A King County, WA superior court judge threw some haymakers into a ruling that strikes down the City of Seattle’s illegal ban on guns in city parks, granting not only a summary judgment request from the plaintiffs, but also issuing a permanent injunction against the city, which has 30 days to remove signs from some 500 different facilities. The injunction takes effect Wednesday, Feb. 17.
The lawsuit was filed last fall by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, plus the National Rifle Association, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.
Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.
“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.
The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”
To everyone’s surprise, she also mentioned the landmark Heller ruling against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that found the Second Amendment to be protective of an individual civil right, an issue that was never brought up in the SAF/NRA legal argument. She also dissected and individually demolished the city’s legal arguments. According to a West Seattle blog, the city is weighing its options and has 30 days to appeal.
Judge Shaffer’s ruling ends 18 months of legal wrangling, most of it in the court of public opinion before the lawsuit was actually filed last autumn. A second lawsuit, this one filed in federal district court by a man named Robert Warden, is still pending. Incredibly, one of the city’s major news agencies initially reported incorrectly that Warden’s lawsuit had been won. Warden’s lawsuit has nothing to do with the Friday ruling. Later Friday, that information was corrected.
There was one surprise in the judge’s ruling, however. She found that SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and WAC all lacked standing as organizations, but that the individual plaintiffs had standing. She dismissed the organizational claims “with prejudice.”
SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb accepted that part of the ruling, noting in a telephone conversation that the important thing is “we won.” He issued a statement to the press following Judge Shaffer's ruling.
This is a critical victory for gun rights advocates for a several reasons.
First, it solidifies the state’s model preemption act, adopted more than 25 years ago, and strengthened two years later. Had Washington’s preemption law essentially been gutted by this case, it could have had implications for preemption statutes in other 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. 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
Second, the ruling puts other local government entities on notice — specifically Snohomish County, where the Democrat-dominated county council last month brushed aside an opportunity to repeal a 30-year-old ordinance banning guns in county parks — that they must comply with state law. Democrats on the council cavalierly ignored the state preemption statute, instead choosing to “wait and see” what happened with the Seattle case. Now they know.
Third, the ruling is one more slap to the face of former Mayor Greg Nickels, who arrogantly pushed the gun ban, insisting that the city had the right to regulate guns on park property as though it were private property. A vehement anti-gunner, Nickels is now spreading his view of government to the fertile minds of students at Harvard.
Nickels’ arrogance and inability to deal with last winter’s snow crisis cost him the mayor’s race during the August primary. That was a political rout, as Nickels came in third behind two political newcomers, signaling that even in far left liberal Seattle, people can eventually get their fill of his kind of demagoguery.
The ruling puts others of Nickels’ ilk on notice that they will fare poorly when they defy state statute.
Perhaps what is disturbing about this case is that SAF and NRA, and specifically Gottlieb, gave the city numerous chances to back out of the effort gracefully even before a lawsuit was filed. Multiple warnings came from both organizations, and CCRKBA, that if Nickels pushed for and adopted a ban that he would get slapped with a lawsuit. If anyone thought SAF, CCRKBA and NRA were bluffing, Friday’s court ruling provided ample proof that those organizations don’t bluff.
We will comply with the court order and we are weighing with our clients the options for an appeal.”-Kathy Mulady, Seattle City Attorney’s office
Nickels and the city were advised early on by State Attorney General Rob McKenna that their logic was all wet, and that any kind of ban would violate the preemption law. A SAF attorney sent a very detailed explanation to the city more than 18 months ago why it would lose in court. Seattle ignored his advice and lost big time.
Lastly, this case was also a big loser for Washington CeaseFire, the extremist gun prohibitionist group that had thrown its waning influence behind the ban. CeaseFire also supported the recently-debated, and defeated, ban on so-called “assault weapons.” CeaseFire’s relevancy has been slipping for a couple of years. CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli had a hard time in Olympia recently with open carry activists. This court ruling probably gives him heartburn, while the open carry crowd has been cheering.
For what it’s worth, the crack SAF legal team in Seattle consisting of attorneys Steve Fogg and Molly Malouf with Corr Cronin did a smashing job. Their legal briefs were rock solid.
The pity is that if Nickels and the city had not been so arrogant and stubborn, this case would not have been necessary.
Comments
It's truly a shame, that 4th grade reading comprehension, can't be taught at the Seattle School District!
“court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”
This is great news, and a conclusive precedent has been set!
Legally speaking, there is really no other way the court could have gone with this. All existing law is on our side.
Now, I wonder if the city has the cojones to make their former mayor pay back the $10,000 that was spent on signs and such for this illegal undertaking.
Actually he should be going to jail, like Nickles Jr. by the FBI!
Conspiracy against rights 18 USC 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both...
He got fair warning, with a clearly AG's Opinion, of course when you believe your in the State of Nickles, it should be a 5 year minimum!
Good news, Dave. Good coverage of the issue, thanks.
Now ... keep your eye on the legislature!
McCleray v. Washington, Judge Erlic, discussing education?
136. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, in a recent visit to Seattle, lamented the lack of civics education in schools. She noted a study that found “Two thirds of Americans know at least one of the judges on the Fox TV show ‘American Idol,’ but less than one in ten can name the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”
Like those City Attorneys?
"The unsafe storage handling situations..."Chief of Police?
It is not a City Policy to attempt to enance public safety..." RCWs dont preempt rules...? See: Mr. Madison, and Mr Jeffersons Street in Seattle?
"All of which are calibrated...?"
"Plaintiffs give short shrift to controlling Supreme Ct cases...?
""Plaintiffs rely heavely on AG opinion? Did he pass law school 101?
"The actually believe the Department owns the Parks."
Justice O'Conner, return to Seattle for another Marbury v Madison lesson on "written instruments?
Flunking law 101!
Ever attend a Tea Party?
Chief Justice Marshall, who had been a captain in the Revolutionary War, authored a five-volume biography of George Washington, his commander at Valley Forge.
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, beco
Hooah!
This ruling reaffirms my faith in our system of government which protects us against the arbitary whims of executive administrator. Dave thanks for the good news!
It will take a hell of a lot more cases than just this one to restore my confidence in the little local tyrants that are often elected across the country.
When we can carry "loaded, ready for immediate use" firearms from coast to coast and border to border as Divine Providence and the founders intended without fear of being prosecuted by some weazel DA somewhere in between, we will have a significant win.
And as another earlier poster said, "now watch out for the legislature" as most give little if any thought to the Constitution and BoR when perpetrating their crimes against the citizenry.
I'm in favor of bringing back the tradition of Tar and Feathering.
Catherine Schaffer for WA State Supreme Court! :o)
What is truly a shame is that these people knew they were violating state law when they passed the ordinance and especially when they posted the signs. Further they violated the law when they gave instructions to Law Enforcement to enforce this ordinance and LE violated the law when they complied with those instructions.
Where the Hell are the charges by the State's Attorney? Or the U.S. Attorney ? These people conspired to and did violate the civil rights of all the citizens of Seattle.
So when do we get to hear about Mr. Nickels prosecution for official misconduct? He intentionally violated State law for the purpose of depriving citizens of their lawful rights. Sounds like a pretty cut-and-dried example of what RCW 9A.80.010 is all about:
(1) 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:
(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or
(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.
(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.
Couple of things:
Straightarrow: It wasn't an ordinance, it was an administrative rule.
Jason (and others): You'd have a hard time proving official misconduct as Nickels & company would simply explain that they truly believed they had the authority under the Sequim ruling to push a parks gun ban, despite the fact that the AG's office said otherwise.
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
Dave,
Your comments:
-------------
Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner says:
Couple of things:
Straightarrow: It wasn't an ordinance, it was an administrative rule.
Jason (and others): You'd have a hard time proving official misconduct as Nickels & company would simply explain that they truly believed they had the authority under the Sequim ruling to push a parks gun ban, despite the fact that the AG's office said otherwise.
--------------
[1] Do administrative rules overtake --or even equal-- the State Constitution?
[2] What good is a law (the Constitution) if it can't be enforced against the most prominent law-breakers?
[3] If said law-breakers are allowed legal leniency while the rest of us are held to account, then what good is the law as far as the rest of us are concerned?
[4] Consonant with [3] above, may any of us break the law and declare that we 'truly believed' we were right and get away with it? If not, then how so with him?
Highlander +1
I truly believed it was legal for me to take money from the bank teller why showing her my shiny new gun. Huh uh! That dog won't hunt.
Administrative Procedures Act
Judicial Review
(b) A person whose rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514, seeking an order pursuant to this subsection requiring performance. Within twenty days after service of the petition for review, the agency shall file and serve an answer to the petition, made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action. The court may hear evidence, pursuant to RCW 34.05.562, on material issues of fact raised by the petition and answer.
(c) Relief for persons aggrieved by the performance of an agency action, including the exercise of discretion, or an action under (b) of this subsection can be granted only if the court determines that the action is:
(i) Unconstitutional;
(ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority conferred by a provision of law;
(iii) Arbitrary or capric
The Supreme Court disagreed with DSHS, holding that the statute created a mandatory duty. Coalition, 133 Wn.2d at 908. "While the Department is afforded discretion under the statute in developing the plan required, it must comply with the clear language of the statute when it exercises that discretion[.]" Coalition, 133 Wn.2d at 912. Whether DSHS had exercised its procedural discretion under the statute in a manner not arbitrary and capricious was simply not at issue. DSHS could not claim to be acting within its discretion when it denied the very existence of its duties. Thus, the Coalition court held that agencies must comply with mandatory legislative directives and Hillis explains that agencies have discretion in the manner in which they carry out those duties.
Mr. Workman,
First, very nice article. Do you, or does anyone else have a link to the full case ruling?
Second, I contacted you a while ago about a similar issue with a certain police chief creating a similar administrative policy,. I believe this article has given me some more inspiration to legally challenge his attitude on an illegal policy. I'll stay in touch with you.
My City, Clarksville, TN has outlawed carry in it's parks.
Will this decision have any effect in TN, and if so/or not, how do I fight it here?
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!