Taking Liberties
October 30, 2009 2:42 AM

Seattle Sued Over Mayor's Anti-Gun Rules

By
Declan McCullagh
Topics
Gun Rights
(AP)
SAN JOSE, Calif.--When San Francisco tried to restrict its residents' right to keep and bear arms, it quickly got shot down by the courts. Now it seems to be Seattle's turn.

Here's the background: the Washington state legislature has, with very few exceptions, instructed cities and municipalities that they shall not regulate firearms because state laws are sufficient. The relevant law says: "The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state... Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law."

Nevertheless, Seattle mayor Greg Nickels, a Democrat, signed an executive order last year directing government agencies to ban guns -- except, of course, for police -- from city property. A more detailed list published last month says that firearms will be banned from parks, golf courses, beaches, playgrounds, athletic fields, and so on. The final rule was signed on October 14.

Nickels allowed no exceptions for law-abiding Washington state residents who have undergone background checks and obtained permits to carry concealed weapons. There are no specific criminal penalties for violating Seattle's regulations, but violations would be treated as trespassing and residents are urged to call 911 if they spot one of their fellow citizens who may be armed.

This alarmed the Second Amendment Foundation, conveniently located in nearby Bellevue, which filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against Nickels and the city of Seattle that was joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the National Rifle Association.

The SAF has enlisted six state residents as plaintiffs, including two Department of Corrections employees who live or work in Seattle, are licensed to carry handguns, and say they have legitimate fears about "retaliation from people" encountered at work. Two other plaintiffs are active in the local gay community (Ray Carter co-chaired Seattle's pride parade in the 1990s).

An unusual aspect of the case, and one reason the SAF stands a good chance of winning, is that the Washington attorney general has already weighed in with an 11-page analysis saying Seattle's regulations are completely illegal.

The analysis, written in October 2008, says that state law "preempts a city's authority to enact local laws that prohibit possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities." Note this isn't a constitutional challenge, so there's no need for the King County, Wash. superior court to wait and see how the U.S. Supreme Court disposes of the McDonald v. Chicago case.

Alex Fryer, a spokesman for Nickels, told CBSNews.com: "We are prepared to defend the policy in court. We have outside counsel working pro bono." That law firm is Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, which the National Law Journal says is the 23rd largest in the nation. Orrick is no friend of Second Amendment advocates; it's represented plaintiffs in suits against gun manufacturers and was one of the firms honored at a Legal Community Against Violence dinner this summer. (LCAV claims that the "Second Amendment imposes no barrier to state and local regulation of firearms.")

Still, even if the lawyering was free, why did Mayor Nickels go ahead after such a stern rebuke from the attorney general? During a speech in San Jose, Calif. on Thursday evening, SAF founder Alan Gottlieb suggested that it was because Nickels has lost his primary bid for reelection and has little more to lose, and noted that Nickels is active in New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial coalition.

Maybe. After all, supporting restrictive anti-gun measures, as San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom did a few years back, sure didn't hurt his chances for higher office; Newsom is now an official candidate for governor. One difference, perhaps, is that Newsom was a canny enough politician to actually get himself re-elected.
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com and is on Twitter as declanm. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

  • Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.

Add a Comment See all 20 Comments
by Virgil-1 November 2, 2009 7:06 PM EST
Why do they want to ban your guns?I know it's not to protect the
citizens.So what is the real reason?
Reply to this comment
by Phantom_in_CA October 31, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
Funny how the article does NOT hyperlink to the NRA's and CCRKBA's websites. . .

BTW this article it out of date -- the anti-2nd Amendment Gavin Newsom withdrew his bid for CA governor later on 30 Oct. Despite holding townhalls around the state and Bill Clinton's endorsement, even CA rejected this anti-2nd A politician.

The NRA on its website says it has almost 4,000,000 members whereas the Brady Campaign doesn't state their membership numbers. Ever wonder why? LOL!

If the MSM were half as intelligent as they claim, they might figure out that being anti-2nd A will cost them readership.
Reply to this comment
by DaVicar8 October 30, 2009 9:32 AM EDT
The lesson here is simple...you mess with American's right to keep and bear arms, you pay the price!
Reply to this comment
by Hosheen October 30, 2009 9:04 AM EDT
Sorry about the multiple posts of my comment. CBS News needs to fix this part of their web site so this doesn't have to happen. But they rarely understand correct English so I have little hope they understand programming web sites.
Reply to this comment
by nextgenman09 October 30, 2009 9:20 AM EDT
No, you' just don't know what you're doing. It a republitard thing.
by Hosheen October 30, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
Another attempt by the Brady Bunch to disarm honest citizens so the criminals have nothing to fear. They cannot seem to understand that no firearm law EVER kept a criminal from obtaining guns whenever they want them.

But then, those too stupid to learn from obvious facts are doomed to remain ignorant and uninformed. That pretty well describes the "Brady Bunch".
Reply to this comment
by Hosheen October 30, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
Another attempt by the Brady Bunch to disarm honest citizens so the criminals have nothing to fear. They cannot seem to understand that no firearm law EVER kept a criminal from obtaining guns whenever they want them.

But then, those too stupid to learn from obvious facts are doomed to remain ignorant and uninformed. That pretty well describes the "Brady Bunch".
Reply to this comment
by bill0bob October 30, 2009 9:17 AM EDT
"They cannot seem to understand that no firearm law EVER kept a criminal from obtaining guns whenever they want them." -- terrorist Hosheen

Actually, Hosheen, if guns were outlawed, who would make them? Most criminals are too stupid to make their own out of raw materials.

Because guns are legal, lots of guns are made. And those guns are sold directly to criminals at "gun shows". And guns are sold to "law abiding citizens" and THEIR guns are STOLEN by criminals. Your enthusiasm to get a gun, so you can PRETEND it makes you "safe" is what is arming all the criminals!

But the good news, as always, is that THE NUMBER ONE FATAL USE OF A GUN BY GUN OWNERS IN THIS COUNTRY IS SUICIDE. Killing their children, wives, friends and neighbors comes in second. And defending themselves comes in dead last. The odds of legally defending yourself with a gun are 30,000 to 200, against! That's right! Every year, 1 out of every 150 gun deaths is a legal, proper, righteous case of "self defense". But 149 out of every 150 gun deaths every year is MURDER!

So, I say, A BIG EFF YOU TO ALL THE MURDERING BASTWADS WITH GUNS!
by error10 October 31, 2009 1:21 PM EDT
So suicide is murder now? That certainly makes sense. Thanks, bill0boob.
by bill0bob October 30, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
More guns = more deaths. That is a scientific fact. Guns never defend; they only kill. And MOST OF THE TIME, it's the gun owner, or his g/f or wife or his kids or his friends and neighbors who get killed-- more than 30,000 of them every year vs. only about 200 legal DGU deaths.

If the people in this country weren't mindless idiots, nobody would ever have to say anything more on the subject because most people would get rid of their phallic shafts of death all by themselves.
Reply to this comment
by louiville35 October 30, 2009 9:14 AM EDT
Hmmmm

"Violent Crime Increased When Countries Banned Guns

Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore the fact that the countries with the highest homicide rates have gun bans, says researcher John R. Lott Jr. The three worst public shootings in the past year all occurred in Europe, which has enacted everything American gun-control proponents favor.

Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar.

* In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent.
* Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnappings by 43 percent.
* While murders in Australia fell by 3 percent, manslaughter rose by 16 percent.

Finally, he notes, there exists not one single academic study showing that the federal Brady Act, assault-weapons bans, state waiting periods, background checks, one-gun-a-month rules or safe-storage laws reduce violent crime. Some research even finds that these rules increase crime. "
by Biggest_Rick October 30, 2009 9:26 AM EDT
An armed society is a polite society. To me a gun is a SPORTING GOOD no more or less dangerous than any other sprorting good if used improperly or with malicious intent. My guns have never killed another human being, but have killed a lot of meat for the table. LOL phallic shafts of death? Hardly.
by Hosheen October 30, 2009 8:58 AM EDT
Another attempt by the Brady Bunch to disarm honest citizens so the criminals have nothing to fear. They cannot seem to understand that no firearm law EVER kept a criminal from obtaining guns whenever they want them.

But then, those too stupid to learn from obvious facts are doomed to remain ignorant and uninformed. That pretty well describes the "Brady Bunch".
Reply to this comment
by louiville35 October 30, 2009 8:56 AM EDT
Yep this will overturn the fascist mayors ridicules law.
Reply to this comment
by nextgenman09 October 30, 2009 9:19 AM EDT
He's a Democrat, so he's no fascist. Now if he were a Republitard, then he'd be a fascist.
by louiville35 October 30, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
by nextgenman09 October 30, 2009 9:19 AM EDT
He's a Democrat, so he's no fascist. Now if he were a Republitard, then he'd be a fascist.
=============================================================================

Sure Sure...

"Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death over the last seven years, were their citizens better off without guns?"
by nextgenman09 October 30, 2009 7:19 AM EDT
Yawn. This will be overturned in short order. Just another fright story by a journalist wannabe.....
Reply to this comment
by nicmart November 9, 2009 8:43 PM EST
Considering that the author suggested himself that it will be overturned, and it is requiring a lawsuit to make it happen, I fail to see the fright. McCullagh already one of the best journalists in the country.
See all 20 Comments
.

Follow Taking Liberties

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...