Opposing Views: OPINION:Seattle Breaks the Law Again, Attacks Law-Abiding Gun Owners
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Seattle Breaks the Law Again, Attacks Law-Abiding Gun Owners
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yay for Mayor Nichols!
He decided to fire a parting "last shot" with this law as he leaves office. It is funny that the NRA contributor called this approach an "ill-concieved ban ". Dont be so fast to discredit this, the "plan" was never to have this new law stand unchallenged. The "plan" is to have the process play out through the courts and possibly spark a referendum initiative taken straight to the voters. Basically an end run around the mighty NRA who now has to mount a very expensive public policy campaign.
- seattlechris October 17, 2009 11:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Delusions abound.
In case you have not been paying attention, the SCOTUS has agreed to hear McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago. These cases are challenging gun bans like your hero Nichols' gun ban . Given the stance this court took just last year in Heller v. D.C., the SCOTUS is poised to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.
End run? Not so fast, BB.
- SolarSanitizer
October 17, 2009 5:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Curious.
Assuming that SCOTUS decides to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. I believe they will, but I'm less confident than you are. Frankly, I thought the majority opinion in Heller was weak since it failed to address many of Steven's very good points based on our history. I still would have sided with the majority, but I thought the opinion was poorly constructed.
Anyway, to my point. If the 2nd amendment is incorporated, are you one of the people who holds that the government cannot or is extremely limited in what places it can ban weapons, like in this case of a park or community center? And if you do believe they can limit possession in certain places, where would you draw the line (in general)?
One of the disappointments of the Heller decision is that they barely addressed that concern. It was just a vague line about sensitive places like schools or government buildings. It made sense they didn't comment on that, given the case, but it would have been interesting (and helpful for states) to get a formal opinion.
I go to a pretty liberal university, so it's nearly impossible to find gun rights people to actually discuss this with so I'm jumping on my chance.
- caelum
October 19, 2009 1:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm up for the discussion.
"Assuming that SCOTUS decides to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states. I believe they will, but I'm less confident than you are."
Much of my prediction comes from the make-up of the court. It just leans to the right, plain and simple. Some comes from my reading of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in McDonald v. Chicago. The case is made so well, that I would be surprised if the case was sent back down for review or if they opined in favor of Chicago.
The rest comes from pure hope. I hope that the Court will rule similarly the Heller Court.
"Frankly, I thought the majority opinion in Heller was weak since it failed to address many of Steven's very good points based on our history."
We have to acknowledge that the Court will answer the question. It doesn't have to address everything brought up in argument. I'd have liked to see a broader opinion also, but now that McDonald will be heard, I am kind of glad they didn't rule broadly. This is because the McDonald opinion might incorporate the 2nd, and this is arguably much better for those who value gun rights .
"Anyway, to my point. If the 2nd amendment is incorporated, are you one of the people who holds that the government cannot or is extremely limited in what places it can ban weapons, like in this case of a park or community center? And if you do believe they can limit possession in certain places, where would you draw the line (in general)?"
Short answer: Yes. I think that the 2nd would prohibit the government from banning firearms in public places. There should not be anything illegal about a citizen observing his/her 2nd amendment right. I also think that since the government can withhold funding to private entities if they violate other civil liberties, the same should be the case with this civil liberty. If your school receives federal finding, then they should stand to lose that funding for violating your 2nd amendment right. With incorporation, the same thing would hold true for state funding, wouldn't it?
"One of the disappointments of the Heller decision is that they barely addressed that concern."
Yeah, Roberts left it pretty open to interpretation. I explain why below.
It was just a vague line about sensitive places like schools or government buildings."
He left it open to interpretation to get enough votes, most likely. They knew that there would be further cases on the subject and since Heller was narrow in its scope, being in D.C. only, latitude was extended to Congress. I don't know how widely it will rule in McDonald, but it will apply to all of the states since it originated in a state.
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 2:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Slightly Disagree.
You appear to take it slightly farther than I would. I think certain bans like at schools or in courthouses would be appropriate and meet strict scrutiny. I think in places like schools or courthouses you could make the argument that it meets that standard because you are attempting to impose something necessary or crucial, such as the feeling of safety or security in an educational or judicial environment . We can debate whether the fear is rational or irrational, but the reality is that some people are just afraid of someone that has a gun (especially if they have it in a school ) and I think a case could be made that the government has a significant interest in preserving those institutions from (irrational or rational) fear on the part of people partaking in them. I'm fine in most places, but I tend to thing arms can be restricted in certain places (the case of Seattle here with parks and community center is overly broad and doesn't meet the tailored requirement, in my opinion).
On funding, I agree you are technically correct that the government can withhold funding for institutions that do that. I doubt they ever would, either at a state or federal level. A democratic administration (either federal or state) never would and I'm not even sure a republican one would want to deal with the political backlash from those moderates who go with republicans mostly on economic policy grounds, unless they were in an overwhelmingly red state.
- caelum
October 19, 2009 12:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of course you are free to disagree.
I can be content that it is only by a slight degree, which means we are largely on the same page.
As for the courthouse/schoolhouse bans:
Concealed carry solves the conflict. Nobody has their civil liberty "abridged" and nobody is afraid (rationally or irrationally).
On funding:
If/when America learns to prize their 2nd amendment right as much as they prize all other incorporated rights, popular opinion could very well change .
Imagine a State University that systemically banned the students' 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment right? Think the government would fund them? Why should there be any difference whatsoever for the 2nd amendment?
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 4:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
shame on you
I hope that the Court will rule similarly the Heller Court.
such poor grammar.
- dingo1 October 21, 2009 2:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You know...
You seem like a person who would be more interested in your second amendment rights than the average person. We have that in common, actually.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Petition for a writ of Certiorari in the case of McDonald v. Chicago.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf
So, how about it? Are you interested in on-topic discussion?
- SolarSanitizer
October 21, 2009 2:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To further clarify a particular point.
The Heller decision only applied to the federal government , since the case originated in D.C.
The opinion of the McDonald and NRA cases against Chicago will be binding to every state in the union, if the 2nd amendment is incorporated.
Incorporation means that through the 14th amendment, selected rights in the constitution apply to the states. This is how slaves gained the legal status: People, as opposed to property. If you already knew this all, my apologies. It seemed that you either did not, or forgot about it, when you stated, "...but it would have been interesting (and helpful for states) to get a formal opinion."
- SolarSanitizer
October 19, 2009 2:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If you only had a brain.
Who do you think will be picking up the tab for the state's case? I'll give you a hint. That would be you dear.
In the mean time, Americans are arming themselves at the fastest pace in history as a result of scofflaws of the mayor Nichols ilk. Gun sales have skyrocketed in the past year and citizens are stockpiling ammo at a rate never seen before. If the goal of the Brady Bunch is to see a lower level of gun ownership, their program is having the exact opposite effect. The more petty fascists such as Nichols try to trample the rights and liberties of the American people, the more the American people will recognize the threat and resist. The guy would would once have picked up a box or two of shells for a day at the range, now buys several thousand rounds at a time. The guys who once sat on the fence on gun control issues, figuring if they ever wanted one, they could buy one, are now armed to the teeth.
I don't think there has ever been a time when a criminal with good underworld connections couldn't find someone to sell him a gun on short notice. On the other hand, those of us without connections to the criminal underworld are seeing our rights vanish at a terrifying pace.
So get a clue. It's YOUR tax dollars Nichols is spending and it's the Nichols types and their contempt for the Constitution that is fueling record gun and cartridge sales.
- Don Earl
October 17, 2009 11:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Slow down or lighten up
Thanks Don,
Sorry that the sarcasm in my original post didn't come through but i am not a proponent of Nichols or his solutions to crime and vagrancy in "his" city parks.
My point was that the Seattle city council and Mayor Nichols team that drafted this had the ultimate goal to work through the courts and eventually find enough traction for a state initiative. The NRA rep made it seem as though this eventuality was not considered by the laws authors.
- seattlechris October 18, 2009 2:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read the statute.
The State preemption statute:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9 .41.290
The authority of cities under the statute:
"(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:...(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070..."
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9 .41.300
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the statute and the intent is quite clear. Its purpose is to directly address the kind of stunts Nichols is trying to pull. I'm not a big fan of the NRA, but they're dead right on this one. What Nichols is doing is plainly illegal . Contrary to your view this "eventually" was not contemplated by the law 's authors, it was, in fact contemplated, and unconditionally barred.
While I'm at it, something I don't often see mentioned in the way of gun safety, etc. is taking time to know the laws governing firearm ownership locally and nationally. As a gun owner and holder of a concealed pistol license, I've taken enough time to read and understand what the laws are. IMO, that's almost as important as basic gun safety practices. One thing that readily becomes apparent from comments by the Brady Bunch crowd is how hopelessly little they know about firearms and the laws that are already in place.
Why not apply for a concealed pistol license? You don't have to own a gun, but it would surely wake you up to just how restrictive the process has become. I have a lot more respect for the views of those who express informed opinions than I do for those who just express opinions.
- Don Earl
October 18, 2009 4:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
McDonald v. Chicago; NRA v. Chicago
Depending upon what is decided, some cities and states could become far less safe when only criminals are armed and law -abiding citizens are restricted from owning or forbidden access to firearms .
As for what's being done in Seattle, it seems a lot like what we have here in Florida. You are not allowed to take firearms on to government property, state-wide. This includes all state-owned facilities or buildings owned by counties and cities. There is still some gray area, as nothing in the Miami-Dade Public Transit website forbids permit carriers from exercising their privileges while using city buses or the rail system. At least for the time being.
However, note that I said "privileges" instead of "rights." In Florida we have been led to believe that we do not have a Right to defend ourselves while in Public unless we as individuals apply for permits (through the Brady Campaign) which allow us to technically break the laws that are set in place. My opinion is that if you've been able to prove, by State and Federal background checks, that you are a responsible and law-abiding citizen then you should not be prohibited from carrying on to government property.
All this shows is that they have an illogical fear of lawful citizens by making them criminals irregardless of intent.
- m46607
October 20, 2009 2:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.