Good post by Don Ward over at Seattle Weekly about Mayor Nickels' gun ban. He surely knows he is violating the civil rights of every Washington citizen, and breaking the law. Nickels should go to jail.
I especially love the note that "Nickels spokesperson Alex Fryer helpfully tried to suggest that most of the audience members in attendance did not live in Seattle," as if that matters, even if it were true. As a resident of Snohomish County, I still have the right to carry a firearm in Seattle. It's not OK for Seattle to violate my rights while I am in Seattle just because I'm not a resident there.
Color me unsurprised that Seattle liberals only care about the law when they agree with it.
Posted by pudge at December 16, 2008 11:52 PM | Email ThisShame on these gutless bastards.
Boycott Seattle businesses.
Posted by: joebandmember on December 17, 2008 05:02 AMThose who value Second Amendment rights, however, do not deserve to be denied Constitutional protection from criminals, nor from despotic tyrants like Nickels.
Notice to Nickelsville: If I suffer from an outbreak of amnesia (or blatent stupidity) and happen to end up in Seattle, I will be armed.
That may be so, but the peripheral surrounding area who support the Seattle economy DO NOT. :)
Posted by: Duffman on December 17, 2008 06:35 AMThe left isn't the only end of the political spectrum that ignores laws they don't like.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on December 17, 2008 07:45 AMNot that I would expect you to read everything I write -- had you done so you'd be a lot smarter than you are -- but since you don't, perhaps you should be slower to judge.
And the reason I don't suggest jail/impeachment for Bush is simple: I only suggest it for Nickels because it is an absolutely clear-cut case here, whereas there is precedent for warrantless wiretapping. An actual dispute over the meaning of the law should not equate to jail time or impeachment, usually. But flaunting an absolutely clear law, that's different.
If you can find an example of Bush doing that as a means to violating our civil rights, let me know. I know of none. As much as I disagreed with the decision to withhold certain rights to an American citizen held as an enemy combatant (yes, I was also against Bush in Padilla v. Rumsfeld), there was an actual legal argument there. I was glad it was tacitly shot down, but I won't say he should be jailed or impeached for having a legal disagreement. But there is no reasonable legal disagreement with Nickels. He is deliberately violating the law to violate our rights.
And the reason I don't suggest it for Cheney is even simpler: he didn't actually do anything, as far as we know. Dunno why you think he did.
The point here is that Seattle cannot put in place a policy more restrictive than state law against our gun rights. This is clear in the law.
Only you Duffie, only you.
Geez, why stop at that? I'm surprised you're not calling for a hanging. But, pudge, we have these things called "courts" that decide whether laws are constitutional and whether regulations are legal, without actually incarcerating the losing side.
Posted by: Bruce on December 17, 2008 09:35 AMhttp://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=4a451ee5-71c3-4f29-a826-3260fb1eaaa1&p=1
Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on December 17, 2008 09:44 AMI'm a liberal, I own Kimber, Ruger, Mossberg, and a fine 5" Colt Anaconda. Please do not paint "liberals" with such a broad brush. Mayor Nickels is an idiot on this, and clearly doesn't know or understand state law. The state laws in Washington on gun ownership and possession are absolutely clear and understandable. Any law more restrictive than state law will be struck down, simple as that. Nickels can't possibly have read the law, and is wasting our time and money. Responsible gun owners are not the problem, and there's hardly an epidemic of shootings in parks and other city property. I seem to hear lately of teenagers shooting people in malls...? Now THAT'S a problem!
Posted by: anonymous liberal on December 17, 2008 09:45 AMI'm surprised you're not calling for a hanging.
That doesn't say much for you.
But, pudge, we have these things called "courts" that decide whether laws are constitutional and whether regulations are legal, without actually incarcerating the losing side.
There IS NO argument for Nickels. He is clearly violating the law, unequivocally.
That said, as I've said in the past this is infuriating. It's going to waste a lot of taxpayer money and screw up someone's life to get it fixed.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 17, 2008 10:12 AMThe LAW say's Nickels cannot do this and you ask why not?
Jezzz our gov schools are so failing us.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 17, 2008 10:39 AMSeems like the law can be completely ignored anymore.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 17, 2008 12:46 PMFor all of you who own guns, read this, because this is what the NRA (National Rifle Association) has been saying for a long time but people don't seem to listen. ... Just think what group is always talking about gun control and how much we need it.
A Little Gun History Lesson
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone,homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
Now, do I think the massively misguided Mayor Nickels intends mass extermination after his civil rights trampling gun grab?
Of course not.
But I do think he has a big, wet, snotty camels nose inching under the tent flap.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 17, 2008 04:10 PMcoddling criminals +
bending to pressure groups & laywers =
catching innocent citizens in the middle of both pincers; where did law & order go?
when will we learn?
bring back Paul Kersey!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 17, 2008 04:16 PMWhat law is Nickels violating? What is the penalty?
Unfortunately, it's going to require a test case, to my understanding.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 17, 2008 08:09 PMRCW 9.41.290. "The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state ... . 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 ..."
As it is clear that we DO have the right to bear arms on public property in this state, and this issue is not one of the exceptions referenced by 9.41.290, Seattle therefore cannot restrict us from doing so. Can't get much clearer. There is no wavering room here. Nickels is violating our rights, period.
(Andrew, "shall not be enacted" means that Nickels is violating the law by enacting it.)
What is the penalty?
I don't know offhand if there is a penalty for a public official willfully violating the rights of the people (other than impeachment etc.). If not, there should be. Ask one of the Democrats' civil rights lawyers.
from a reading of the statue 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 ... . 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 ..." it certainly appears that Nickels is violating the law of the land.
Repeat, Nickels apprears to be intending to violate a law of the State of Washington. It "doesn't matter" if he wishes to ban private carry in city parks, sell those parks to developers and pocket the proceeds, or hold a parade without a permit, he is publicly intending to violate the law.
That previous and current Mayoral administrations have already made parts of Seattle law enforcement free zones, I am not surprised at all that Nickels wants to ignore more laws.
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _Peters Quotations_, (c) 1977.
It hasn't gotten any better since then.
pyotr
As you surely know, Nickels has made a case for why his rule is legal.
A dishonest case, yes. He is citing a precedent that has nothing to do with this situation. In that case, the court said the city was acting as a private entity for a specific purpose, and as such a rule banning guns was allowed. Regardless of the merits of that decision, it does not apply to a ban on all city property. Nickels knows this.
pyotr:
Repeat, Nickels apprears to be intending to violate a law of the State of Washington.
He absolutely is. He dislikes the law so he is trying to see if an activist court will overturn it for him, or at least get a dialogue going to see if the people will back him enough to get it changed by the legislature. These are not sufficient reasons to violate our rights.
Posted by: pudge on December 18, 2008 01:36 PMyou & I suffer the Katrinas, Watts Riots, WTO's, happy sports pennant riots, sad jury verdict riots, nuts at the mall, carjacking, home invasions---and we're expected to just suck it up and move on?
not me; this scorpion has a stinger; used only when cornered; take heed; i've yet to see Dodge City in "carry" states; it's more like Self-Reliant City and Respect City since criminals & punks never really know who is "ready & able"; they have to do their homework to case out their easy prey; and the media NEVER tell the story of prevented crimes;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 18, 2008 03:57 PMIt's only a matter of time before a real revolution begins to get rid of scum like Nickels.
Posted by: IAMSasQuatch on December 22, 2008 05:40 PM