Gearing up for battle

Seattle may become a very important battle ground with some heavy guns involved. SAF and NRA just filed a lawsuit against the city and I expected an easy win because the law is so clear. But it’s not always about truth and justice (some may even say it’s rare that truth and justice are the result). This may be one of those cases and it has national implications:

Stepping in to defend Nickels and the city in this confrontation at no charge is the Northwest office of an international law firm, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. This firm, according to its website, has 21 offices in Asia, Europe and North America. It has a history of providing pro bono legal representation to various causes.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seattle attorney Steve Fogg with the Seattle law firm of Corr, Cronin, Michelson, Baumgardner & Preece LLC. According to their website, the firm has been recognized for its litigation abilities.

So how does this case have possible national implications? If Seattle’s creative approach as a private property owner simply regulating conduct on its park properties is allowed to stand (that strategy failed in Ohio, where a parks ban imposed by the City of Clyde was struck down by that state’s Supreme Court), it is conceivable that other cities in other states, or even in the Evergreen State, will start pushing the envelope.

I doubled my payroll (and Microsoft matching) contributions to SAF for calendar year 2010. I hope a lot of other people contribute as well.

4 thoughts on “Gearing up for battle

  1. This is the first time I’ve heard about this in any detail.

    If Seattle is claiming exemption as a PRIVATE property owner, as opposed to PUBLIC property, then I hope they’re prepared for some heavy blowback.

    #1 that comes immediately to mind is TAXES. If Seattle is charging (forcing payment under color of government law) taxes to pay for various and sundry items, including parks, to everyone (me and you and you and you and you. . .) within a geographical boundry, then that makes it PUBLIC property. And as such, then state law applies.

    But if Seattle wants to claim PRIVATE property, then I expect to see an immediate decrease in my taxes. Taxes charged for maintenance of the park, water, equipment, personnel, electricity, etc. No PRIVATE company is reaching into my pockets to pay for their products or services. Any money that comes out of my pockets to pay for something a company is offering, is a private contractual arrangement between producer (them) and consumer (me). If I decide that I want, need and/or can afford what the producer is selling, then I will buy it. Otherwise, my money stays in my pockets.

    So, again, if Seattle wants to claim PRIVATE property priviliges, then they’d better decrease taxes and put a pay turnstile at the entrances to the parks. otherwise, they’re just a socialist/communist fraud under color of law. And I hope they get b**-slapped royally in court. As well as having to pay all court and attorney fees.

  2. I came here to the comments section to register EXACTLY the same thought. If the entity known as Seattle claims to own private property, then that entity also would need to incorporate, etc. I don’t see how such a private entity can then have authority to collect taxes.

    Further, Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: 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.

    If the city claims to be acting as a corporation or even, through some twisted logic, as an individual – then they are in conflict with the state constitution by maintaining an “armed body of men,” i.e., the Seattle Police Department. Hey, if WE can’t have guns on public property – neither can they!

  3. I guess I’m the only one who was interested in who the attorneys are?

    The NRA lawyer (Fogg) represented Bushmaster in the Washington DC Sniper case and got a favorable outcome, but I gotta wonder, how hard was that to do? I mean, the gun was supposedly stolen. And is Bushmaster advertising their guns as “Just Right for the Sniper in You!” I think this is something almost any competent lawyer could have done.

    The Mayor’s law group looks to be very liberal, just judging by the locations of their offices. They also have lots of resources and lots of experience and lots of awards. This is a HUGE law firm. They work on lots of complicated things. Too bad we don’t know which lawyer (or lawyers) are doing the work on this.

    If I had to guess who is going to win based on the attorneys involved, I’d go with the Mayor. Fogg seems like a nice guy but his experience is scattered all over the place.

    Also, did everyone look at the actual pre-emption statute? And the exceptions to that statute?

    “If the entity known as Seattle claims to own private property, then that entity also would need to incorporate, etc”

    Isn’t Seattle an incorporated city?

  4. See, this is where my contention that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and is meant to have its effect on ALL players — public at all levels of government, and private (at the very least to include operators of facilities otherwise open to the public) — comes into sway.

    I don’t see anything in the actual text that limits its effect to the Federal Congress, or to the States, or any polity within a State. The prohibition “shall not be infringed” reads as absolute to me.

    M

Comments are closed.