RSS
Home
Seattle's proposed gun-free zone
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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.
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
