Slog Comments

 

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Max Solomon 1
piecemeal, city by city or state by state isn't going to cut it. it isn't cutting it now.

federal or it'll be ineffective.
Posted by Max Solomon on December 17, 2012 at 4:59 PM · Report this
John Scott Tynes 2
Tell that to marijuana reform.

We have to start somewhere. Frankly, I think we could win a statewide gun-control initiative. We know Seattle can outvote the rest of the state.
Posted by John Scott Tynes http://www.johntynes.com/ on December 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM · Report this
meanie 3
Civics fail.

The preemption rule exists to prevent bureaucratic inconsistencies in ordinance within the state, and likely to keep challenges at a minimum. Any rule that would go against the state Constitution would be struck down in court.

The state Constitution is more specific than the federal on the matter:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on December 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 4
Local's a terrible option, but it's sure to pass and we could expand from there.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on December 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM · Report this
Steven Bradford 5
Yes. We have to start somewhere.
Posted by Steven Bradford http://www.seanet.com/~bradford/ on December 17, 2012 at 5:19 PM · Report this
6
CITIES CAN'T RUN STATEWIDE INITIATIVES or spend public funds to support them. christ, the stupid hurts so bad.
Posted by someone tell bruce harrell about laws, stat on December 17, 2012 at 5:22 PM · Report this
7
Let's see if we can finally wring something out of the legislature first.
Posted by digitalwitch on December 17, 2012 at 5:23 PM · Report this
Gordon Werner 8
I like what they are saying in that press release. It is quite clear that the objective is for gun safety ... and the things it mentions requiring gun owners in Seattle to do are things that MOST responsible gun owners already do, or really should if they truly are what they claim (responsible).
Posted by Gordon Werner on December 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this
Josh Bis 9
I would like to see a total ban on all firearms, but basic wikipedia legal scholarship suggests that the Supreme Court has already decided this in McDonald vs. Chicago (which extended District of Columbia vs. Heller to states and municipalities). In Heller, DC's handgun ban and trigger lock were specifically found to violate the individual right to gun ownership that five justices found lurking in the Second Amendment.
Posted by Josh Bis http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author.html?oid=3815563 on December 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this
10
Hell yes the city, or anyone else that will help, should try and run with this initiative. Last I checked the city is pretty good at putting initiatives on the ballot: IE family and ed, seawall, tunnel, etc.
Posted by Yes we should on December 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM · Report this
11
Go to all this effort just to allow cities to impose better gun controls, that would be inconsistent with most of the rest of the state? Why? Better to follow Tina's idea in this morning's Crosscut -- run a statewide initiative to impose statewide controls.
Posted by Citizen R on December 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM · Report this
12
@2 But Marijuana is the exact opposite problem. Current law is too restrictive.

You can allow something in only a few small areas, but you cannot effectively ban something in only a few small areas.

Some of those things, like trigger locks, very well could prevent some accidental deaths, but a citywide assault weapon ban is pretty pointless when a ten mile drive gets you to some place you can buy one.
Posted by giffy on December 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM · Report this
13
Pretty sure Chicago already had a go at this and their ban both failed and was overturned.

Last time I checked, the only way to cancel a constituional amendment is with another constitional amendment. I am looking at you Volstad Act.
Posted by Zander on December 17, 2012 at 8:56 PM · Report this
14
No. The City should push as hard as it can for the success of Sen. Kohl-Welles to-be-dropped bill for gun control. I wish Harrell would not run for Mayor because he's going to be wasting his supporters' money, just as the City would waste money running an initiative.
Posted by sarah70 on December 17, 2012 at 9:25 PM · Report this
Amnt 15
Attempts at local regulation might make some people feel better, but it won't make anyone safer. But yeah, let's put up signs saying "No guns!" at community centers to stop criminals.
Posted by Amnt on December 17, 2012 at 9:36 PM · Report this
16
If I didn't know that someone in this desperately stupid city would actually take Harrell's idea seriously, I'd laugh.
Posted by Mister G on December 18, 2012 at 1:55 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 17
As a gun owner, this is the kind of proposal I'd like to see more of. No crazy ammo serialization, no cosmetic bans of one rifle while a functionally identical rifle is allowed due to trivial shit like flash-hiders or pistol grip forearms. Kudos to Harrell for actually appearing to have a grasp of the technicallties.

Will it affect mass shootings? No. Would it prevent a few accidental shootings? Yes.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on December 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM · Report this

Add a comment