He's already in violation of WA's pre-emption statute with his city rules, but nobody has fought it in court yet. So he's been voted out, but before he goes he wants to get one last stab in.

Nickels proposes gun ban on parks and rec properties
http://www.nwcn.com/topstories...es-KS.19183734f.html

Give your feedback here: http://www.seattle.gov/firearmsrule/

They are talking about it KIRO right now. Waste of tax payer money and time. He should just step down at this point.

God, the man is such an idiot.

What a hog headed ass.

quote:

This is precisely the reason that I have not set foot in, nor spent one red cent in, the city of Seattle, the city where I was born and raised, for nearly five years. Greg Nickels and the Seattle city council continue to legislate in an arbitrary fashion against the law abiding while coddling the criminal element. Is this what he had in mind when he said that he wanted to make Seattle a "world class city"?

If I'd had the time... and the interest I'd have sent them links to EVERY SINGLE Seattle Times article from the past year on the assaults, murders and other violent crimes that have occurred within the Seattle parks.

You know... if I had the money I would finance open violation of these types of laws in every city in the state of Washington. Seattle would be first, then Federal Way, and move on from there. It's public property assholes!

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:
You know... if I had the money I would finance open violation of these types of laws in every city in the state of Washington. Seattle would be first, then Federal Way, and move on from there. It's public property assholes!

This is exactly what they count on...

BOTH of the candidates running to replace Nickles have stated publicly they support the (illegal) gun ban.

Schmucks.

quote:

Originally posted by AdkMtnGuy:

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:
You know... if I had the money I would finance open violation of these types of laws in every city in the state of Washington. Seattle would be first, then Federal Way, and move on from there. It's public property assholes!

This is exactly what they count on...

They count on being dragged before the state supreme court in a law suit over their violation of the state Constitution?

I disagree. I think they count on people being unable or unwilling to challenge their assumed authority in such matters. I think that the count on the subjects bending over for whatever ridiculous, authoritatiran rules they lay down, regardless of the legality of enforcability of such rules.

The city isn't going to make any money if I have the cash to shell out $50k or so to challenge their stupidity in a state court. It's going to cost them money to defend themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:
What a hog headed ass.

I'll second that!

Yep, I do think they count on it, based on the time, energy, and money it taked to battle something out. Some people tend to try to get away with what they can for as long as they can, this arrogance is just the criminal element in disguise. We all know this, but I don't many people say this, but it's what needs to be said. Think about it, have you ever said to anyone else, "Well I don't want to be a 'test case' on this one."? People/BS Lawmakers trampling rights and challenging the procedural matters of life count on it being cost-prohibitive for asserting your rights. $100.00 in ammunition, and $1000.00 on a gun is a LOT different than $50K to $100K spent on court case(s) and procedure.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:

quote:

Originally posted by AdkMtnGuy:

quote:

Originally posted by Psychobastard:
You know... if I had the money I would finance open violation of these types of laws in every city in the state of Washington. Seattle would be first, then Federal Way, and move on from there. It's public property assholes!

This is exactly what they count on...

They count on being dragged before the state supreme court in a law suit over their violation of the state Constitution?

I disagree. I think they count on people being unable or unwilling to challenge their assumed authority in such matters. I think that the count on the subjects bending over for whatever ridiculous, authoritatiran rules they lay down, regardless of the legality of enforcability of such rules.

The city isn't going to make any money if I have the cash to shell out $50k or so to challenge their stupidity in a state court. It's going to cost them money to defend themselves.

I think most people in Seattle were educated in Bezerkly Kalifornia. You mean Nickels is still there. I'm glad I moved east of the mountains, they always try to bring the sickness here, we keep send themback. Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Spad2008:
I think most people in Seattle were educated in Bezerkly Kalifornia. You mean Nickels is still there. I'm glad I moved east of the mountains, they always try to bring the sickness here, we keep send themback. Bill

The nutjobs on the I5 corridor between Everett and Olympia seem to think they run the enitre state. It's unfortunate that they have the largest bulk of the population and tend to swing state-wide elections.

Nickels and his anti-gun agenda are a joke. Thankfully, he'll soon be gone.

I'm wondering how much worse his replacement will be. T-Mobile exec Joe Mallahan was leading during the primary but McGinn was a close second. McGinn wants to completely remove the SR99 viaduct and rely on surface streets. That's already a joke as THE major choke point in that area is the 2-lane Alaskan Way route that runs past the waterfront area and the ferry terminal. During rush hours this route is close to parking lot efficient.

Oh well, one must free up that real estate so they can build condos with a view of Elliot Bay and the sound. I'm curious how the state views the city of Seattles plan on closing access to a stat highway... and a MAJOR state thoroughfare at that.

tool

It was only a matter of time, looks like it's official:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/67002177.html

BELLEVUE, Wash. -- Several organizations and five residents filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms at designated Seattle Parks and Recreation facilities where children and youth are likely to be present, such as playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, and golf courses.

Among those filing the suit are the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors.

"Every time the anti-gunners want to push gun control, they say we are doing this for the children," said Alan Gottlieb with the Second Amendment Foundation. "It's almost like it's their lead banner every single time, no matter what."

They say the ban violates Washington State's long-standing preemption statute.

"The ban makes it impossible, under threat of criminal trespass penalty, to lawfully carry firearms for the protection of spouses, partners and children on public property where these citizens have a right to be," he said.

But there was some support for the ban at Green Lake.

"I don't know why anyone needs a gun at a playground or any place where there are kids around," said Brain Nevenhouse.

But for others, they say the need for protection is everywhere. One of those party to the suit is Bob Kennar who supervises parolees for the state. He carries his own gun, because some of the bad guys don't like him.

"It's in the back of my mind," Kennar said. "I don't lose sleep over it, but like the police I know there's a chance that could happen."

Kennar has carried a gun for 29 years. He says the city of Seattle can't tell him no.

Ray Carter is gay. He's a founder of the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols. He carries a .380 because he says gays are targets and police can't prevent that.

"They can show up in time to write the report and mop up the blood and maybe find out who did it," Carter said. "As a potential victim that doesn't do me a lot of good."

Carter and Kennar use parks and community centers They understand the desire to protect children, but say they need protection too.

The ban went into effect on Oct. 14. Seattle officials say anyone who enters one of the posted facilities with a gun will be asked by Parks personnel or Seattle police officers to leave the area. If they refuse, they could be cited or arrested by police for trespassing.

After a man shot and injured three people at the 2008 Folklife Festival, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels directed city departments to evaluate rules, policies and leases related to guns. The suspect in last year's shooting had a concealed weapons permit and a history of mental health problems.

The rule won't go into effect at a specific facility until signs are posted outside notifying people of the gun ban. The signs will be posted in phases with all signs in place by Dec. 1.

Nickels had said in the past he doesn't believe the city is acting beyond its power, adding he is asserting the same rights private property owners have.

quote:

Originally posted by christuan:
It was only a matter of time, looks like it's official:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/67002177.html


"I don't know why anyone needs a gun at a playground or any place where there are kids around," said Brain Nevenhouse.

It's OK, Mr. No-Brain, we won't use our guns defense of your children, because you won't have to worry about pedophiles, kidnappers, etc. because those disgusting creatures are outlawed as well.

On the note of the rest of the story, this is AWESOME! If anyone gets hurt in the meantime, sue them (anti's) for the damages!

quote:

"I don't know why anyone needs a gun at a playground or any place where there are kids around," said Brain Nevenhouse.

I really hope this goes well because it will serve as a precedent to challenge cities like Federal Way that already have these assanine restrictions in place. If the city of Seattle loses this case, the others will be wide open.

Of course, any local who watches, listen or can read the news knows that Federal Ways gun restriction has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to limit the illegal carry and use of firearms in their parks by gang members... and wannabees. In fact, there are FDPD units PERMENANTLY located at Steel Lake park because of the gang activity and firearms violations. Our tax dollars at work.

NRA seems to be responding...

quote:

Friday, October 30, 2009
Link

On October 28, NRA filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid a recently enacted parks and recreation administrative policy that prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings. Other plaintiffs in the case include state correctional officers and private citizens.

"NRA members are outraged that the City of Seattle has ignored and defied state law and an opinion of Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "The NRA will continue to fight this senseless infringement on the rights of law-abiding Seattle gun owners."

The city is in violation of Washington's preemption statute, which forbids localities from enacting this type of ban. In October 2008, Attorney General Rob McKenna issued an opinion, which put the City of Seattle and Mayor Nickels on further notice that Washington cities may not enact local laws prohibiting possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities.

"Law-abiding Seattle gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves when they go about their business, even in a park or other recreation facility," concluded Cox.

The Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors, Inc. are working in conjunction with the NRA and are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city.

To read the complaint, please click here.
PDF File

How do you guys see this playing out?

quote:

Originally posted by sprint:
NRA seems to be responding...

quote:

Friday, October 30, 2009
Link

On October 28, NRA filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid a recently enacted parks and recreation administrative policy that prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings. Other plaintiffs in the case include state correctional officers and private citizens.

"NRA members are outraged that the City of Seattle has ignored and defied state law and an opinion of Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "The NRA will continue to fight this senseless infringement on the rights of law-abiding Seattle gun owners."

The city is in violation of Washington's preemption statute, which forbids localities from enacting this type of ban. In October 2008, Attorney General Rob McKenna issued an opinion, which put the City of Seattle and Mayor Nickels on further notice that Washington cities may not enact local laws prohibiting possession of firearms on city property or in city-owned facilities.

"Law-abiding Seattle gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves when they go about their business, even in a park or other recreation facility," concluded Cox.

The Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors, Inc. are working in conjunction with the NRA and are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the city.

To read the complaint, please click here.
PDF File

How do you guys see this playing out?

Thanks for posting up the .pdf. How do I see this going? The state pre-empts local municipalities in all concerns regarding the regulation of firearms. It's so blatantly clear, that the fact that Nickels simply disregarded the AG's opinion speaks mountains about his arrogance and absolute disconnect with reality.

NRA for the win.

I love the city of Seattle, but I have to say, Nickels a true nutjob.

This is the part that really disturbs me:

quote:

Nickels had said in the past he doesn't believe the city is acting beyond its power, adding he is asserting the same rights private property owners have.

Public property is not private property: City property is not the property of the Mayor.

So what "private property" rights does the Mayor have? None! If this is his justification for banning guns from parks his ordinances are nothing more than opinions (when did Seattle become a monarchy?).

Actually, I'm surprised Nickels hadn't outright sold the City of Seattle since he basically has no chance for re-election. That's right, it's his private property, so he would be wise to sell it since he's going to lose it anyway. Sell the police force (well, keep some of the guns for himself), sell the public works services, sell the briges the roadways (f'n peons, let them pay toll!). Private property can be sold at the owner's fiat right? Find out how much the city's combined asset are and blow 'em out!