When individual citizens ignore the law and carry on as they please, they can be prosecuted in civil or criminal courts, to punish their behavior.
But what happens when government ignores the law because elected officials have a philosophical disagreement with the letter and the spirit of said law? What are the citizens to do?
When former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and his administration clearly ignored state statute regarding firearms regulation and adopted a firearms ban in city parks – in violation of the state’s long-standing model preemption statute adopted in 1983 – legal action followed. The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual citizens sued Nickels and the city in King County Superior Court. This Friday, they will ask the court for summary judgment against the city.
Allowing guns in Snohomish County parks got no support from the Democratic majority on the County Council Wednesday — even if state law suggests that the county's existing ban can't be legally enforced.
Nickels was thrown out of office by Seattle voters last August in the mayoral primary. The city has not backed away from the ban, essentially telling the state and its citizens, and the Legislature, that the city doesn’t care what state law says, “we’re going to defend the ban, anyway, and claim that state statute isn’t ‘clear’.”
The same disregard for law has now been exhibited by four Democrats (remember which political party they represent; an old Bob Hope film clip sums up hilariously how a growing number of people, especially gun owners, look at Democrats as zombies) on the Snohomish County Council, according to angry gun owners. Republican Councilman John Koister, who declared that he is now running for Congress against Democrat incumbent Rick Larsen in the 2nd District, had implored his colleagues to amend a 1971 ordinance banning guns in county parks. That ban was clearly voided by the 1983 state statute, RCW 9.41.290. I discussed the issue here on Tuesday, but just in case Koster’s colleagues are still not clear, here’s what the statute says in plain English: 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with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. There is not a lot of wiggle room here.
State law, adopted in 1983, says counties and cities can't enact gun-control ordinances that are more restrictive than state law.
The situation in Snohomish County was described by both the Seattle Times and Everett Herald in reports quoting Democrats Brian Sullivan and Mike Cooper.
Sullivan (in the Times) stated, “I think it's prudent to see how the Seattle case falls out. The epicenter of the gun issue is not a place we want to be.”
Cooper (in the Herald) said, “Whether it’s housekeeping or not, I feel quite strongly that we should not have guns in parks, just like we should not have guns in schools.”
Sullivan is gambling that the court will side with Seattle, therefore he stalls. Cooper takes the juvenile approach, grumping that he doesn’t like something, “so there!”
In 1975, the State Legislature properly adopted another statute to which Mssrs. Sullivan and Cooper may wish to pay some attention, gun owners suggest. It’s RCW 9A.80.010, which defines “Official Misconduct” and makes it a gross misdemeanor.
Under this statute, 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.
Public officials are fond of reminding citizens – when the occasion and circumstances suit their personal agenda, that is – that we live in a society of law, and whether we like or agree with a law, we must obey it. Have Snohomish County's Democrat members of the county council engaged in official misconduct? Some gun rights advocates apparently think so.
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
Sullivan, Cooper and the two other Democrats on the Snohomish County Council, Dave Gossett and Dave Somers, have cavalierly decided to just ignore the state statute in the eyes of gun owners. In so doing, they are reinforcing the image of Democrats as the “Party of Gun Control.”
While state statute defines Official Misconduct, there’s another term that more accurately describes how the state’s gun rights activists view the behavior of these Democrats: Arrogance.
Gun rights activists are gathering on Sunday at Boston’s in Mill Creek at 3:30 p.m. to discuss this issue, according to the OpenCarry.org forum. Some have already written letters to members of the council and posted them on-line in the OCDO forum. There is no reason to believe this fury is a flash in the pan that will subside.
UPDATE: The story was covered by KING5 News, in which Koster noted that his position, that the parks gun ban is illegal under state statute, is supported by the County Prosecutor's office.
Gun rights activists are already contacting members of the Snohomish County Council. Here is their contact information:
John Koster - District 1
425-388-3494
dave.gossett@co.snohomish.wa.us Dave Somers - District 5
425-388-3411
dave.somers@co.snohomish.wa.us
dave.gossett@co.snohomish.wa.us Dave Somers - District 5
425-388-3411
dave.somers@co.snohomish.wa.us
More from Gun Rights Examiners
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 | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
For more info: These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns.
Comments
It is good to know that in Snohomish County if you don't agree with a county ordinance you can just ignore it. After all, if the county government can ignore State law because they don't agree with it, it's going to be tough to enforce county regulations and ordinances that a citizen doesn't agree with.
How can we expect our children to follow rules when our elected officials, who should be their role models, don't?
One can only hope that the voters remember their elected officials who don't follow laws.
"Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker,
it breeds contempt for the law."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Washington State in Olmstead v. United States, 1928
Enforcement of the Offical Misconduct statute is indeed difficult. It take an exceedingly brave LEO to make such an arrest with the claim "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." One could suppose a sheriff who might have the weight, but such a move would be much more "political" than "legal". Then we would have to find a PA/DA who would prosecute the charge in good faith and a judge who would hear it. A citizen's arrest seem so frought with opportunities to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit (or criminal charge) that I hesitate to even mention the possibility. How does one get before a grand jury? Are there any lawyers in our crowd who know how such a charge could be pursued?
-BothellBob
They are not just ignoring the law, they are breaking it. If your State's Attorney General had the guts to do his job, these people would be charged appropriately.
This is a very real problem facing Americans that voters need to come up with solutions; maybe judicial reform to require the law and the Constitution be upheld; yes, i know it is there now; but some judges do not uphold it and therefore they should be evicted by the People; This unlawfulness is being lead by the De-Facto President Barrack Hussein Obama II.
ya you could say ,common sense went flying right outa the door,fraud,ed tax,ed use,ed killed,to name a few,it reminds me of a outhouse ,you paint white,youv got your white-house,ower rights get dropped tru the oval office,and what we get is treason,-sh t,if they pass laws that give them, the right to point guns at us, i pitty them,the congress ,both sides are playin treason,the rest are in the same boat,but OBAMA is a commist lien frauder.that is bent on ruining the usa......bank on it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How can we expect our children to follow rules when our elected officials, who should be their role models, don't?
One can only hope that the voters remember their elected officials who don't follow laws.
And Todays Washington State Supreme Court, using a weapon in crime?
Filed January 14, 2010
C. JOHNSON, J. -- In these consolidated cases, five-year firearm
Williams-Walker, No. 78611-9
enhancement sentences were imposed on the defendants, where the juries were
instructed and asked to find by special verdict whether the defendants were armed
with a deadly weapon. We must decide, first, whether this sentence was an error
and, second, whether under article I, sections 21 and 22 of the Washington
Constitution, this type of error is subject to a harmless error analysis. We hold that
this sentence is an error to which the harmless error doctrine does not apply. In
State v. Williams-Walker, noted at 132 Wn. App. 1009, 2006 WL 701942, the
Court of Appeals vacated a five-year firearm enhancement. In State v. Graham,
noted at 132 Wn. App. 1053, 2006 WL 1237275, and State v. Ruth, noted at 134
Wn. App. 1018, 2006 WL 2126311, the Court of
Contracts are interpreted in such a way as to hold the party who drafted the contract to a higher standard of compliance than the other party. After all, they drew up the contract, they can hardly blame the other party if they don't like the results, right?
For a similar reason, and also because they're our paid servants, they should be held MORE to the letter of any law than we are.
If a government cannot or will not comply with the law they inflict upon the rest of us, they deligitimize their own authority to try to tell us what we must and must not do.
Straightarrow hit the nail on the head. The fact that more and more public officials publicly and PROUDLY scoff at the Constitutions, BOTH state and national, that they swore to defend, and GET AWAY WITH IT, tells me how far down this country has fallen and just how close a REAL disaster is.
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!