Mayor Greg Nickels recently proposed a gun ban on city of Seattle property, which we wrote about here. The decision was especially puzzling because of the monumental ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller, where the Court said the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms -- it's not an antiquated right preserved only for militia men.
Today I remembered that Seattle weighed in on the Heller case, filing a "friend of the court" brief in support of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, along with ten other cities. So I pulled up the brief to see what Seattle had to say about firearm regulation.
In their brief, Seattle and the other cities argued that large cities are disproportionately affected by gun violence. Between 1976 and 2005, nearly 60% of all gun homicides in the United States took place in large cities. In Seattle in 2005, over 550 violent firearm crimes (assaults, robberies, and homicides) were committed.
Seattle aruged that cities need flexibility to regulate guns.
Firearms regulation is a critical part of cities’ efforts to protect the health and safety of their residents. Cities have adopted a wide range of measures—from bans on certain types of weapons and ammunition to eligibility and registration requirements—to reduce the threat of gun violence in their communities. The range of measures cities have adopted reflects the variety of challenges cities face and underscores the need for local flexibility in this area.
The Second Amendment does not constrain the ability of local elected officials to respond to the problems that confront their communities, and the Court of Appeals erred in invalidating the District of Columbia’s ordinance. As explained in Petitioners’ brief, the Second Amendment applies only to the national government and does not limit firearms regulation in the District of Columbia. Because this case involves the District of Columbia, and not a State or one of its political subdivisions, the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States and their local entities through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause is not presented and need not be addressed in this case. Nevertheless, this Court’s precedents and the federalism-promoting purpose of the Second Amendment firmly establish that the Second Amendment imposes no barrier to state and local regulation of firearms.
Seattle also made a "limited government" argument: "The threats posed by guns have a profound effect not only on human lives but also on city budgets and policies. It is estimated that half of the medical costs of gunshot injuries are paid by American taxpayers; gun injuries are the leading cause of uninsured hospital stays in this country."
Obviously, arguments made in a federal case aren't universally applicable to a city-wide gun ban, but the justification Seattle offers informs us about the city's motivation. But Seattle may face an uphill battle; state law specifically prohibits cities from adopting regulations that are inconsistent or more restrictive than state law.
Comments
Prohibition of guns does not work. I wonder why Seattle thinks their scheme will work. The reason that gun control laws and gun-free zones don't work is that they require the cooperation of a very unlikely source, and that is the criminal. If these types of schemes actually worked, then where are all the success stories of how similar gun prohibition has brought an end to violent crime in other cities?
The firearms of lawful persons do not represent a threat to the city of Seattle, no matter how scarry they look (The AWB doesn't change the power of rifles, only the ergonomics). Just like LA, Chicago, and DC, the restrictions promoted by seattle will only serve to restrict these lawful persons, and make them prey for those who do not respect law and the rights of others.
It's an unacceptable abridgement of a human/civil right clearly delinated in the US Constitution.
There should be no restrictions for lawful and responsible persons to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, period.
If a city creates gun-free zones in effect turning the "People" into meat for the lions, the people need the ability to seek reparations should a criminal or madman causes harm or death to a person while that person is within the gun-free zone.
The Supreme Court states: In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland, 59 US{HOW} 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 {1856}. A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982: "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Bowers vs. devote, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 {1982}
We need to overturn this ruling to make the state, city, & nation legally and financially responsible for criminal acts against the people who are forced by the city, state, or nation to enter a gun-free zone and causes the People to lose their ability to protect themselves and their family from attacks from criminals and madmen.
If Seattle does become "gun free", someone should tell the bad guys. Oops, that's right, that's why they are bad guys, they don't obey the law....
Another meaningless law passed for a feel good bunch who wring their hands and can't get up the nerve to enforce existing law and punish "bad guys".
I know! How about keeping the violent criminal who has already committed an armed robbery, rape, aggravated assault or murder behind bars for a change.
The reason large cities have such high crime rates is that they are SOFT ON VIOLENT CRIMINALS. In May of this year a Philadelphia police officer was shot and killed by a felon who should have been in prison until the year 2035, but was out on parole. KEEP THE VIOLENT FELONS IN PRISON AND CRIME RATES WILL PLUMMET. 91% OF CRIMES ARE COMMITTED BY CRIMINALS WITH PREVIOUS CRIMES THAT THEY WERE NOT PUNISHED FOR! WAKE UP WILL YOU?
Seattle's mayor is clearly unread in the meaning of the Heller case. Likewise he doesn't seem to care that the Washington State Constitution gives residents the right to keep and bear arms. However, like Boomberg he fuels the hysteria about guns not recognizing that bans only give the bad guys the advantage. I agree with Ron that if the city illegally forces law abiding gun owners to abandon their right to self defense he is opening the floodgate to taxpayers to pay for loss of life when they are unable to defend themselves. This is not only a foolish and naive political gesture but exposes the city to grave financial consequences.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Don't these people UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!
Mayor Nickels edict is in violation of state preemption. If a courthouse is required to allow a licensed citizen to check their legally carried firearm how is Seattle exempt? Legislative intent is clear.
How is that cities think they are above the law? I recently read that despite Heller's Supreme Court victory that he was recently denied his permit to carry by D.C.! Apparently the city has classified his 7shot 45 as a "machine gun"!!!
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!