An attempt to answer Just One Question

The Seattle PI had an opinion piece where they said:

Mayor Greg Nickels’ plan to forbid guns on a host of city properties is a measured response to the gunshot injuries to two people at Seattle Center during the Folklife celebration.

The city would ask people legally carrying concealed weapons not to bring the guns into city parks, community centers and other city facilities. Anyone discovered with a gun could be asked to leave under trespassing statutes.

He represents his city well on the issue.

I responded in the comments with:

Posted by Joe Huffman at 6/9/08 10:30 p.m.

I have Just One Question for the editorial board and the mayor:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

This yielded a response of:

unkanny at 6/10/08 12:24 p.m.

Airports, airplanes. Divorce court. You’re welcome.

My response:

Posted by Joe Huffman at 6/10/08 4:05 p.m.

unkanny said,
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

Airports, airplanes. Divorce court. You’re welcome.

Do you have any data to support your claims?

I can and do leagally carry a concealed weapons at most aiports. So you are ignorant if you believe there are restrictions in most areas of most U.S. airports.

Your claim in the case for airplanes is refuted by just one example: The planes hijacked on 9/11/2001 had weapons restrictions enforced which made it extremely difficult for the victims to fight back.

As for divorce courts supply us the safety data number before and after weapons restrictions were implemented and then we can discuss it.

I don’t expect a response but we’ll see…

Update: No response to my reply but I added this comment to the thread:

Once Mayor Nickels has established a precedent of discriminating against constitutionally protected individuals carrying firearms perhaps he will expand the list of undesirables to Jews, homosexuals, and people involved in mixed race marriages.

Bigotry is an ugly thing. Don’t let Nickels and the PI editorial board get away with it.

4 thoughts on “An attempt to answer Just One Question

  1. I don’t see how this order can stand given RCW 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.

    and RCW 9.41.300:


    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

    (ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

    (emphasis is mine)
    They are obviously trying to get around state preemption by using tresspassing laws, but…

    Concerning defence against tresspassing charges, RCW 9A.52.090 states:


    (2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or

    I don’t see how some one can be tresspassing on public property at a time an place where the public is allowed and no crime has been comitted; or is it just me?

  2. Looks by time on your comment you and I discovered that article about the same time. I blew a gasket when I read it and just fired it off to friends and family. I do my best to not become infuriated with the drivel but sometime I just cant believe that so many people are so damn gullible. I’d swear I could tell them that the word gullible had been removed from the dictionary and they’d actually believe me.

    Best part of the whole thing though was he thought his fact less reply was good enough, what made me laugh was the way you took it and slapped him with it and said, “Next contestant please.”

    Thanks for the second reminder I’m not alone in my thoughts.
    -Barron

Comments are closed.