The City of Seattle is arguing that a state appeals court “misread” earlier case law regarding Washington State’s model preemption act, which sounds vaguely reminiscent of what the gun prohibition lobby contended after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 landmark Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller.
More than two years ago, this column (which bears re-visiting) discussed that “living in denial” approach to reality, and yesterday’s petition for review by Seattle shows the city needs some adult supervision. Mayor Mike McGinn and his administration didn’t get their way, so there obviously was a mistake on the part of the Appeals Court.
Mistakes have been made in this case, alright, say the plaintiffs - The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual citizens - but they were made by former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and his successor, McGinn. They didn’t listen when Attorney General Rob McKenna told the city such bans are illegal. They ignored the warnings from SAF, NRA and CCRKBA that a ban would be followed by a lawsuit.
A careful read of the press release from the City Attorney’s office shows they can’t even get some basic things correct, which is surprising, because the media contact there is Kimberly Mills, former associate editor and deputy city editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and not prone to making mistakes..
The three-judge court upheld a ruling by a King County Superior Court judge, who initially heard the case brought by six people with concealed weapons permits who were individually turned away from City parks for carrying firearms after the ban went into effect in 2008 under then Mayor Greg Nickels.
There were five individuals in this lawsuit. Another lawsuit was filed by an individual in federal court on Second Amendment grounds, but he lost and he was never part of this case. This state does not have a “concealed weapons permit” but a Concealed Pistol License.
The city’s pro bono attorneys are essentially suggesting that the unanimous Appeals Court ruling – discussed by this column, and written by Presiding Chief Judge Ann Schindler – was all wet and they want the State Supreme Court to review the decision. Some reactions to the announcement, reported by this column yesterday, suggest that the city is grasping at straws in its attempt to impose a ban on firearms in city parks and park facilities, such as community centers.
At stake is the preemption statute, itself, which would be a trophy for the gun ban movement. Because Washington’s 1983 law became a model for so many other states, if this statute is eroded it would quite likely be the catalyst for similar challenges to preemption in other states.
The petition for review essentially admits that:
"The [appeals court] ruling in this case affects the authority of hundreds of county and municipal governments to set conditions for use of properties they own…”
As noted yesterday, the argument also falls back on one of the all-time favorite “crutch issues” of the gun prohibition movement: It is really for the children. And Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes didn’t skip a beat when he also pulled tried-and-not-so-true-anymore rhetoric from the gun prohibition playbook when he portrayed the gun ban as reasonable and common-sense.
“Seattle did not attempt to ban firearms for all City property, just parks and playgrounds frequented by families with children. The notion that Seattle can’t protect their most vulnerable residents on the City’s own property is inimical to the principles of local autonomy. Every Washingtonian should be alarmed that state law has been interpreted to prevent such reasonable common-sense local controls.”—Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes
Don’t these people ever get tired of reading from the same old script?
For those not familiar with the Appeals Court ruling, read it here. Judge Schindler appears to have done a rather extensive review and analysis of the earlier Supreme Court rulings. Instead of misreading those rulings as the city is alleging, Judge Schindler has taken considerable time to explain exactly what the Supreme Court earlier ruled, and what the high court actually meant. Her analysis is meticulous.
All of this may be academic, anyway. According to one knowledgeable attorney, “review by the Washington Supreme Court is discretionary, which means the City must convince the Supreme Court that there is a significant reason for further appellate review.”
And what are the odds of that? According to the attorney, the state Supreme Court only accepts review of 15 percent of all the cases presented to the court. The odds in this case may be higher because this case has some “strong public policy implications.”
Plaintiffs have until Dec. 30 to file a response, explaining why the Supreme Court should reject the petition. One of the stronger arguments: Two lower court rulings have detailed why the preemption law prevails in this case, and the Appeals Court ruling was unanimous and written by a respected jurist who is no amateur.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above
And Don’t forget to visit:
VISIT THESE GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard | Oakland Yih-Chau Chang
ALSO VISIT:
‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
READ:
America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns
Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns
Comments