Today Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels came to Microsoft to talk to a group of us. He talked for about five or ten minutes then opened it up to questions. The first question was about fixing potholes. The second question was mine, “Several months ago you said you were going ban guns on city property. Then the state AG said the city could not do that because of state preemption of gun laws. You said you were going to do it anyway. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizen Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said they would sue and had a plaintiff lined up. There is now speculation that you are going to back down. Is this true? Or are you going to go ahead with your plans?”
He explained the situation last year at the Folk Life Festival where a man with a drug habit and some mental problems got in a fight and during the scuffle he pulled his gun and a shot was fired wounding three people. The man had a concealed carry permit. The Mayor said he “absolutely” planned to continue with his plans to ban guns in parks and other public places. This year at Folk Life Festival they had signs up prohibiting people with guns, even with concealed carry permits, and locker storage for people that came with guns. “There were no protests.” That sort of thing will continue he promised.
I was only allowed one question so I could not do a follow up on it. But another guy did. He said that the perp should not have even been allowed to own a gun let alone a permit to carry it concealed. He asked if Nickels believed someone on drugs and with mental problems would obey a sign which said “No guns allowed”. Nickels started talking about the “gun show loophole” and about there being a gun show every weekend in the state and you could pay cash with no questions asked. The “easy access to guns” was the problem.
If it had been a black guy with a drug habit and mental problems would he have gone on a crusade to ban all blacks? Or if it had been a Jew or homosexual would he ban all Jews and homosexuals? If not, then why does he go after gun owners because someone with mental problems and drug habit does something criminal or stupid?
In article 1 section 24 of the Washington State Constitution it says:
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.
But Mayor Nickels doesn’t recognize that right. He believes he and Seattle are above the law, just like George Wallace thought he didn’t have to obey the law. It took Federal Marshals and the National Guard to get Wallace to obey. Although I think it would be rather amusing to have the Washington State Patrol haul Nickels off to jail I hope Nickels is a quicker study than Wallace and doesn’t waste taxpayer money to continue his war on the civil rights of people in Seattle.
I just love the picture of Nickels moseying into what he thinks will be a friendly encounter at nice, progressive MS and getting hit with both barrels! Kudos to you and to Mr. Anonymous.
Thanks for asking the question the timid, government-owned and controlled, lap-dog media are much too cowardly to ask. There’s little better entertainment than watching a corrupt worm squirm!
A rational person would then conclude that licensure is worthless. I don’t think Nickels is going to change his mind, but let’s hope the pro-liberty crowd can continue to make him hide in his hole until such time as he is removed from office.
I wouldn’t mind seeing him get hauled off… that would be quite humorous. Then we might actually get those pot holes fixed too.
I like the George Wallace parallel; nicely done! The Gun Bigots thing packs quite the punch when I use it in casual conversation with lefties. Keep it up — you’re showing us all how to do it.
Thanks for the encouragement David.
I sometimes wonder if I’m making any progress with that meme. I think it will be key to someday getting a near complete win (liberty is always unfinished business–attributed to both the ACLU and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.) over them but I don’t get many people expressing their agreement.
Here’s another expressing my agreement totally and completely. Please keep up the good work!
I’m curious, though, why did you ask the question about a gun ban on city property? Obviously from the bigot’s answer, he had room to wiggle.
Just One Question really doesn’t leave ANY wiggle room, which is why it’s so effective – did you think it would be too confrontational for the venue you were in (ie, at work)?
The people at SAF and CCRKBA have been speculating they had won without actually having to go to battle with him. I wanted to get them some good data.
Just One Question isn’t of any use when you don’t have a second chance to point out their example of Japan/U.K./Austrialia/wherever fails. I’ve even had D.C. be used as an example. I think it was the VPC that had data on their website “proving” D.C. was safer after the ban that before. Of course they had to really cherry pick the data to prove that. But people got away with it for years. In a face-to-face encounter without back-up references it just isn’t very useful. The Internet changed all that. Both in ability to get solid data and being able to deliver it effectively.
Why doesn’t Nickels just put up a sign at the Folk Life Festival prohibiting men “with a drug habit and some mental problems”?
It would be just as unconstitutional and ineffective, but at least it would address some people that I’d not want to see there.