politics. Maybe he feels we need a Nanny figure to tell us how to conduct ourselves. Regardless he is out of touch with the voting residents of Seattle and will soon be gone and entirely forgotten.

    LB

  • jamminj September 18, 2009 (10:08 pm)

    LB, agree that it is time for Nickels to go.
    .
    I guess I am just curious as to the 2nd amendment and its legal ramifications.
    .
    So I should be able to bring a concealed weapon onto a public facility, such as a school.
    .
    But if I am on private property, the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply??
    .
    just trying to understand the outrage over his proposal, as asinine as it is.

  • David September 19, 2009 (6:08 am)

    Isn’t this a violation of our second amendment right? “Children and youth” can be found just about anywhere. I never have and probably never will bring a gun to a Seattle park, but that isn’t the point.

  • What? September 19, 2009 (8:30 am)

    So…
    people disagree with “gun free zone” at elementary schools?

  • bb September 19, 2009 (8:49 am)

    i could never understand this one question.

    How do you tell a legal gun carrier from an criminal with a gun?

    Oh Its the browns people , silly me.

    WHen the “legal gun owners” get some real training, and there are some better laws governing the purchase of guns maybe, but until then you are mostly a bunch of rednecks with your guns full of fear. If you see a gang member or criminal with a gun call a cop.

  • FCT September 19, 2009 (9:56 am)

    A couple of comments here. First off, I am a gun owner and strongly believe in my right to carry arms. Let me get that out of the way first off.

    To the people who believe having a gun in the park or a swimming pool will help them defend themselves in ‘case something happens’. Let think this through folks, is the plan really to get into a shoot out in a pool or park with kids around?
    The other rational I have heard for this is that it will deter criminals from coming to the park if they think that citizen are armed. Having a lot gun carrying citizens deters burglaries, not assaults.

    Next, not all parks are a like. I am not sure that Seattle has any rural woodland parks, but King County does, and we have had a fair amount of cougar and other animal attacks, Growing up in Montana, I can definitely see a valid reason for carrying a firearm in this case. I am not advocating that everyone go hunt the next cougar in discovery park, but merely pointing out that there can be good reasons to bring a firearm on to a park. It is not necessarily all criminals.

    Folks what this boils down to for me is we cannot legislate common sense. You should know not to bring a gun to a pool, and those who don’t know better are not going to get a epiphany because of this law.

    Lets not punish everyone because some of us are stupid.
    My $.02

  • jiggers September 19, 2009 (11:36 am)

    Nickelneck can’t be gone any faster.

  • charlabob September 19, 2009 (1:12 pm)

    Well, among other things, it will prevent people from prancing around with their legal weapons strapped to their legs at rallies to express opposition to some political person or idea. If that doesn’t scare the bejesus out of you, nothing will.

    If you think this can’t happen again, check out how Glen Beck has sold out the “expensive seats” for his safeco appearance on the 26th. Peace y’all :-)

  • mark September 19, 2009 (3:44 pm)

    I just checked my pocket Constitution. I didn’t read a thing about the right to carry a gun in a public park.

  • Johnyonthespot September 19, 2009 (5:09 pm)

    INSURANCE POLICY. Hope I never have to use it never have to take it out of the holster in public but am glad when I need to I have it. Laws only affect law abbiding citzens.

  • karl September 20, 2009 (11:32 pm)

    Banning guns obviously will only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns in the parks.

    This can only serve to effectively remove many first responders to a public threat (and there are many these days).

    We all know about SPD response times….and it’s even slower if there is a gun involved because the officers won’t go near until they have sufficient backup present and positioned.

    Most licensed gun carriers are enthusiasts who practice/train regularly and are familiar w/ use of deadly force laws. Many who carry are off duty law enforcement or quasi-law enforcement personnel who are formally and regularly trained in the use of deadly force.

    These licensed people represent a very minimal threat to the public compared to the baggy pants wearers that surround you and your kids daily in the park.

  • Teufelhund September 21, 2009 (10:05 pm)

    Mark,

    We don’t have to go to the constitution here – this law is against STATE law, as some people have pointed out. There is a state pre-emption on gun laws. The STATE attourney general was recently asked to clarify the STATE law and specifically asked if the city could ban guns in public parks – his answer was no.

    What the mayor is doing is going to waste taxpayer money trying to ban something that he’s forbidden from banning based on the state’s laws. It’s going to mean a legal fight with pro-gun groups, likely backed by the state attourney general, who is responsible for supporting state laws. A great way to waste our money.

    Looking at your pocket constitution won’t help you find this, instead you might look at the RCW 9.41.290.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

  • Butch Elrod October 1, 2009 (4:12 pm)

    Disarming law abiding citizens and empowering criminals will be Nickels legacy. He’s taking the “Soviet Seattle” thing a bit to seriously.

  • Tony October 1, 2009 (6:26 pm)

    you misguided people. You never need a gun until you really need one. When your life or the life of your child is being threated by the “drug user” in the park, that is when you need one. When does that happen? I do not know. my crystal ball is broken. that is why I carry every day. Because I deserve to go home to my family. Because my family deserves to be protected.

  • dcat October 15, 2009 (7:50 pm)

    I see idiot liberal Seattle seems to know all the criminals!

    After all they are all in office and want to disarm all the good citizens! Great the criminals will have all the weapons!

    Will they be searching each person now!?

Sorry, comment time is over.