Does the City of Seattle under Mayor Greg Nickels believe that one civil right is more important than another, perhaps at the peril of the city’s gay residents who will participate in PrideFest at the Seattle Center?
It’s beginning to appear that way, as gay gun rights activists note with chagrin that, while the city will allow anti-gay demonstrators at the Seattle Center in recognition of their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly, the city is requiring PrideFest organizers to prohibit firearms at the Center as part of its lease agreement.
It is also beginning to appear that Nickels lacks the guts to actually issue his long-threatened executive order banning guns, probably because he knows he will be immediately sued, and that he will lose. So, instead he plays this little game of forcing lease holders to enforce a ban, which they have no authority under law to do, and should not be put into such a position in the first place. Only cowards force others to do their dirty work.
“It is the City’s policy,” says the agreement, “to not allow events on City property at which the event organizers permit the possession of firearms. As a condition of entering into this agreement, Licensee agrees to prohibit any person, except for law enforcement officers and on-duty security personnel, from possessing firearms at Licensee’s Event in the Facility(ies), and to take reasonable steps to notify Licensee’s audiences, staff, volunteers, vendors and contractors of this prohibition. City shall provide and place signage notifying the public of this policy at all main entrances to the Seattle Center campus and to the Facility(ies), and shall conduct regular training in implementing the foregoing policy for its Admission personnel and contract Peer Group personnel.”
One gun rights activist suggested that PrideFest simply appoint any armed citizen who attends the event as an on-duty security officer while they are on site.
The Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation has promised to sue Nickels and the city if the mayor goes through with his threat to sign an executive order banning all firearms from city property, in defiance of the state’s 25-year old preemption statute. That lawsuit will reportedly be joined by the National Rifle Association, and three individual plaintiffs.
It is the City’s policy to not allow events on City property at which the event organizers permit the possession of firearms.
Anti-gay protests at the Center in past years have, according to one gay gun owner, speaking on condition of anonymity, left many gays and lesbians feeling threatened and intimidated, and worried about their safety. Yet the city dismisses their concerns. This is yet another manifestation of the social bigotry against firearms owners being practiced in Nickels' Seattle. He's all for gay rights, until that gay person decides to exercise his or her rights under the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution. At that point, the gay person's rights suddenly become far inferior to the First Amendment rights of anti-gay protesters, or even the illegal activities of gay bashers who may be attracted to the Seattle Center to commit a violent hate crime.
This one-sided approach to gun rights seems to be standard operating procedure for Seattle under Greg Nickels. Two Town Hall meetings to address youth violence are scheduled this month, on June 15 at Eckstein Middle School and on June 25 at The Hall at Faultleroy. At the latter event, the scheduled keynoter is Dr. Gary Slutkin, executive director of Chicago Ceasefire, an anti-gun-rights organization. An e-mail to the city inquiring whether someone from a firearms rights organization would also be invited to speak went unanswered.
Both meetings run 6:30-9 p.m. and are open to the public.
UPDATE: Activists in Olympia report that no such prohibitions will apply to a Pride event scheduled June 20 in that city. The event will be patrolled by Washington State troopers and Olympia police.
Update on Holocaust Museum shooting
It now appears that slain Holocaust Museum guard Stephen T. Johns was not wearing soft body armor, despite a plea from a union official some two years ago that guards be issued protective vests.
Johns was reportedly hit in the upper left chest by a round fired from a gun held by shooting suspect James von Brunn, 88, who was subsequently wounded by other guards. Johns apparently opened the museum door for the elderly gunman, who promptly raised his rifle and fired. Johns never drew his sidearm.
The FBI is being closed-mouthed on the type of firearm that was used, but MSNBC reported this morning that the gun is so old that it cannot be traced. It either has no serial number or the serial number was removed or simply was worn off. Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, a lot of firearms had no serial numbers. This was particularly true of .22-caliber rimfires and lower-priced shotguns.
Had this gun been a semi-automatic sport-utility rifle, erroneously dubbed an “assault weapon” in recent years by a sensationalist anti-gun press, we would have known it almost immediately. But law enforcement officials are unusually reluctant to provide details on this gun. Why? Is it possible that the gun was a mere .22-caliber rimfire, which fires a bullet that could have easily been stopped by a protective vest, had guard Stephen Johns been given one to wear?
UPDATE: The Washington Post and Associated Press are now reporting that von Brunn was, indeed, armed with a .22-caliber rifle. It was reportedly loaded with ten rounds.
Charging documents do not identify the make or model of the rifle recovered, but do say that three spent casings were recovered at the scene and ten rounds remained in the magazine.
It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe -- Paul Helmke
Ronald Reagan, James Brady, Metro Police officer Thomas Delahanty and Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy were all wounded with .22-caliber bullets, fired from a handgun held by John Hinckley, Jr.
Gun prohibitionists wasted no time in exploiting the tragedy, and some of the rhetoric has been over the top.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, was quoted by the Washington Times insisting, “Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation's capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas. It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe.”
Helmke conveniently overlooks the fact that virtually every mass shooting in this country in the past 15 years has occurred in a “gun-free zone.” Those places are risk-free working environments for the madmen – or terrorists – who perpetrate a mass shooting, and Helmke knows it.
However, Helmke’s remarks were almost tame in comparison to a statement from Josh Horwitz at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
“What we are seeing play out in tragedies across our country is the mixing of the insurrectionist idea with increasingly weaker gun laws,” he said in a prepared statement. “In shooting after shooting, we have seen individuals disgruntled with government gain easy access to firearms despite criminal records and troubling mental health histories.”
Thank you, Josh. All this shooting proves (for the umpteenth time!) is that gun laws have not prevented criminals and crazies from getting their hands on firearms, while they have placed unnecessary roadblocks on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and now Horwitz has admitted it.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
Comments
And what would the reaction be if the lease agreement said, "organizers agree that they will allow no black people in event"?
It is sad that the gay shooter feels the need to stay anonymous, probably because of justifiable fears of retaliation by the hate groups.
I think it would be great if civil-rights organizations banded together and made it known that gun ownership is a 'civil rights' issue.
The purest definition of a slave; an under-armed person.
The kingpin of civil rights is an armed and vigilant society that seeks to preserve the rights of all of its people, all the time. Not just when it is socially convenient, or politically expedient. The right to self-defense should be universal and universally accepted. If you rely on someone else (such as a city or government to ensure your safety) you will pay dearly through taxes, personal injury, and the disappointment when the time comes that they decide to withdraw their obligation at their discretion.
You should know that only the fashionable civil rights, mainly those that don't detract from government power, or are exercised in a way that make the libs feel good are acceptable.
I find it ironic, amusing if it wasn't so sad, that ostracizing comments regarding 'libs' from 'libertarians' clearly shows how far off-track America has come.
For reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
I would hope that more 'libs' of all flavors would join in pressing for expanded personal freedoms and a reduction in federal & state muscle.
"Liberalism wagers that a state ... can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained ..." - Paul Starr
TAP, what on earth are you talking about? The current crop of self proclaimed liberals has nothing in common with true liberalism.
Agreed. My point was to illustrate how the Patriot Liberals, who once stood for all rights of individuals and reduced government control, have been replaced with a 'modern interpretation' of limited liberty Liberals.
Libertarians and (today's) Liberals have the same roots, just one of them got hijacked by the other, a wolf in sheeps' clothing, called Progressivism. At the time, as much as it is today, Progressivism and Socialism are still, and rightly so, chained to Communism. So, in order to 'fly under the radar' Progressives have hijacked the term nearest and dearest to Patriotic Americans; Liberalism. This muddies the waters and allows 'all sorts of freedoms' to be debated, which creates chaos, which invites the government to intercede, which when forced to mediate, the people 'cede' power to the government to arbitrate and govern. It is all part of the playbook to get people to feel discouraged and disengage from the meaningful discussions and encourage centralized governanc
I wonder if Pink Pistols of www.pinkpistols.org has any affiliates in the Seattle area who could be part of the PrideFest affair. Having a pro-gun, pro-homosexual organization as part of the event would really tie Mayor Nickels' panties in a wad.
Pink Pistols does have two chapters in the area, one in Seattle & one in Tacoma. It would be interesting to get them involved. I've dropped them a quick email to see what they say :-)
The right to defend yourself is a civil right. Much more important than the right to speak freely, the right to freedom of religion or anything else.
The 2nd Amendment is first.
Mayor Nickels is retarded.
Has the government controlled media ever questioned how many people could have died had the shooter not been stopped... by a gun?
It is next to impossible to stop a crime like this before it happens. All that can done is stop it as soon as humanly possible.
The person that shot this lunatic saved the lives of others. He did so by using lethal force... a gun.
Hindsight is 20-20 and so it's easy for the gun grabbers to point fingers and make claims of what could be or should be. The fact is, there are criminals out there that do bad things and they can't be stopped until after they commit a crime. That is a fact of life, something we all must deal with.
Getting guns out of everyone's hands will only make criminals purchase guns illegally or use other instruments of death. The police are called in afterwards to use their chalk to mark the body's position. Giving those that desire the ability to defend themselves is more logical... but we know liberals can't even spell logic.
I'm assuming all of this stuff about guns is about firearms and not your widdle pee pee. Why do you gun toters think the right to shoot people trumps the rest of the rights in the Bill of Rights? They are all EQUAL! But your right to shoot things ends when you endanger others. Or do you want to eliminate the police and arm everyone? Then the mayor will be the fastest gun. Any of you think your the one?
I would consult Washington state law carefully before designating armed attendees as on-duty security personnel. It's a thought, however, as there is nothing wrong with a volunteer employee, even if the duties are very limited.
As for the unfortunate fatality at the Holocaust Museum, I didn't think there were any guards left who carried firearms but not armor. Any company that does not make available armor to its armed guards should be ashamed. With the average cost of armor circa $500 and the average workplace fatality costing $50,000 or more, it's a cost savings on the raw numbers alone!
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!