Park gun law challenger asks courts to put the law on hold

Another followup in the story of the man who filed a lawsuit challenging the city ban on guns at certain Parks Department facilities by taking a concealed weapon into Southwest Community Center a month ago (and alerting the city in advance, which meant a security guard was there to meet him, as seen in our 11/14 photo at left): Bob Warden sent the media the documents that he’s filed seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the city from enforcing the law. Here’s the court document; we asked Warden if he has a court date set yet – he said no. The request for an injunction says in part, “If plaintiff went to the Southwest Community Center with his pistol tomorrow, there is no reason to suspect that the rule would not be enforced” and goes on to state as part of its argument, “banning armed good guys likely makes a place less safe from bad guys …” (Our partners at the Seattle Times are covering this story too – here’s the link.)

JenV December 15, 2009 (4:26 pm)

*eye roll*

seven December 15, 2009 (4:41 pm)

the longer i live in west seattle the more i agree with this guy.

mark December 15, 2009 (5:00 pm)

I would love it if this guy was just ignored, ala Tim Eyman. Please, stop giving him what he wants, attention.

bluebird December 15, 2009 (5:08 pm)

Hope he’s successful. Stupid law and power grab from the mayor.

velo_nut December 15, 2009 (5:37 pm)

Sorry, Mark. I say this guy is fighting for what’s right.

Dan December 15, 2009 (6:04 pm)

The city is going to lose with this silly, useless law.

mark December 15, 2009 (6:49 pm)

For whats right? Guns in parks with kids is right? Lets hope its not your kid, or grandkid, karma can be a B.

Jose December 15, 2009 (7:07 pm)

What’s the big deal about a guy with a gun around your kids? What, do you think it’s somehow contagious, that your kids will “catch gun?”
.
If it’s a law-abiding citizen with a permit you’re fine, quit the whining. You and your kids are around people with weapons every day of your lives whether you want to accept that reality or not.
.
You should focus your concern on getting existing laws against CRIME enforced, and not so much about restricting the rights of citizens who abide by the law and acquire the necessary permit to exercise their right under the law.

velo_nut December 15, 2009 (7:07 pm)

Karma is my cousin’s name. she is actually quite nice.

How exactly does this useless law help?

AmyT December 15, 2009 (7:39 pm)

I hope he wins.

And Jose, thank you! I couldn’t have said it any better!

None of you will ever know if a law abiding, permitted gun carrier is near you. It’s not like we go waving our guns around. We’re not the criminals…and not the people you should be worried about.

Yardvark December 15, 2009 (8:00 pm)

I dig it.

I like the fact that if you think a law is bogus that you can challenge it like this.

That said, folks who feel they need guns in West Seattle parks and community centers are more than a little paranoid.

But, though I don’t feel it ever makes us safer, I’m pretty sure gun possesion is still a constitutional right…especially around rascally kids and dogs and playground equiptment. I’ve always been scared of kids and dogs.

Don’t even get me started on swingsets.

mark December 15, 2009 (9:00 pm)

Jose, let me guess, like Bob Warden you were picked on a lot as a kid? No secure man NEEDS a gun in a city park. Maybe you should move to Kent? They seem to need guns there…..

KBear December 15, 2009 (9:27 pm)

More guns… safer parks! It only makes sense. Throw in some angry off-leash dogs and you’ve got a party!

bridge to somewhere December 15, 2009 (9:32 pm)

Irrespective of what I think of the city’s law, this dude bugs me. I somehow feel this is more of a stunt than a legitimate constitutional challenge. Still, our legal process will function regardless, and I wait to hear the results.

kg December 15, 2009 (10:00 pm)

Does wishing bad karma on someone else make that bad karma come back on you or no? I think they want to carry guns because they can’t carry cops. I also have a feeling this thread will have more responses than most threads about crime and criminals. Amazing.

rob December 15, 2009 (10:06 pm)

“I somehow feel this is more of a stunt than a legitimate constitutional challenge”
.
i somehow feel you haven’t bothered to read the complain he filed or the opinion written by the state attorney general’s office. he’s not skipping stones, he’s got a real live actual point and laws to back it up.

bridge to somewhere December 15, 2009 (10:30 pm)

Perhaps he’s got a “real live actual point;” still, this all feels like a stunt to me. And I am terribly sorry if my saying that spins you into annoyance. (Thank goodness for that 1st ammendment though, eh?!)

bluebird December 15, 2009 (10:39 pm)

No secure man needs to to make their point with insults. I wish someone rational would demonstrate the need for this law, beyond a photo op or the sake of feeling good. Has there been an outbreak of licensed concealed weapons carriers shooting children? Has anyone ever even seen a law abiding citizen brandish a weapon, let alone fire one near children, on public property?

rob December 15, 2009 (11:30 pm)

the annoying thing (and this is not directed at you specifically) is that too many people are more concerned with their gut feeling based on some news coverage than learning the facts of the situation and forming an educated opinion instead of an emotional one. sure, we are all ultimately ruled by our emotions, but taking a moment to sponge up some details isn’t going to hurt anyone.
.
sorry if it seems angry, but it scares me that so few people these days are concerned with understanding how our laws and government work.
.
i’ll admit that my statement was a bit mocking, but my point was that you probably wouldn’t feel that it was a simple stunt if you knew the facts. i have no illusions that it would cause you to suddenly agree with the guy, but you would at least be informed.
.
its frightening when so many people (have a look at the comments in the other posts about this issue) are happy to characterize the guy as some sort of attention seeking crackpot without bothering to find out if there is anything to his claim or not. i don’t know the guy, and he may well be a complete jerk, but it really doesn’t matter. there is a real issue at stake here, and it has nothing to do with whether or not he is a whacko. it also has nothing to do with guns, people we don’t think should have them, or the places we think people shouldn’t be allowed to take them.
.
there is no gray area in this case except the sliver of it the mayor tried to invent to make this work. if you take a moment to look up RCW 9.41.290, you will find a plain english explanation of why the city is not allowed to enact an ordinance such as this. because they couldn’t do what they wanted within state law, they tried to create a way around the law. what they came up with, is to claim that the city is a landowner, same as you or i, that city property is private property that belongs to the city (specifically the mayor’s office), and that the city can decide who can and can’t use “their” property and how.
.
so today its a useless gun law that won’t make anyone safer. maybe people are ok with that because despite being essentially toothless (no one is going to actively enforce it, and the type of people it purports to stop from carrying guns into these places will do it anyway), it appeals to their emotions with images of angry middle aged men having target practice in the park.
.
what if tomorrow its a city in our fine state telling the boy scouts they can’t have a gathering in a city park because of their religious ties, and arguing they have the right to deny anyone they like from gathering there because after all, the park is private property that belongs to the city?
.

GenHillOne December 16, 2009 (7:31 am)

Can someone explain this hero fantasy that many supporters apparently have? It never fails to amaze me and seems so delusional. I fear the gun that is left in the parking lot for petty theieves, put in a locker to be found by mischievous kids, or DROPPED for crying out loud far more than I feel safer because this yahoo (er, “good guy”) might be able to save me from some thug that decides to open fire during swimming lessons.
–
Law needs to be changed to exclude guns from community centers (and others imo, but that’s another day). And I agree, this guy bugs me; his methodology is less than impressive.

John December 16, 2009 (8:24 am)

I agree with Rob. This man has the right to carry a gun…period. I’m sorry that so many of you are afriad of guns. Maybe we should outlaw cars and smokes. The last time I looked they’re killing more people.

austin December 16, 2009 (8:47 am)

This thug doesn’t represent responsible gun owners. Responsible gun owners don’t make spectacles out of themselves or their firearms.

mark December 16, 2009 (8:51 am)

I am not sure he is a thug, he reminds me a little more of Bernard Getz. The kind of guy who is afraid of his own shadow. Who else feels the need to carry a gun, in a safe city park in the middle of the day? Yea yea, he is trying to make a point, but he looks more like an attention seeking idiot.

Bettytheyeti December 16, 2009 (9:44 am)

I agree with Austin. His behavior begs the question is he a sane person or just an unemployed attention whore? If this clown had stones he would have showed up at Medgar Evers at noon or midnight (pool in the Central District) not SW pool. Could this law have been like removing ‘the do not remove tag of your mattress?’

AJP December 16, 2009 (10:55 am)

There are plenty of “law-abiding citizens” who are concealed weapon permit holders who one day snap, go to their old place of work, and shoot people up. Or shoot their wife and children. “We never saw it coming”, and “he wasn’t that type of guy.” No police record other than maybe some traffic tickets.

rob December 16, 2009 (11:00 am)

i don’t suppose you could cite some news articles or something to support your claim could you?
.
i am really curious how many “plenty” amounts to.

bluebird December 16, 2009 (11:18 am)

Ron, catering to emotions only requires anecdotal evidence. What all laws should be based on. These guys aren’t seeing the bigger picture, because they’ve decided this is a black/white, good/bad debate. A valid debate should require you to attempt to see the other viewpoint.

Personally, I don’t own a gun and would be fine if they didn’t exist at all. That isn’t going to happen. So lets be reasonable. Kind of like the abstinence vs education and condoms approach. Which one actually works?

this is fun December 16, 2009 (2:37 pm)

It’s every person’s right to cary a gun. Fine and fun. It’s every person’s right to gather and protest…. First amendment.
The next time there is a critical mass on the West Seattle Bridge… I hope I see the same ammount of support and kudos.
They are also up holding their right too.
But can anyone tell why they need a gun in a swimming pool?

JanS December 16, 2009 (3:50 pm)

bluebird…this all started when a guy at Seattle Center during the NW Folklife Festival, who had a legal CWP, and was armed with a handgun, decided to shoot a couple of people he had a beef with. Sure..law abiding in the sense that he had the CWP. But…he chose to use it in an unlawful manner…hence, the whole predicament, and Mr. Nickels trying to change the law.

bridge to somewhere December 16, 2009 (4:03 pm)

i think there are a few important points here that are lost in this particular story. i think the issue is not whether the ban on guns in seattle’s parks is legal according to state law — it very well might not be. instead, i think the issue is really about whether the right to bare arms (most especially handguns in public places) makes us more safe or put us in more danger; indeed, some people might feel the second amendment was meant for a totally different time and a totally different context. that obviously upsets pro-gun supporters (and they have every right to be upset), but a discussion about whether an amendment is no longer relevant is perfectly valid and dare i say “american” — for example, i think we all appreciate that the 18th amendment (prohibition) was eventually repealed by the 21st. my point is, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. there are smart people on the pro-2nd amendment side, just as there are smart people on the other side. the debate is what’s american, not the position. let’s try to respect each other’s viewpoints a bit more.
.
(and yes, i still think warden’s actions feel more like a stunt than a legitimate challenge — but i still completely respect the position of those who believe strongly in the 2nd amendment)

tony December 16, 2009 (4:21 pm)

Well said Bridge to Somewhere.

In the spirit of respectfully voicing our opinions, I’ll toss mine on the pile. I can’t help but wonder why someone would feel the need to take a stand defending someones right to carry a gun where children play. Of all the inconsistencies that exist between the various city, state, and federal laws why this would be the thing that really stirred someone to action just baffles me. It’s not like refusing to sit in the back of the bus or something.

Anyway, it’s super interesting to hear from folks who feel differently. Seriously, thanks to everyone for sharing their viewpoints.

rob December 16, 2009 (4:24 pm)

saying he was law-abiding is pretty disingenuous.
.
he didn’t have a “legal CWP”. he is a schizophrenic and was, at the time at least, a heroin addict making his license invalid.
.
this is kind of like suggesting that a drunk who caused a car accident was law-abiding because they had a driver’s license at the time.
.
he didn’t simply choose to use his CPL in an unlawful manner, he violated a laundry list of laws and committed a violent act. given the laws he violated and the penalties they carry, i seriously doubt this individual would be the least bit concerned with the threat of a trespassing ticket. characterizing him as some average joe with a gun permit who went psycho is just silly.

rob December 16, 2009 (4:35 pm)

bridge to somewhere: you’ve hit the nail right on the head there. there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with and wanting to change the constitution. prohibition and its eventual repeal is a great example of how it is supposed to work.
.
the problem here is that the city isn’t trying to change the constitution.
.
rather than engage our legislature and try to get the changes they desired in place, the city instead decided to ignore the constitution altogether and create a law that is on its face completely invalid.
.
as you have stated, there is a right way to go about this. our system of laws was setup to be changed as time goes by, and there is a right and a wrong way to go about doing it.
.
what has been done here is definitely not the right way to go about it.