Judge's ruling ends Seattle's gun ban

kinglerxst said on March 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM

It's so sad to think that one of the main reasons McGinn won was the underhanded lying robocalls on the last 2 days of the campaign, saying that Mallahan was in favor of guns in parks. At least Mallahan was smart enough to know that it was an unwinnable battle. And let's add to that the fact that he completely flip-flopped on the viaduct tunnel project at the last possible minute, AFTER thousands of people had already voted for him because of his vocal stance against that project. Add to that the fact that he's one off those whiny self-righteous chip-on-the-shoulder cycle enthusiasts that we all love to hate. You know, the ones who catch up with you at a red light, knock on your window and lecture you about road rules and sharing the road, and then ride right through the red light. McGinn is Nickels reincarnated. He will hopefully be a one term mayor.

tomma206 said on February 15, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Impulse. Im sure people who cant spell and use proper grammar dont own guns as well as those who do. your judgement only makes you foolish.unpause, back to the game.

emily_litella said on February 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Seattle is in a financial crisis - So in that case, lets "tax & spend" I know, we'll make a new law that can never be enforced!! So, Mayor McDickcheese, just exactly how much did this COST the city??

tranzor said on February 13, 2010 at 1:34 PM

mrscott, you're another moron... I'm glad you live out in the woods where the rest of civilized society doesn't have to deal with you and your misguided notions. You bringing up the tragedy of the Lakewood police officers is highly irrelevant. Do you think the one who shot them owned and carried that gun legally? No, he did not... he was a felon, a felon that shouldn't have been released in the first place. Why not place the blame for that where it belongs, with the person who committed the crime and the laws that allowed him to walk free. Besides, how would the Seattle city gun ban have helped those officers? Can you explain that, since you brought it up? That's right, you can't... because they're unrelated. Even if Lakewood had a similar law, it wouldn't have helped because they weren't killed on city property. And besides... you really think a violent felon who was carrying a gun illegally in the first place would care about a city property gun ban? Please.

tranzor said on February 13, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Jackwong, your ideas are misguided at best, dangerously idiotic at worst. Do you really think that the Seattle city code of not allowing firearms on city property would stop the "drug dealings and shootings" you're talking about in your neighborhood? Do you think those criminals are carrying those guns legally or even owning them legally? Let's see... if I were a criminal and didn't care about the laws already in place, why would I care about the new city code telling me I can't carry a gun? After all, we have laws against drug dealings and shootings already, yet that hasn't stopped them from carrying out those crimes. Again, adding new laws only serves to further restrict those already following the laws in place... those not following the laws already will continue to not follow the new ones. Why is that so hard for people to understand? What we need is strict enforcement and meaningful punishment for those who break existing laws, not the creation of more useless rules.

taxdollarsponge said on February 13, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Aziza and Jackwong,perhaps you should take off the wet blanket and stand behind the people.

jackwong said on February 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM

@kss123: You must not live here down south at Central District. Judkin's Park is here, where drug deals and shootings is what makes this park famous and usually the first subject of discussion regarding this park. Mayor Nickel's law could of helped this park become peaceful and free of shootings. And now, thanks to this judge, we won't have that anymore.

heyler7 said on February 13, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Finally justice prevails... It was amazing how these "soccer" moms are all upset that their kids won't be safe in parks now! Really? Let's play this out, criminals will have guns and hurt people no matter what law is set forth. So, if a criminal strolls into a park and he is the only one carrying a gun, wouldn't you "soccer" moms want some of US good guys packing heat to shoot this bad person? Well exactly, this is what this decision has done, we good guys can legally protect ourselves and your kids in a park setting!!

mrscott said on February 13, 2010 at 10:15 AM

...said Penaluna. "There's nothing you can do about someone who's going to shoot you from the back." That's right, Josh. Carrying a gun won't protect you from the jerk who shot you. The ban would have helped prevent your injury if it had helped keep him from carrying his gun into the event. After all, all six of the police officers killed in the last few months had pistols on their belts which did not protect them from being shot. So gun owners "fear for their safety"--poor babies. Now I fear for MY safety knowing that a bunch of right-wing nutjobs are packing are over the city. I think I'll stay out here in the woods where I can see them coming and avoid being caught in the crossfire.

yessir said on February 13, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I'm not against private gun ownership... but I'm not the amazing Kreskin, and I have no means of telling which of you sporting a visible handgun (not concealed) on your hip who just entered the Starbucks/McDonalds/Sears/City Park/Wherever is a good law abiding citizen (yes I know there are many of you who are) or someone who might not be quite so stable or even potentially have malicious intent. It's ironic I know, but it's the visibility of weapons (outside of LE) that I'm uncomfortable with. It appears (whether intentioned or not) to be an intimidation factor. Now before some of you start referring to me as the Brady Bunch or a anti-gun liberal, please remember I'm not only in favor of gun ownership... I even own a firearm. That said, I'm not in favor of carrying a weapon "visible" in public, and I see no necessary reason for it.

musiclover41 said on February 13, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Here is an idea! Why not punish criminals with life in prison for having guns illegally. There are gun owners that are law abiding citizens such as myself that don't abuse their privileges by going around shooting civilians and police. We use them for self preservation and to protect our families.

musiclover41 said on February 13, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Nickels was such a moron thinking that would work. Idiot.

lmiller658 said on February 13, 2010 at 8:51 AM

At last, A good judge.

copperheadcsa said on February 13, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Why do I carry a gun? A cop is too heavy.

ardrhi said on February 13, 2010 at 6:30 AM

@aziza: You don't know that anyone else in the world is not a nutjob. The person behind you at Denny's might take offense to how you slurp your soup and brain you with a jar of Grey Poupon. Risk is inherent in life, get over it. Police enforce laws. They are not bodyguards. But as to being an unarmed citizen, and "where all the armed heroes are when you need them", why don't you stop demanding that others be responsible for *your* safety, go out and get trained, and become an armed hero yourself? TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your own life, your own safety, and the safety of your loved ones. Not only will your life be richer, more stable, and more honorable, but you will be bringing our country one step closer to the ideal of safety, honor, and freedom we all want it to have, and know it can achieve. An honorable citizen takes responsibility for their life in every way -- their actions good and bad, their livelihood, and their safety.

kss123 said on February 13, 2010 at 3:54 AM

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people." "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." (John Stossel 20/20 reporter)

kss123 said on February 13, 2010 at 3:54 AM

The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth. Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it. A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed.

kss123 said on February 13, 2010 at 3:53 AM

Jackwrong....kingster.... When someone thinks that a gun ban will actually help our society, think of the following..... States that allow concealed carry have over 50% LESS violent crime than states that no not allow it. (J.R. Lott study with FBI and CDC stats) Over 2.5 million times a year LEGALLY armed citizens use guns to protect themselves with over 200k of those being women who protect themselves from sexual crimes. (Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime") In Florida, over the 15 years following them allowing concealed carry, homicide rates DECREASED by 52%. (FBI statistics) Countries who have passed sweeping gun control legislation have had as much as a 300% increase in violent crime and homicides. In Australia, armed robberies went up 44% in the first 12 months after the ban. (Benedict D. LaRosa)

kingster said on February 13, 2010 at 3:10 AM

The idea that a gun will keep you safe is an illusion. The idea that projecting violence toward your neighbors will preserve the peace is also an illusion. As long as people cherish these notions, peace is impossible and our illusions of freedom are a travesty. It is a sad statement of the state of our society that people feel the need to have weapons to go anywhere. As long as poverty, disease and ignorance are tolerated, the need for guns will continue because the violence will continue. In a society that expects consumption, violence will continue in order to try to have what a person needs to live, let alone what they dream of having.

jackwong said on February 13, 2010 at 2:17 AM

A sad day for Seattle. In a time where some criminals don't have problems gunning down officers, we get something like this. The right to bear arms was written in the times when governments were tyrants and we as citizens have a need to overthrow them. I just don't see that has any relevance today. There's no tyranny in government today.

impulse said on February 12, 2010 at 11:38 PM

I don't mind people owning guns, but the spelling mistakes and poor grammar of the self-proclaimed gun owners posting here gives me pause.

indexmountain451 said on February 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

When is the Feds going to bust our Governor. IE the RICO act. She runs the Gambling rackets, the liquor rackets and while running her second term she said "Now's not the time to raise taxes during this economy". She's a total gangster. Thank god for judges...... and living up to the constitution. God... Guns and the Constitution ... God bless America and the Old Oregon territory.. Washington state..

kingsolver1000rr said on February 12, 2010 at 10:16 PM

ha ha ha

2003viper said on February 12, 2010 at 9:20 PM

It's about time we win a few in court. I am sick and tired of them trying to take away our given rights, that have been in place for 200 years now. If the city of Seattle wants to do some good then put the criminal behind bars for life. If you are caught and convicted of a crime using a gun. Then the sentenced should be life, If that same crime resuted in the death of another then the death penalty should be given with out a plea bargain chance in hell!!! Our courts are over worked with crimnals getting a second or thrid chance at Killing us. Gun control means proper legal use of a wepon. Not the stolen gun in the hands of a crimnal bent on doing harm to others. So wake up smell the fear put crimnals in their place crime will drop and people will be safe once again. IF YOU DON'T BELIVE THIS THAN THINK OF 4 POLICE OFFICER KILLED BY A CONVICTED CRIMNAL WHO SHOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY!!! STRONGER PENALTYS IS WHATS NEEDED NOT THE TAKING OF ONE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS

javajoe said on February 12, 2010 at 9:04 PM

A just ruling for a change, I'm impressed.

tomma206 said on February 12, 2010 at 8:42 PM

When will they learn that signs and fines don't stop crime. My kids are much safer that I can still pack heat while watching them play at the park.

ansaisenach said on February 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Notices on parks or coffee shops are good for telling you there's WiFi or restrooms. Criminally bent individuals or the mentally ill don't live their lives based on signposts. Of course you can sue the city if a sign is prejudicial. Perhaps Nickels and McGinn can share the city's costs in this case. Given the rights of background-checked residents of the the USA to possess firearms, just focus on making sure the process for vetting people is as strong as it should be.

bdghekfle said on February 12, 2010 at 8:29 PM

well at least our rights are still valid nickels was stupid to think he could take away peoples rights and actaully get away with it, he may have lost the sonics and the seattle center but we still have our guns

blankingout said on February 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM

jazzysport, I would stay an independent because republicans want to erase amendments 4,5 and 8 from the US constitution. Liberals somewhat seem to up hold the founding father's view of questioning the country's actions; as you know our founding fathers weren't born American, turning their backs on England... Republicans like to put up this image of them hugging the American flag while censoring, which they are big on in the media, themselves defecating on the constitution. It's not a two party system as much as the wacko democrats or republicans want to tell you. We really need a third party for people like you and me, socially liberal - economically conservatives to fix the gov, or idiots on the left will keep banning guns and idiots on the right will keep creating "patriot acts" that restrict our privacy.

aziza said on February 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Just to play devil's advocate, but its based on these "individuals" who feared for their safety? What about the rest of us unarmed persons who fear for our and our families' safety?? How do I know that your are a law abiding citizen or a nut job? How do you know the same about me? As an unarmed citizen, where do I and my family run when two nut jobs or law abiding citizens start shooting each other?? And all you gun toting heroes? Where are you when we need you? You never seem to be around when somebody is shooting up some mall, school, park or murdering people!

blankingout said on February 12, 2010 at 7:58 PM

You know I thought McGinn, after being disappointed the other guy didn't win the election, had potential when his first act was to cut Nickels senior level employee fat from the city, but then he delayed it and now with him against this ruling; he really IS NICKELS with a BEARD!

tranzor said on February 12, 2010 at 7:24 PM

I love the mayor's reaction... as if this city ban would keep someone who meant to do someone else harm with a gun out of city buildings/parks. You know, like the perp would say "I was gonna go gun down a couple of people in a Seattle park, but I can't because Seattle made it against the law to carry a gun there." Right... maybe in the rose colored glasses that a left wing radical has would laws like this keep a maniac from doing what his dark and twisted mind thought up that day. All it does is keep the possibility that a law-abiding citizen might be able to stop someone from carrying out that kind of plan.

zac13 said on February 12, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Your right Mayor McGinn cities should have the right to restrict guns... just not in the state of Washington where the city does not get that chose due to STATE LAW. See Mr. mayor, where citizens have to deal with local, county, state and federal laws, cities must abide by those laws which are set above your level. We do not get to chose which laws are good laws, neither do you.

kaseyconrad said on February 12, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Mayor Mike McGinn is unconstitutional. Make him pay for the wasted taxpayer dollars for trying to shove this down our throats. Oh, and how about fire him too? We citizens have the Constitutional right to bear arms for self protection. I watched my mother be beat to a pulp and robbed when I was a child. It happened in a city park called Holly Park in Seattle. If she was armed perhaps she could have protected herself. The important thing is that whoever is armed is trained to use a weapon properly.

jazzysport said on February 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM

I don't own guns and have shot them maybe a dozen times or so but I am always amazed at how hard people try to ban ownership of guns. especially in public places. I am not a right wing wacko and have not been to church in years. I am kind of liberal when it comes to social issues but the 2nd amendment to me is about the most clear statement in the constitution there is. What interpretation does it need. How can you call yourself an American and think the banning of guns in public places is ok. This Mcginnis guy hasn't read the constitution. I am really sick of the left trying to exploit the constitution and interpret it anyway it sees fit. I am in the middle but I think the far right people are more American than the far left. right wingers are much closer to what the founding fathers had in mind than the ridiculous anti-gun crowd. Guess I will have to change my political status from independent to Republican. Banning guns in public places, how unconstitutional can you get.

collegeguy said on February 12, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Good, the judge ruled correctly in this case. Not only did the ordinance violate state constitution but also the Constitution of the US. When will cities and states realize they can't trump the Constitution?

shamuspi said on February 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Apparently, the mayor does not remember when his liberal government tried to force I-676 on us. It lost over 70%. He does not remember what happended to Clintons government when they forced the "ugly weapons" ban and the Brady law on us - they lost both houses of the legislature.

navylt said on February 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Oh no! First Starbucks and now this! What is this world coming to?!? We don't want law abiding citizen's to be able to defend themselves against violent crimes do we?!? Isn't that what King County pays security firms like Olympic Security Services to do? Oh, wait "observe and report", never mind.... my bad.

sirbobby98121312 said on February 12, 2010 at 5:34 PM

After all this ''for the children'' posturing...sorry, Mr. Nickels,but the court recognizes feel-good legislation as distinct from reality. A poor attempt at creating a solution where no problem exists.

starcrafttom said on February 12, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Thats one victory for the people!

paddy_v said on February 12, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Well, here's the thing. The law was never valid in the first place, because of state preemption, found in RCW 9.41.290: "The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed..."

factoid said on February 12, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Good news indeed. Now let's send Mayor Nickels the legal bill, for instituting this policy knowing full well that it was unconstitutional. His irresponsible political pandering cost the taxpayer a small fortune.

gramly6 said on February 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Awesome!!! Hard to believe it happened in Seattle, but this is great news. Now law abiding citizens can continue to be law abiding and safe at the same time. Will miracles never cease to happen.