Another one bites the dust

Last week it was the city of Edmonds which got its hands slapped for playing with gun control even though the state of Washington told them it was none of their business decades ago:

In the latest round of legal actions over Edmonds’ safe gun storage law, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Anita Farris ruled on Friday that while the City of Edmonds cannot tell people how to store their guns, it can levy fines against gun owners whose firearms are possessed or used by unauthorized persons.

Via Firearms Policy Coalition, today it’s the city of Seattle:

Superior Court Judge Anita Farris struck down Seattle’s gun storage ordinance Monday, ruling it violates the state’s 36-year-old preemption law.

The Second Amendment Foundation was involved in both cases and I think they coordinated with the NRA as well.

Update: Wrong. There was only one case. The second one appears to be an error by the author in thinking that the Edmonds law was the same as the Seattle one. It was my mistake that I didn’t notice the date in the second article. It is also from last week.

6 thoughts on “Another one bites the dust

  1. Clearly a liberal judge, capable of holding two entirely contradictory notions in her head at the same time.
    Pre-emption is the law, and yet the town can fine people for violating the town’s notion of gun control? What a moron.

    • The judge ruled on the standing issue regarding the fines. No one has been fined yet so no one can claim harm. I’m very annoyed this is the way the system works but it has been this way for a very long time.

      Janet Reno used that same argument to avoid a ruling on the ’94 AWB. The justice department claimed, “We have never prosecuted anyone and have no intention of doing so.” Yet no manufacture, distributor, or retail outlet was willing to take them at there words in court to defy the law ([sarcasm]I wonder why?[/sarcasm]). So the law stood, people complied, and the law could not be challenged in court.

      • You could call it ‘enforcement by process’. Instead of actual enforcement, you drag the poor violator through the process at a snail’s pace, costing them time, money, and PR. If it looks like the legal tide may turn against you, just drop the case (for example, Joseph Roh) so you don’t set a precedent.

      • This is what the Massachusetts Attorney General and Legislature does on a regular basis with regard to regulatory fiats and Jim Crow style laws. Unenforceable edicts and laws are drafted in such a way that they are vague and difficult to obtain standing for a legal challenge. But the threat of prosecution is sufficient that individuals and businesses roll over because they don’t want to spend years and millions in court.

Comments are closed.