Seattle’s anti-gun administration may have gotten a strong signal about the city’s chances of winning a court battle to skirt Washington State’s 1983 preemption act, courtesy of yesterday’s ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that upholds the Buckeye State’s 2006 preemption statute.
Washington’s law has served as a model, and a benchmark, for similar statutes adopted by legislatures across the country over the past two decades. The Ohio case, City of Cleveland v. State, involves a challenge of Ohio's preemption law by the City of Cleveland that was filed in 2007, about three months after the Ohio legislature passed its statute.
Seattle officials lost the first round before King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer in their attempt to defy state preemption earlier this year by banning firearms in city park facilities – a case this column mentioned in yesterday’s round-up of the top gun rights stories of 2010 – and is now preparing for a hearing before the State Court of Appeals, Division I. The city was successfully sued by Bellevue’s Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the National Rifle Association, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.
This was a case that should never have been necessary. Months before it was filed, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb had warned the city that its plan for a gun ban on city-owned property would bring a lawsuit. Then-Mayor Greg Nickels, a founding member of the anti-gun Mayors Against Illegal Guns, pushed ahead, ignoring an opinion from State Attorney General Rob McKenna that such a ban would violate state law. The NRA told SAF and CCRKBA that it would be delighted to join the lawsuit and the Arms Collectors were invited to participate. Nickels must have thought they were all bluffing; a colossal miscalculation if that was the case because, in this column's experience, SAF and NRA don't bluff. Just ask the cities of New Orleans and San Francisco.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruling is significant because of the strong home rule tradition there. The decision was important enough to get the attention of the New York Times and Associated Press. It is also discussed this morning by blogger Eugene Volokh. Oho Attorney General Richard Cordray hailed the ruling, as did the NRA and Ohioans for Concealed Carry.
Washington’s preemption law, amended and strengthened in 1985 and again in 1994, has held up rather well over the years. It eliminated a patchwork of local laws and placed sole authority for firearms regulation in the hands of the State Legislature. As a result, Washington gun laws are now uniform from Ione to Ilwaco; what is legal in Pullman is also the law in Port Angeles.
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. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.—RCW 9.41.290
Writing for the 5-2 majority, Ohio Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, noted that “absent a uniform law throughout the state, law abiding gun owners would face a confusing patchwork of licensing requirements, possession restrictions, and criminal penalties as they travel from one jurisdiction to another.”
This logic must infuriate anti-gun Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and his predecessor, Nickels, and their allies at Washington CeaseFire. They would love to undo state preemption in order to establish their own gun laws within the Seattle city limits, essentially creating a “city state” where otherwise law-abiding gun owners might find themselves in big trouble for doing something that is perfectly legal everywhere else on Evergreen State soil (does Open Carry ring a bell?).
As one might expect, the two most liberal members of the Ohio high court, Chief Justice Eric Brown and Justice Paul Pfeifer, dissented.
Cleveland had adopted a series of gun control ordinances prior to enactment of the 2006 preemption statute, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The ordinances also mandated handgun registration and banned open carry; regulations that closely mirror the official philosophy between Lake Washington and Elliott Bay.
Two of the seven Justices dissented, but I find it hard to understand their argument. They reasoned, quoting an earlier case, that “in order for ... a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object,” and concluded that there was no conflict warranting preemption because “the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68, because they does not permit something that the statute forbids or vice versa.” But how could this be so?—Eugene Volokh
Washington’s preemption statute reflects the logic behind the state’s strong constitutional right to bear arms provision adopted in 1889; language that made so much sense that it was copied word-for-word by the authors of Arizona’s state constitution, adopted about 20 years later.
This year’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court incorporating the Second Amendment to the states – listed here yesterday as the most significant civil rights story of 2010, and perhaps the decade – adds an additional roadblock to Seattle’s attempt to set itself above the law and the state and federal constitutions.
The next few months could be very interesting as the State Legislature convenes in about two weeks. Seattle lobbyists will no doubt come begging for money. McGinn has made enemies in Olympia over the tunnel project. No telling how state solons will react to the city’s direct challenge of their authority in an attempt to undo a law that has served this state well for a quarter-century.
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
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
Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities
Comments
And the Washington State Governor's Duties, as written 1889?
"and to see that the laws are faithfully executed."
Only here would, 18 USC 241 and 242 confuse the Governor.
Of course her best friend running the U.S. Attorney's Office. isn't that confusing either, with Durkin's previous employment, defending Christines indefensable illegal acts too.
Until there is some form of personal liability attached, the taxpayers will carry the load for this foolishness.
The politicians will dance, but you and I pay the piper.
From the ruling:
.
"Two of the seven Justices dissented, but I find it hard to understand their argument. They reasoned, quoting an earlier case, that “in order for ... a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object, ..."
.
THAT is COMPLETE BS!
.
See here: Both the State and Federal constitutions are legal documents which speak about 'enumerated powers.'
.
Neither of those two documents are about 'individual rights.' And that being the case, the two goofs who dissented either got their law degrees from a Crackerjack box, or the were asleep when that matter of enumerated powers was being discussed.
.
Since our individual rights PRECEDE both constitutions, and because those documents are =express limitations= upon the exercise of the enumerated powers, then any such thought as those dissenters express is ~extremely~ specious.
.
Continues ...
The laws which proceed from said constitutions are ~also~ limited to the exercise of authorized powers.
.
In other words: WE DO NOT need 'permission' to exercise our rights.
.
But what the two dissenters are saying is that permission must have been granted in the law prior to any complaint to have been valid.
.
But our constitutions DO NOT GRANT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, as there is =NO SUCH ENUMERATION= for to do so.
.
The whole idea 'granting rights' is =completely= inimical to very thought and purpose of limited government.
As a Jewess in the US, I say it is time for all REAL Americans to put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!! Remember that America wasn't won with a registered gun!!
your governor won election on voter fraud,that means she is a fraud when it comes to obeying our constitution.this bitch is a commie traitor like all national socialist democratic workers party members.she like president bongo belong in orange jump suits.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!