Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 18, 2009
City Nickels Proposes Gun Ban on Park Property
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Mayor Greg Nickles proposed a rule today that would prohibit civilians from carrying firearms in "Parks Department facilities at which children and youth are likely to be present and at which appropriate signage has been posted to communicate to the public that the possession of firearms is not permitted." The effort is part of the mayor's campaign to reduce gun violence.
The proposition could be legally dicey. Nickels acknowledges that state law preempts city ordinances on firearms, but notes that property owners may impose conditions for carrying guns on their land. Nickels argues the city can therefor impose restriction on firearms on park property, which it owns, like any other property owner.
“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,” Nickels said in a statement. Here are the locations Nickels proposes the ban:
• 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
Disobeying the rule would carry no criminal penalties, Nickels's office says, but individuals who do take a gun onto a no-firearms property could be arrested or cited by police for criminal trespass.
The public may comment on the proposal until October 4. After October 5, the Parks Department may enact the rule in any designated location where it has posted appropriate signage.
1
"property owners may impose conditions for carrying guns on their land. Nickels argues the city can therefor impose restriction on firearms on park property, which it owns, like any other property owner."
This assumes that government is an individual, and has the same rights. This is a false presumption. *public* property is owned by all members(voters) and decisions on its use are governed by laws, which can be challenged altered, or abolished by the public. Just because your the mayor, doesn't mean you can assume pre-emption of property as if you were a king.
Why stop with parks? the city owns streets and side-walks as well.
Any gun based argument can be ignored on this one, its a idiotic power grab that will be very costly in litigation from the state.
This assumes that government is an individual, and has the same rights. This is a false presumption. *public* property is owned by all members(voters) and decisions on its use are governed by laws, which can be challenged altered, or abolished by the public. Just because your the mayor, doesn't mean you can assume pre-emption of property as if you were a king.
Why stop with parks? the city owns streets and side-walks as well.
Any gun based argument can be ignored on this one, its a idiotic power grab that will be very costly in litigation from the state.
2
I should add that Nickels knows this is bullshit, because there are no criminal fines. It will be harder to challenge directly. Its the most passive aggressive move ever.
3
Good, this is fantastic news. You should see those little boys with their toy guns. Learning to shot and kill what ever moves. That's how Dick Cheney started.
And what youth pastor wouldn't feel much safer in a gun free park. No more chance of having his balls shot off by some little girl with a pearl handled Saturday night special in her purse that needs help learning how to enjoy giving head.
Bravo soon to be Ex-Mayor. Another step to help keep us all safe.
And what youth pastor wouldn't feel much safer in a gun free park. No more chance of having his balls shot off by some little girl with a pearl handled Saturday night special in her purse that needs help learning how to enjoy giving head.
Bravo soon to be Ex-Mayor. Another step to help keep us all safe.
4
I am not sure what are the current rules on concealed weapons but I have to side with the gun rights people. This law is very flawed. With no legal consequences the only people who will obey this rule will be law abiding individuals. Certainly it will be business as usual for criminals, in fact, the parks may be more attractive for criminals at night since they will know that the good guys won't be packing.
5
How do you conceal a weapon in a pool? Is that a Kahr subcompact in your swimming trunks or do you have a rectangular cock?
6
What a complete joke.
I heard about this on the radio this morning, when Nickels regurgitated his talking points. He is simply a Mayors Against Illegal Guns hack... what a fucking lame duck moron.
His angle is that public buildings are not public, but rather private civic property... that was the fucking term he used... private civic property, and because private property owners can deny a person from possessing guns, that would mean since the city owns the park, the city could deny guns!
hahahahahahahah
Go retire in anonymity Mayor McChuckles.
You are a fucking hack of the highest degree....
I heard about this on the radio this morning, when Nickels regurgitated his talking points. He is simply a Mayors Against Illegal Guns hack... what a fucking lame duck moron.
His angle is that public buildings are not public, but rather private civic property... that was the fucking term he used... private civic property, and because private property owners can deny a person from possessing guns, that would mean since the city owns the park, the city could deny guns!
hahahahahahahah
Go retire in anonymity Mayor McChuckles.
You are a fucking hack of the highest degree....
7
This law will absolutely be laughed out of court. The mayor is a douchebag for even suggesting this would pass muster. He is just trying to stir up controversy, and cause trouble right before he leaves office.
What a complete moron.
What a complete moron.
8
All this amounts to is an extension of police power to detain, search and arrest otherwise law-abiding people.
Under today's rules, an officer who is suspicious of you can detain you and frisk you for weapons, but even if he finds a legal weapon, he can't arrest you.
But under the proposed rule, that same situation would now lead to arrest, criminal charges, search incident to arrest, and more criminal charges from any evidence seized as a result of that search.
And of course, bad guys who want to carry guns into the park will be pretty much undeterred.
Under today's rules, an officer who is suspicious of you can detain you and frisk you for weapons, but even if he finds a legal weapon, he can't arrest you.
But under the proposed rule, that same situation would now lead to arrest, criminal charges, search incident to arrest, and more criminal charges from any evidence seized as a result of that search.
And of course, bad guys who want to carry guns into the park will be pretty much undeterred.
9
This is completely brain dead. It will just make Olympia even more pissed off than ever at Seattle. Can anyone even think of a single (real) problem that this would solve? Do we really have a problem with gun violence that will be ameliorated by a law preventing gun possession in parks? Why not just pass a law against assault or endangerment? What's that you say? We already have those? Oh. Never mind.
10
How many issues have been caused by people with concealed carry permits legally carrying in public parks?
There was the shooting at Folklife a while back, but that wasn't a legal place to carry anyway per RCW 70.108.150.
Does he have any argument that there is a real problem that is being solved with this legislation?
There was the shooting at Folklife a while back, but that wasn't a legal place to carry anyway per RCW 70.108.150.
Does he have any argument that there is a real problem that is being solved with this legislation?
11
It is a well-known fact that criminals obey the law, especially ones with no penalties that aren't even legal to begin with.
12
City property cannot be treated as a private land, nor the City as a private landowner. The legal fallout from such a decision on non-gun matters would be unacceptable.
13
@5, you just put it in your fanny pack. So it takes an extra second to get it out if you need it - no biggie.
Kudos to all of you who understand that laws only affect law-abiding people. They're not the ones you need to worry about.
Kudos to all of you who understand that laws only affect law-abiding people. They're not the ones you need to worry about.
16
I know that this law can't take effect for the simple reason that this country has already sold its soul, and the souls of our children, to the NRA. However, the least of amount of truly logical consideration says that this proposal is not only completely reasonable, but long long overdue.
17
I just submitted the following comment to the city. I'm venturing way out of my depth with my attempt at legal analysis, but here it is anyway:
---------------
I am strongly opposed to the proposed firearms policy rule for the following reasons:
First, by empowering police to arrest gun owners for criminal tresspass, it would tend to criminalize currently lawful behavior, while simultaneously failing to address any significant problem facing Seattle.
Second, it is unclear why these particular types of public space (e.g., parks, art centers, etc) should be treated differently from public spaces in general with respect to firearms possession. There is no clear reaon why someone who is at a park should be subject to different rules or expectations of public safety than someone who is standing on a public street adjoining that same park.
Third, I believe the proposed rule is likely to be doomed by legal difficulties, and would thus result in much wasted energy by the city while achieving nothing. Among the possible legal difficulties are separation of powers issues (- the city is effectively creating a new criminal statute without participation of the legislature -), the constitutional issue of vagueness arising from a local law apparently pre-empted by state law, and the constitutional issue of restricting the right to bear arms in certain types of public space where no pressing need to do so has been articulated by the legislature.
Finally, any reasonable survey of the state of violent crime in Seattle would conclude that restricting firearms from public parks and the like completely fails to address the surge of gang-related gun violence that continues to flare in the streets, sidewalks, and parking lots of southern Seattle. Let the city address gun violence where it actually occurs, and continues to occur with regularity, rather than in the public spaces where it is almost unheard-of.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Eric
More...
---------------
I am strongly opposed to the proposed firearms policy rule for the following reasons:
First, by empowering police to arrest gun owners for criminal tresspass, it would tend to criminalize currently lawful behavior, while simultaneously failing to address any significant problem facing Seattle.
Second, it is unclear why these particular types of public space (e.g., parks, art centers, etc) should be treated differently from public spaces in general with respect to firearms possession. There is no clear reaon why someone who is at a park should be subject to different rules or expectations of public safety than someone who is standing on a public street adjoining that same park.
Third, I believe the proposed rule is likely to be doomed by legal difficulties, and would thus result in much wasted energy by the city while achieving nothing. Among the possible legal difficulties are separation of powers issues (- the city is effectively creating a new criminal statute without participation of the legislature -), the constitutional issue of vagueness arising from a local law apparently pre-empted by state law, and the constitutional issue of restricting the right to bear arms in certain types of public space where no pressing need to do so has been articulated by the legislature.
Finally, any reasonable survey of the state of violent crime in Seattle would conclude that restricting firearms from public parks and the like completely fails to address the surge of gang-related gun violence that continues to flare in the streets, sidewalks, and parking lots of southern Seattle. Let the city address gun violence where it actually occurs, and continues to occur with regularity, rather than in the public spaces where it is almost unheard-of.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Eric
19
@ 17 AWESOME analysis Eric!
What's "funny" about all this is that most losers who are interested in harming children aren't using guns to do it. How many gang bangers are out there shooting children? If he really wants to protect the kids how 'bout working a little harder to keep sexual predators off the streets for 20 years a pop? Banning guns isn't going to do a fucking thing to stop children from being harmed at venues children attend. It is a blatant ignorant smoke screen. And all of us are gullible for continuing to take this piece of oxygen breathing carbon seriously..
In fact, I'd advocate that McCheese should be charged with a crime for intentionally ignoring state law and negligent behaviour of a publically elected official. He knows damn well he is simply stirring the pot with this ridiculous attempt at circumventing state law.
I think there also needs to be a new law that whenever a politician has lost an election, they can serve the rest of their days in office until the new politician takes over but they can no longer have any authority to pass any laws or do anything except sit behind a desk and personally take all the phone calls until their last day in office
Seattle will be a safer place when you get this ass out of office. He has no common sense and is as stupid as one can get. I don't know how he ever stayed mayor for as long as he did, but thank God he is out. he goes to show how incompetant a mayor can be and wastes taxpayers money by violating state law so he can look good to the people who squandered away millions to give to his campaign.
What's "funny" about all this is that most losers who are interested in harming children aren't using guns to do it. How many gang bangers are out there shooting children? If he really wants to protect the kids how 'bout working a little harder to keep sexual predators off the streets for 20 years a pop? Banning guns isn't going to do a fucking thing to stop children from being harmed at venues children attend. It is a blatant ignorant smoke screen. And all of us are gullible for continuing to take this piece of oxygen breathing carbon seriously..
In fact, I'd advocate that McCheese should be charged with a crime for intentionally ignoring state law and negligent behaviour of a publically elected official. He knows damn well he is simply stirring the pot with this ridiculous attempt at circumventing state law.
I think there also needs to be a new law that whenever a politician has lost an election, they can serve the rest of their days in office until the new politician takes over but they can no longer have any authority to pass any laws or do anything except sit behind a desk and personally take all the phone calls until their last day in office
Seattle will be a safer place when you get this ass out of office. He has no common sense and is as stupid as one can get. I don't know how he ever stayed mayor for as long as he did, but thank God he is out. he goes to show how incompetant a mayor can be and wastes taxpayers money by violating state law so he can look good to the people who squandered away millions to give to his campaign.
20
I think he wants this law so cops have another reason to stop and search black kids in parks.
I don't have a solution for stopping gang violence in Seattle (though I have some ideas that involve community policing, a LOT of concerned and active neighbors, and not a little bit of money). I don't think anyone believes that this law would stop any gangbanger from carrying a gun into a park.
I don't have a solution for stopping gang violence in Seattle (though I have some ideas that involve community policing, a LOT of concerned and active neighbors, and not a little bit of money). I don't think anyone believes that this law would stop any gangbanger from carrying a gun into a park.
21
It makes far more sense to ban black males than it does to ban guns, because black males are the ones creating the vast majority of illegal gun violence.
24
@21 So you think we don't need laws against murder, since law-abiding citizens don't do this kind of thing and criminals aren't deterred by the law? Interesting thought...
Having rules to not carry guns around playgrounds etc. might not prevent criminals from doing so, but it will certainly make gun-accidents less likely and prevent gun violence caused by heated arguements.
What would you need a gun at the swimming pool for?
Having rules to not carry guns around playgrounds etc. might not prevent criminals from doing so, but it will certainly make gun-accidents less likely and prevent gun violence caused by heated arguements.
What would you need a gun at the swimming pool for?
25
I'm opposed to the stupidity of this, and would be opposed to the rule itself if it were enforceable. If you, as a responsible possessor of a concealed firearm, are doing your job, until you are in a life-or-death situation, no one should know you're carrying a firearm. If my choices are : probable death or a trespassing charge after I shoot someone who's trying to kill me, that's pretty easy.
@24 there are already laws against causing a public disturbance (having a gun out in the open around the public would basically do it), brandishing a firearm, discharging a firearm in the city, etc. If someone is legally carrying a firearm, it's in their full control at all times. How does my pistol, in it's holster, under several layers of clothing, in a state that it couldn't go off without removing one or more safety devices pose a risk to children on a playground, people in the park, etc? If you screw up with a gun it's already against the law. We don't need an unenforceable rule that allows the police to ask you to leave if they pat you down and find a legal firearm in your possession.
@24 there are already laws against causing a public disturbance (having a gun out in the open around the public would basically do it), brandishing a firearm, discharging a firearm in the city, etc. If someone is legally carrying a firearm, it's in their full control at all times. How does my pistol, in it's holster, under several layers of clothing, in a state that it couldn't go off without removing one or more safety devices pose a risk to children on a playground, people in the park, etc? If you screw up with a gun it's already against the law. We don't need an unenforceable rule that allows the police to ask you to leave if they pat you down and find a legal firearm in your possession.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS