Can they do this?

[john_bud]

I hope this isn't a dupe post....

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/eo.pdf

Mayor of Seattle just said that due to high levels of violence from the occupy numbnuts that he is making the whole city a gun free zone!

It's so dangerous and we are incapable if keeping you safe, so obviously we have to remove YOUR ability to protect yourself.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

I hope this isn't a dupe post....

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/eo.pdf

Mayor of Seattle just said that due to high levels of violence from the occupy numbnuts that he is making the whole city a gun free zone!

It's so dangerous and we are incapable if keeping you safe, so obviously we have to remove YOUR ability to protect yourself.

Didn't the mayor and police chief of New Orleans get in trouble for doing the same thing?
Obviously the idiot in Seattle didn't learn anything from that and I hope someone like NRA or SAF sues him for all he's worth.

 

[joppaj]

Looks like a real order in a specific zone that bans the carrying of weapons. Can't say I've seen the likes of it before, not sure it would stand up in court.

 

[Norton]

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. 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with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.


[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]

 

[john_bud]

I did some other searching and it looks like an overtly illegal order. WA state law says that only the governor can make proclamations like that.

Not that it being illegal will stop the police, nor will it having been an illegal order get your confiscated guns back either!

We're visiting there in a month... hope they stop this occupy BS by then but I have small hope of it.

 

[Bikebreath]

Isn't that called backasswards?

 

[iSHOOT]

Didn't the mayor and police chief of New Orleans get in trouble for doing the same thing?
Obviously the idiot in Seattle didn't learn anything from that and I hope someone like NRA or SAF sues him for all he's worth.

I think they were in hot water more for actually going into homes and removing firearms than for saying you couldn't carry them but you might be right.

Either way WTF?! Lets see if anyone in the occupy movement gets riled up over THAT amendment being taken.

 

[gamer_jim]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. 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.


[1994 sp.s. c 7 § 428; 1985 c 428 § 1; 1983 c 232 § 12.]

In other words they have state preemption. Some states (Maryland I think and Maine also) have no gun zones during protests, I didn't see anything in WA statute for that exception.

 

[Mr H]

I don't know the answer, but...

Wife and I were watching the news yesterday re: Seattle's "event", and she turned to me and asked something like, "Woudln't it just go away if everyone in the building came out carrying?"

DING!!!!! We have a winner!!

 

[Mark75H]

Makes me wonder if he thinks he can suspend the rest of the Constitution as well?

 

[john_bud]

Makes me wonder if he thinks he can suspend the rest of the Constitution as well?

Politicians can stop suspending rights like a starving person can stop after one chip!

 

[Nubz]

This will be the next way people try to disarm us
Theyve tried everything else and it hasn't worked

"you can have a gun but you can't use it or carry it anyplace"

 

[oldman12]

Im sure the communists in DC have all kind of things up their sleeve.Very interesting time we live in.

 

[Mr H]

This will be the next way people try to disarm us
Theyve tried everything else and it hasn't worked

"you can have a gun but you can't use it or carry it anyplace"

Already have that...

It's called "Illinois".

 

[Samuel]

Actually no it wouldn't stop. Some people have more balls then brains. Especially people on a crusade who are confident in their convictions, no matter how wrong.

 

[Dogabutila]

Somebody sue the shit out of the city, then impeach him.

 

[wlc]

because gun free zones always work

 

[bpSchoch]

As long as no body objects to the loss of rights, then the people have agreed to the loss of rights. Some have argued that there has to be a bit more then that:

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S., 742 at 748. “Waivers of Constitutional Rights must not only be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness
of the relevant circumstances and consequences.”

and

Miller v. U.S., 230 F, 2d 286, 489. “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Also

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., 436. “Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”, and

Shapiro V. Thompson, 394 U.S., 618. “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.”

also

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958), "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it".

See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 1980)

and finally:

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
The government of the state and its officers are Constitutionally required, affirmed by oaths taken, to uphold the Constitutions and to serve the Citizens, who are the Sovereign, and not to defraud those Citizens. there is no valid, Constitutionally compliant state law, statute, rule or code that states an American Citizen and Citizen of the state under duress, threat, and against his will: (a) obtain permission from the State to engage in Rights guaranteed in the Constitution;

just saying......

 

[john_bud]

Here's the results of the ban...

http://www.king5.com/news/slideshows/Police-confiscate-weapons-may-day-149775455.html?gallery=y&c=y&ref=%2F#/news/slideshows/Police-confiscate-weapons-may-day-149775455.html?gallery=y&c=y&ref=%2F&img=0&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y

 

[Mark75H]

OK, I'll have to admit it, I skipped a lot of days of general anarchy class ... how is the taped together lighter device supposed to work? Do me and 18 of my friends have to all hold it at the same time?