Followup: West Seattle park gun rule challenge goes to court

At left, that’s Bob Warden of Kent, with the parks security employee who asked him to leave Southwest Community Center during his much-publicized challenge to the city’s parks-facility gun restrictions two weeks ago (here’s our coverage from that day). He said at the time he planned to file legal action as a result; now, he has, according to e-mail we just received from him, which included the complaint he says was filed in federal court this morning and served at Mayor Nickels‘ house. The mayor and the city are named as defendants, in Warden’s claim that the city rule violates the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. Read the entire 11-page document here. (City offices are closed so we might not get an official response today.)

43 Replies to "Followup: West Seattle park gun rule challenge goes to court"

  • mark November 27, 2009 (12:41 pm)

    I suspect Bob Warden is doing this to try and get a spot on a reality TV show. Why else would someone from Kent care about what we do in Seattle? I can tell you I don’t care a thing about Kent but from what I hear, his gun is probably needed there.

  • Dietrich Schmitz November 27, 2009 (12:42 pm)

    The file Bob Warden put together is interesting reading. Though the events and activities he mentions he was denied were, from what I saw, swin lessons for children.

    The debate on this subject is also interesting, though I don’t care much to jump into it.

  • Chuck and Sally\'s Van Man November 27, 2009 (12:48 pm)

    Way to go Bob!! Just sorry that your correct and warranted fight against an unjust and unconstitutionally enacted law by Mayor McCheese is going to be at taxpayers expense. It was a last, B.S. move by a mayor who let his very strong anti-gun political views get in the way of sound, common sense policy. In other words, he is USING us taxpayers to pay for his own little gun-fight, so to speak.

    Can we vote him out again??

    Okay, those with no wish to maintain their civil liberties dog pile on this post now…

    Chuck

  • Eric Arrr November 27, 2009 (2:31 pm)

    A lot of people mistakenly think this is a gun-rights issue, but it’s actually about whether or not a Mayor can establish rules that violate state and federal law. (Answer: no, that’s the job of the state legislature.)

    Anyone who thinks it’s okay for the Mayor of Seattle to carve out exceptions to one constitutional right should spend a moment pondering whether the mayors of other cities should also have the power to carve out exceptions to other constitutional rights.

    Also, did anybody else notice that Mr. Warden signed the complaint with his initials, “RCW” — it’s almost poetic. :)

  • Chris November 27, 2009 (3:02 pm)

    Go get em Bob ! Its called the Constitution, folks.

  • rob November 27, 2009 (3:07 pm)

    mark:
    when its an issue of a city violating a state law, doesn’t really matter which city it is or where the person who is challenging it lives, as long they are both in wa.
    .
    dietrich:
    i believe there was some sort of dog show thing there that day, not just kids swim lessons.
    .
    chuck and sally’s van man:
    a law firm is representing the city for free.

  • homesweethome November 27, 2009 (3:16 pm)

    So he is not even from Seattle? And he’s wasting my tax dollars? I wouldn’t mind if he were from Seattle, a tax paying resident of the city. Now, just go back to South King County Bob and stay there.

  • rob November 27, 2009 (3:18 pm)

    homesweethome: its actually the mayor who is wasting your tax dollars. you may choose to direct your frustration at this guy over it, but the reality is the mayor created the situation and anyone who thought that no one would ever challenge it is fooling themselves.

  • mark November 27, 2009 (3:19 pm)

    Rob,

    The guy is nothing more than an attention seeker. Period. Do you give a thought to what laws the city of Kent has or enforces? I don’t. Maybe its time to amend the WA state constitution. They have my vote.

  • rob November 27, 2009 (3:30 pm)

    thats a bit of a simplistic view. if he was truly nothing more than an attention seeker, he could pick any number of ways to seek it with no relation to something with actual significance. he however chose something where it is pretty plain that the city created a law in violation of plain english state law. this is not something complicated and fuzzy like the issue over the fines generated from the red light cameras.
    .
    usually when people grandstand just for attention, they tend to pick something that is silly and unwinnable, and waste a lot of time spewing rhetoric.
    .
    perhaps it is just dumb luck he actually chose something with some substance and a pretty sure chance of winning. there is a state law that simply states that a city cannot do X, and the mayor went and did X.
    .
    so yeah, maybe he craves attention, but he has a real point and the law on his side.
    .
    to your point about kent, i am not aware of any laws they have that they violated state law to make. if i knew about them, i might care. i think people can’t seem to absorb that this isn’t simply an issue of cities being able to make laws. it is specifically about a subset of laws the state says they can’t make. so maybe kent has an anti-streetracing law, the state doesn’t restrict their ability to make that sort of law. so while some may not like it, thats tough, they have the right enact such a law. in this case, no city in the state has the right to enact gun laws more restrictive than what state law allows for, its expressly forbidden.
    .
    you hit the nail on the head though, if you want it changed, get the legislature to change the constitution. cities wasting tax dollars ignoring it isn’t a solution.

  • mark November 27, 2009 (3:43 pm)

    His right to carry a gun in a park is the same as NAMBLA’s right to take pictures of little boys. Its a protected right but its a flawed one. Guns don’t belong in city parks. Period. Lets hope Karma bites him in the rear end, and soon.

  • Ant November 27, 2009 (3:45 pm)

    Actually based on the ruling of 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, I doubt this law will be changed and most likely upheld because of this quote in that ruling:
    .
    “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.”
    .
    So its really a case if public parks are considered sensitive places or not. From the history of challenges to gun control laws since that ruling in 2008 (approximately 60) the courts have upheld the laws as constitutional.

  • rob November 27, 2009 (3:46 pm)

    well, you’ve lost me there.

  • Rob November 27, 2009 (4:28 pm)

    Two issues with that. Lumping parks onto that list is a really broad interpretation.
    .
    More importantly, the issue isn’t about the second amendment. It is about the city making a law the state constitution says it cannot. It would be a pretty wild ride for this to even get to the supreme court, but if it somehow managed to make it that far, I really can’t see the supreme court telling anyone that they are free to didregard their state’s constitution when it’s more convenient to accomplish their goals by doing so.

  • mark November 27, 2009 (4:36 pm)

    Rob,

    You don’t get it. Guns don’t belong in city parks. Period. If you want to argue that technically, guns are allowed then you need to apply all the laws equally. In other words, and I assume you are smart enough to know that morally and from a safety standpoint that guns don’t belong around kids. Well NAMBLA has the right to take pictures of little boys, legally, but they are morally wrong. Its too bad the founding fathers didn’t have a crystal ball to help them write a little bit clearer document. Then again, the founding fathers for the most part were not exactly high on morals either, like others I have mentioned…

  • Rob November 27, 2009 (4:47 pm)

    You’re right, I don’t get it, because you have offered no explanation for it other than emotional rhetoric and strange references to pedophiles.

  • mark November 27, 2009 (4:54 pm)

    Rob,

    They are both protected rights, both morally wrong. Duh.

  • Rob November 27, 2009 (4:58 pm)

    What does that have to do with this case?

  • Jacob November 27, 2009 (6:20 pm)

    You are fooling yourself if you think this gun ban will stop thugs from carrying guns into our parks. All it does is keep out generally law-abiding citizens with CW permits.

    Personally, I feel safer knowing there may be people around me carrying with CW permits, not the other way around.

  • Eric Arrr November 27, 2009 (6:21 pm)

    Mark,

    uh, what? So, like, the law is morally flawed because it’s legal to take photos of banks you haven’t robbed yet?

  • I. Ponder November 27, 2009 (6:21 pm)

    Thank you for making the world a better place. If this is the best you can do, shame on you.

  • austin November 27, 2009 (6:55 pm)

    Gun toting crazies wasting tax dollars that could be put to better use, is all this comes down to.

  • 140.6 November 27, 2009 (8:14 pm)

    Mark,

    Regarding your post:

    “His right to carry a gun in a park is the same as NAMBLA’s right to take pictures of little boys.”

    For clarification, is it your position that in both cases the intent of those claiming the protected right is to enagage in that behavior because they derive some sick, perverse pleasure in it? If so, then you are the one who doesn’t get it.

    Circumstances that require intervention armed or otherwise occur more frequently than many realize. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not one of those people who would stand idly by when another needs your help. I’m not. I have both the intent and ability. Having access to the means by which I choose to help is a protected right.

    “Its a protected right but its a flawed one. Guns don’t belong in city parks. Period.”

    This is your opinion stated as fact. I respect your right to have a differing opinion, I respect your right to express it.

    “In other words, and I assume you are smart enough to know that morally and from a safety standpoint that guns don’t belong around kids.”

    The thug chooses WHERE to threaten my safety, my family’s safety, or my neighbor’s safety, city park or otherwise. I assume you are smart enough to know that.

    The moral and safety issue involves the person carrying making reasonable choices about how to conceal it, how to keep it from children, and how to present it when necessary.

  • Mike November 27, 2009 (8:24 pm)

    Bob won’t win this in court. He’s already stated his case is based on the 2nd Amendment which it’s not covered by. His argument is covered by STATE law. He’s way out of his league on this and will be crushed in court with a far superior team of lawyers against him. On top of that, if any of the people there that day decide to show up in court and state they felt their life or the life of their child was threatened by his actions, he’s going to have yet another larger issue to fight in court. Then top that off with brandishing a weapon outside the building (he did it, it’s on tape), he’s probably going to lose his concealed weapons permit. His best option is to drop his case. He failed to approach it correctly. Am I against people having firearms? No.

    Sooo, how about that guy with a legal concealed weapons permit shooting himself in the leg at Westlake Mall the other day around thousands of people and hundreds of children? Good thing he’s got his permit, wouldn’t want his firearm going off randomly… The permit is easy to get, it does not require a test or proof you know how to handle a firearm safely.

  • rob November 27, 2009 (8:43 pm)

    read the complaint linked to above, you will find it is based on several things, not just the 2nd amendment in general.
    .
    also would be good for people who are interested in having an informed opinion about this to read the opinion written by the state AG’s office after the mayor announced his intention to do this. very thorough and detailed explanation of their position.

  • homesweethome November 27, 2009 (8:53 pm)

    rob – no one from Seattle will drive to Kent to protest any of their laws, constitutional or not…

  • dkg28 November 27, 2009 (9:07 pm)

    So I’m curious…just how and why did this topic turn into Kent bashing?? Do you folks bashing on the City of Kent have any idea how arrogant you sound?? I’ve lived all over this state and currently reside here in West Seattle…trust me, Seattle is no different than any other smaller town or city this state has to offer. “Homesweethome & Mark”…grow up and quit being so smug! The guy was right in doing what he did…Mayor Nickles is the one “wasting” tax payers money.

  • Mike November 27, 2009 (9:08 pm)

    Who wants to take bets he won’t have his weapon on him when he enters the court room? Oh wait, it’s a public building paid for by us the tax payers, he has the right, according to his statements of what he calls ‘facts’.

  • Mike November 27, 2009 (9:09 pm)

    It should be pointed out that he was asked to leave, was not forced. He left on his own two feet. Again, he has NO case.

  • rob November 27, 2009 (9:34 pm)

    where did he say he has the right to carry a gun into a courtroom or imply he was going to do that?
    .
    again, if you read the complaint linked above…

  • laura November 28, 2009 (7:46 am)

    why shouldn’t the city seek to protect children in vulnerable places – would we allow guns to be carried in schools? If you live in this neighborhood, you know that this day center is a place where school children congregate. We’re trying to end gang violence around here – we don’t want guns in our community centers! Take your guns and play with them someplace else – not where my kids play.

  • Bryan November 28, 2009 (7:59 am)

    Way to go Bob. I’m happy your standing up for our rights.

  • E Krieg November 28, 2009 (8:06 am)

    I think this is a GREAT law and makes so much sense. Now every freak who has the intent to kidnap a child, assault a family, or do harm in some way will know that they should NOT carry a gun to the park in order to do so!

    I guess they also now know that the people who actually abide by laws will not be carrying one either. Hmm…

    What a waste of time this whole thing has been…

  • Dan\\\\\\\'a November 28, 2009 (11:01 am)

    I am curious as to EXACTLY how many shootings occur in Seattle Parks. I only remember one recently, and that turned out to be a false report, at Me Kwa Mooks park and one that happened at least a decade ago at Discovery park, if I am not mistaken. I know there have been some brandishings on Alki but I am wondering what trend made the city think the signs are needed.

  • mitch November 28, 2009 (11:29 am)

    I suspect Bob has a bit of problem with his other concealed shooter. The black leather coat, black pants, black hat and BIG gun all say “l’m one baaad dude.” In his own mind at least. Hope the woman in the picture mopped the floor with him.

  • nmb November 28, 2009 (9:37 pm)

    Kent is the armpit of King County.

  • cclarue November 28, 2009 (11:45 pm)

    To all the people commenting on the fact that
    Bob is a Kent resident…he grew up in west seattle. he is from here. And am pretty sure that even people who dont live in the seattle city limits come to our parks. I also know he was a boy scout for many years. He is not some crazy loon. I am not afraid of the bobs in the world with their guns I am afraid of criminals who most likely dont have concealed weapons permits and their guns. These are jokers who dont give a damn what any sign says if they want to shoot you or carjack you or rape you or whatever. Criminals who carry guns illegally are always going to do this because they disregard the law. If i was at a park and someone attacked me and bob was there without his gun and my attacker had a gun ….or bob is there with a gun … which situation would i choose?? bob with a gun anyday. I have a friend who carried a gun (legally) for years and i never knew it he didnt brag about it or show it or anything we all just happened to be downtown going to the showbox for a comedy show and he chose to leave it in my car so i had to be informed about it being there. Again guns do not kill people….People kill people. Just like a car in the wrong hands. but we arent banning cars??? or cars in parks ?

  • not Kent November 29, 2009 (11:12 am)

    I am pro-gun rights, but this dude lives in Kent. I don’t go protesting stuff in Kent, so I am still waiting for a Seattle resident to step forward and challenge the law.

  • John November 30, 2009 (11:43 am)

    The soon-to-be-ex mayor has been told by the Attorney General in no uncertain terms that his ban is unlawful. He enacted it anyway. He should be in jail?

  • John November 30, 2009 (11:44 am)

    Sorry, there’s no question — Nickels should be in jail.

  • nwgal November 30, 2009 (1:16 pm)

    140.6 – I hope if I ever am in a situation where I “need” help that you are nowhere near the vicinity. I sure don’t want to rest my hopes of survival on some overeager vigilante with a gun who may or may not have the skills to recognize who the bad guy is or how to handle the situation.
    As far as the gun-toting lawyer goes, it sounds more like a question of interpretation of the law rather than the black and white issue the gun-toting lawyer is trying to make it to be. If schools can ban guns, it certainly doesn’t seem to me to be a broad jump to ban guns at city parks. I, for one, would feel much safer knowing that no one around me at a gardening seminar is carrying a gun–at least not with the approval of the law.

  • nwgal November 30, 2009 (1:18 pm)

    And cclarue – I love West Seattle, but just because the gun-toting lawyer is from there doesn’t mean he’s not a crazy loon–or an attention hound or someone with some other agenda than a “defender” of our rights.

  • rob November 30, 2009 (4:14 pm)

    schools didn’t ban guns from schools, the state legislature did.
    .
    the problem with extending such a ban to parks is that state legislature has not done that, and according to the state constitution the mayor has no right to extend the ban to parks himself, the legislature needs to do it.
    .
    there isn’t much question in the interpretation of the law. its not fuzzy like the issue over how big the law allows red light camera fines to be, its spelled out in plain english.
    .
    the opinion issued by the attorney general’s office is in the link above and can be found elsewhere as well. it explains the issue very well and in very good detail. sadly, few who are commenting seem to have read it.

Sorry, comment time is over.