by Martha Kang, KOMO News
SEATTLE -- The law has sided with gun rights advocates who took the city of Seattle and former Mayor Greg Nickels {didn't make it through the primary} to court over the city's gun ban.
King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer {also one of the judges in the Stuth Case} on Friday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs - the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors, National Rifle Association and five individuals - and declared the city of Seattle's gun ban at public places is in direct violation of Washington state's firearm pre-emption law.
The city has been ordered to remove all signage banning weapons from public areas within 30 days.
Last June, Nickels issued an order banning guns on city facilities where children are likely to frequent. The places on the ban list include parks, playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, swimming beaches, pools, water play areas, skate parks and golf courses.
The plaintiffs' complaint challenged Nickels' executive order, stating "ownership of firearm is a clearly protected right under the United States and Washington Constitutions."
The complaint also cited Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who issued an opinion in response to the city's ban, stating state laws "preempts a city's authority to adopt firearms law or regulations of applications of the general public."
SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb called Friday's ruling "a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens."
"It is also a victory for the Legislature," Gottlieb said, "because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations."
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, on the other hand, said he's "disappointed" in the ruling.
"Cities should have the right to restrict guns in playgrounds, pools and community centers where children are present," he said. "The court's ruling was based on a state law, RCW 9.41.290, which preempts Seattle from regulating the possession of firearms. It's time for the state Legislature to change that law."
2 comments:
A grandmother called me. Her son still retains his rights to his son, but the judge ruled through CASA that the foster parents be allowed to move to TEXAS! And, take his son! This is a permanent move folks. The father's rights have not been terminated! He complies with the department, yet he is losing his son. The CASA did a "rush hearing" to allow the foster parents to move and take the son with them. The son, holding on to mom and dad's legs today, crying, "Please don't take me!" This father has visited his son every week; the son lived with him until 3 months ago when a matter of a past law arised and send the son back to DSHS. They were in the middle of a dependency! The father tried to get an injunction signed by any judge he could find, and in two counties! One county where the son resides, split from the other sibling, and one where the sibling resides. No judge would sign the injunction, according to the father, who ran to each county, urgently trying to get a judge to obey the dependency laws. Not one judge would listen to the father's pleas; no one even cared that his son would be gone forever! A hearing will be held in one month. Do you think the judge that ruled on this will rule that the son be returned? Any bets? This is the worst travesty of justice I have ever witnessed. Our rights are gone folks. Gone! No one deserves to be treated like this in the USA or anywhere, for that matter. No one!
About time she did something right!
Post a Comment