NorthWest Citizens Defense League

Last night the residents of western Washington got their chance to sound off in response to the proposed defacto gun ban by Mayor Nickels. There was some proponents there but for the most part it was minimal. Washington Ceasefire was interviewed and the response from Kristin Comer, President of Washington Ceasefire, was absolutely the most idiotic thing I have heard yet. She told the news that there are a lot of cities that have ordinances or laws that prevent firearms in parks but she felt that the Seattle was a target because of its size.

What she does not realize is that the cities that have these ordinances, you can download a compilation of them here, have either had them prior to the preemption statute being enacted or they were enacted not realizing there was a preemption statute that gives the state full control, with some exceptions, over firearm laws. Some cities have repealed these unlawful laws just by a single e-mail while some have taken a bit more pressure and opinions from attorneys. Seattle is going to force a lawsuit to remove this illegal gun ban.

One thing Mayor Nickles, who by the way was not present at the hearing last night showing he has no care as to what the citizens think or want, thinks is going to win this over the state preemption is that it is not a law but rather a rule. Two things are going against him. The first is the opinion by Rob McKenna stating that creating a rule that’s sole purpose is to trespass people from city property for carrying a firearm is unlawful and not enforceable. The second is the legislative intent of the preemption law. You see, courts take into consideration what the intent was by the lawmakers when they created the law. It is very apparent from the wording of the law which states, “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.” that the intent of the lawmakers was to prevent firearm regulation by local municipalities. Mayor Nickels thinks because the preemption law does not specifically restrict a rule that he is within his power, or it could be that he does not care if he is within his power or not and is thumbing his nose at the state.

The public seems to be getting ready for the fight with Seattle and their proposed gun ban on Dec. 15th. There has been an FOIA request for the responses generated by the input form on the website that the city has out in place for citizens to voice their concerns, dis-pleasures, or agreement with the city. So far as of 2 days ago there were 1900 responses put in. Each one generated an e-mail so we are anxiously awaiting the distribution of these e-mails so we can really see where the citizens stand on this. It is anticipated that the extreme majority of these 1900+ inputs are in the opposition to the proposed ban by Mayor Nickels. So far it is unknown how the city council stands but we should have a good idea based upon their line of questioning, that is if they question at all. They may just sit and listen to each person who is fortunate enough to get their 90 seconds to speak.

What is known for sure is that The SAF, CCRKBA, and NRA are already planning thier lawsuit and have plaintiffs all lined up and ready to go. They are confident that if the defacto gun ban is passed they will be able to get it struck down due to the pre-emption law and case law. I would imagine that they are going to be using one of the same cases that Nickels says gives him the authority to enact the proposed ban by trespassing anyone who carries a firearm onto or into any city owend property. The case is PNWSA v. Sequim which allowed Sequim to put restrictions related to firearms on PNWSA because they were entering into a contract with the city. The court allowed the restrictions saying that because the city was entering into a contract they could enjoy the same rights as a private property owner would. The key element to that case was that the restrictions did not extend to the general public. This key piece is what Nickels and his attorneys are missing. I am sure that a judge will be able to read case law correctly and make the only ruling that can be possible. That judgement is that the administrative rule banning firearms is unlawful and not allowed under state law.

If you would like to help the fight against Seattle you can donate to The Second Amendment Foundation, which is right here in our own backyard of Bellevue, by going to their site and clicking on the “Make a Donation” link or you can click here and go directly to their donation page.

According to the city and their website they are planning to hold a public hearing on Dec. 15th at 6:30PM at City Hall. You can read their announcement on it here. This will more than likely be a very high attendance meeting so please get there early.

The thing that gets me with these yahoos is that they still insist that state law ans case law allow them to create a rules banning firearms because the cases of Cherry v Vashon Fire District and PNWSA v Sequim upheld the municipalities restrictions. As I have said before the city of Seattle is reading it the way they want to and leaving out key elements. In PNWSA the court allowed the restriction for two reasons. The first is that Sequim was acting in the same capacity as a private property owner because they were entering into a land usage contract with PNWSA. The second was because the rule, this being a key element to their ruling, did not restrict the possession of firearm to the general public.

The Cherry decision was also allowed for the reason that the safety of the firefighters and paramedics is paramount to the safety of the public and that harm to them could put the citizens of the district that they serve in peril.

I am very confused as to how these supposedly intelligent and educated people have come to the belief that they have. Personally I think they are bowing down to the “ruler” of Seattle. They certainly are not answering to a mayor. A mayor is supposed to listen to his constituents, but instead Nickels is acting as a dictator and showing that he does not have to abide by the laws of the land as can be seen in the photos in the second tab above taken by an OCDO member at a Washington Ceasefire victims of gun violence memorial service that was held at Green Lake Park.

Please join me and others from NWCDL and OCDO in sending a message to the city that we oppose this proposed rule and will no longer venture to Seattle to spend our money because we value our safety much more than they do. You can go to the city website here and give public input about this issue.

So even after the Mayor of Seattle was warned by the Attorney General that he cannot restrict the possession of firearms he is starting the attack. He has announced that he will move forward with his plan to ban firearms from all city owned property. People who still choose to carry a firearm in these so-called restricted areas will be asked to leave or surrender their pistol. If they refuse they will be arrested for criminal trespassing. A law that is not violated as long as the actor complied with all lawful requirements to remain in or on the property. The AG says that the mayor doing this is in direct violation of our state pre emption concerning firearms.

Apparently the mayor is above state law and can do whatever he feels like in “his” city. He is more than likely going to soon find that he is absolutely wrong and with that potentially cost the tax payers of Seattle money in the form of damages awarded in a lawsuit. He may even find himself on the wrong side of the law by violating a sate law himself that states “A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege he intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law.” You see he is citing a court case that he says gives him authority to manage city property as if the city were a private corporation. The case he is using to claim this is Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. The City of Sequim. The case hinged around a restriction place upon PNSPA by the city. PNSPA claimed that it was in violation of the pre emption statute and was therefore not a valid restriction. The Supreme Court of Washington found that it was in fact a valid restriction because PNSPA had entered into a contractual agreement and the city therefore was entitled to act as a private organization could. The court also made it very clear that the critical part of the ruling was that the restrictions that the city had put in place on PNSPA did not affect the general public. This is a fundamental piece that Mayor Nichols and his city lawyers are not reading or they are conveniently forgetting. Either way they are in violation of case law, a pre emption statute and if they pursue it further Article 1 Section 24 of the State Constitution as well as article 2 of the US Constitution.

Hopefully someone in the law enforcement community will step up to the plate and issue the mandatory appearance citation to the mayor if he issues the order. Hopefully the people of Seattle will see that this guy is not much less than Hitler or Stalin and vote him out of office by recall or the next election. Above all hopefully the Seattle Police Officers will not enforce this unlawful and draconian ban on our freedoms.