Slog
News & ArtsThursday, October 15, 2009
City The Beginning
Posted by Charles Mudede on Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:28 AM
A step in the right direction:
(Seattle Times) A ban on guns in certain Seattle park facilities went into effect Wednesday, according to the mayor's office.Country people and guns? No problem. Let them store all the guns they want in their barns. My problem is with the city and only the city.The move, implemented to protect children, and which has drawn criticism including questions about its legality, will eventually affect hundreds of playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools and water-play areas...
...The ban, a new rule by Parks and Recreation, will be in effect only at facilities where signs have been posted, according to the release.
Community centers will get the first signs, followed by pools, popular play areas, and ballfields. The mayor's office said all facilities should have the signs by Dec. 1.
1
If you outlaw guns on children's playgrounds and little league fields, only outlaws will have guns at children's playground and little league fields.
2
How the hell are those kids gonna play cops and robbers now? Are they supposed to pretend their fingers are guns?
3
Charles, I'm really sure you'll follow up with a post when this gets tossed by the courts, too. I'll be waiting.
4
From the Washington State Constitution, which would control the City government in this case:
The city may have a prerogative to ban concealed weapons in parks, but I don't see how they can ban guns altogether and, really, if people are going to have guns in parks wouldn't we prefer that they be (legally) concealed?
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
The city may have a prerogative to ban concealed weapons in parks, but I don't see how they can ban guns altogether and, really, if people are going to have guns in parks wouldn't we prefer that they be (legally) concealed?
5
4, ideally, yes. But how do we know that the person with the legal gun has the judgment to know when not to use it and the skills to use it well?
I know it's there right to conceal guns, unfortunately, but how often does a situation end well when a concealed & licensed gun comes it to play?
I don’t trust Joe the Plumber to keep me safe or himself safe without taking out a few bystanders by accident.
To answer your question: Realistically, no, I don't prefer guns on any random person.
I know it's there right to conceal guns, unfortunately, but how often does a situation end well when a concealed & licensed gun comes it to play?
I don’t trust Joe the Plumber to keep me safe or himself safe without taking out a few bystanders by accident.
To answer your question: Realistically, no, I don't prefer guns on any random person.
6
Sounds like another law that will be overturned by SCOWAS at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees minimum to the city.
Good job! At least you can pat yourself on the back and proudly say you TRIED to give yourself an illusion of safety, if only that darned Constitution hadn't gotten in the way.... AGAIN.
Good job! At least you can pat yourself on the back and proudly say you TRIED to give yourself an illusion of safety, if only that darned Constitution hadn't gotten in the way.... AGAIN.
7
Eek! Random people! Beware the random person. Be afraid of the random person.
You know, sall, it's not like we're talking about having people count off by 20s and handing a gun to all the 14s.
You know, sall, it's not like we're talking about having people count off by 20s and handing a gun to all the 14s.
8
That's true 7. Why do people want to carry their handguns anyway, other than it's their right?
Not being snarky.
Not being snarky.
9
@8. I can only speak for myself, but I quite frankly don't trust the state to protect me and my family. What harm does it to me to carry my pistol?
10
9, thank you for your answer. I'd say carrying a gun offers no inherent harm and since the law permits it, go ahead if you like.
My personal unease is that gun ownership is often motivated by fear, sometimes rational and sometimes not.
Just personally, the unpredictability of a person with a gun and rational or irrational fears concerns me for public safety.
But a commonality we share is a concern for safety.
I am personally wary of guns carried everywhere though.
But the facts are that the constitution allows it, responsible & rational people do it, and so do irresponsible irrational people. I don’t know what the perfect solution is but I am uncomfortable seeing guns permitted in certain areas and accessible to unstable people who should not have them despite the current requirements. Such is life.
My personal unease is that gun ownership is often motivated by fear, sometimes rational and sometimes not.
Just personally, the unpredictability of a person with a gun and rational or irrational fears concerns me for public safety.
But a commonality we share is a concern for safety.
I am personally wary of guns carried everywhere though.
But the facts are that the constitution allows it, responsible & rational people do it, and so do irresponsible irrational people. I don’t know what the perfect solution is but I am uncomfortable seeing guns permitted in certain areas and accessible to unstable people who should not have them despite the current requirements. Such is life.
11
@4 - Seattle used to ban guns in public parks and the entire city back when we were a cowboy and mining town.
Makes sense to go back to our roots, the conservative approach, and reject these liberal America-hating radical notions that people can carry guns in town.
.... pin drops ...
Makes sense to go back to our roots, the conservative approach, and reject these liberal America-hating radical notions that people can carry guns in town.
.... pin drops ...
12
"nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men"?
but isn't an armed body of men what a militia is? and aren't they (and their well-regulation) neccessary to the security of a free state?
but isn't an armed body of men what a militia is? and aren't they (and their well-regulation) neccessary to the security of a free state?
13
#12, wrong, Militia is not a paid group, from wiki: "The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."
#9 I agree, personal responsibility is the safe way, don't expect the law to protect you from outlaws!
#9 I agree, personal responsibility is the safe way, don't expect the law to protect you from outlaws!
15
Hmmmm anyone check into how much Mayor Dumbshit has authorized for the design, manufacture and creation of these illegal signs he has ordered posted?
I didn't realize that the Seattle budget was so flush that they could make up a whole bunch of signs? Especially considering they will be yanked down within weeks of going up?
Can the mayor be charged criminally by the state for intentionally ignoring state law, even after being told by the AG that he is not allowed to supersede state law? I also wonder if he can be criminally charged for willfully wasting public taxpayer dollars for directive that he knew was illegal?
Anyone?
I didn't realize that the Seattle budget was so flush that they could make up a whole bunch of signs? Especially considering they will be yanked down within weeks of going up?
Can the mayor be charged criminally by the state for intentionally ignoring state law, even after being told by the AG that he is not allowed to supersede state law? I also wonder if he can be criminally charged for willfully wasting public taxpayer dollars for directive that he knew was illegal?
Anyone?
16
I'm a gun owner but actually lean liberal on most things. The biggest problem I have is that banning guns would not have prevented any of the shootings the mayor uses as examples. Lawbreakers will still bring guns. People willing to shoot other people don't care about a sign posted. So the only ones who won't bring their guns are responsible people who obey the law. But I'm not one of those nuts who thinks any idiot should be running around in public with a gun. I have no problem with a *well regulated militia* (emphasis added), including regulations on mental fitness to own a gun and mandatory training on when and how to use one. This proposal for parks doesn't accomplish anything.
The other problem I have is that this is PUBLIC property. The mayor says you can ban people from trespassing on private property. Absolutely. If you want to ban guns in your back yard by all means, go for it. But the city government does NOT own the property. Let me say that again. The CITY does NOT OWN the property. The citizens of Seattle, Washington and the United States own the property. One owner can't trespass another owner from coming on their property. You can regulate behavior by arresting them for committing a crime, like assault or theft. But you can't trespass yourself from your own property. You can't trespass your co-owner from a property. One spouse can't trespass the other from their home that they both own. I and everyone else own the parks, not the mayor or the imaginary person known as a corporation such as a city government. While I support the sentiment of reducing gun violence, the mayor needs to remember who really owns property. How about stricter penalties for those who use guns in the commission of a crime? I'm all for those kind of laws, the ones that go after criminals, not law abiding citizens.
More...
The other problem I have is that this is PUBLIC property. The mayor says you can ban people from trespassing on private property. Absolutely. If you want to ban guns in your back yard by all means, go for it. But the city government does NOT own the property. Let me say that again. The CITY does NOT OWN the property. The citizens of Seattle, Washington and the United States own the property. One owner can't trespass another owner from coming on their property. You can regulate behavior by arresting them for committing a crime, like assault or theft. But you can't trespass yourself from your own property. You can't trespass your co-owner from a property. One spouse can't trespass the other from their home that they both own. I and everyone else own the parks, not the mayor or the imaginary person known as a corporation such as a city government. While I support the sentiment of reducing gun violence, the mayor needs to remember who really owns property. How about stricter penalties for those who use guns in the commission of a crime? I'm all for those kind of laws, the ones that go after criminals, not law abiding citizens.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS