Video from Seattle firearm ban hearing


Listen to the Washington Ceasefire representative. A partial transcript of her testimony:

We vigorously support this cities efforts to reduce gun violence through this common sense regulation. We think that firearms don’t have a place in our parks or city events. We think that our parks and city events will be safer without firearms. And we think those of us who feel safer that way have a right to our own personal feelings of safety just like someone who has a right to have a firearm has a right to own their firearm. And we feel like this is a good rule that has been adopted by jurisdictions across the state that is designed to balance both our interest in public safety and our interest in the right to bear arms. And we believe this sort of policy will help keep our parks and city events safe places for us to be.

Emphasis on “feel” in her verbal testimony. No facts–it’s all about feelings. If she felt safer if dark skinned people had a dusk curfew would that make it a “common sense regulation”? Would that be “designed to balance both our interest in public safety and our interest in minority rights”?

Kristen Comer, as well as Mayor Nickels, need to answer Just One Question as well as read the Washington State Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently they think feelings are more important than facts and specifically enumerated inalienable and guaranteed rights.


8 thoughts on “Video from Seattle firearm ban hearing

  1. Would the people not paying attention to reality please step aside and stop screwing things up for everyone else?

    Thank you.

  2. It seems that a lot of the people speaking for the rule change were under the impression that with out it, gang bangers, thugs, and whackos can legally carry guns. Clearly, explaining how they are in error will have little effect on the more vehemently anti-gun bigots, but it would clarify reality for more reasonable people to simply say, “Felons and violent or mentally unsound individuals are already barred, by law, from carrying a firearm on city property.” You don’t even have to say they aren’t allowed to carry _anywhere_ or even own a firearm.

    It seems that most of the people speaking against this amendment focused more on “my right to carry”, or the fact that “criminals will have guns anyway”, than the simple fact that there is already an enforceable law barring bad people from carrying a gun on city property, obviating the rule.

  3. “And we feel like this a good rule that has been adopted by jurisdictions across the state…”

    Oh really? So, there are other jurisdictions in the state that are currently in violation of the preemption law? I’d like to see the list, please.

    ‘Course, she did say that she felt that this rule had been adopted across the state. She didn’t say that it was actually, in fact, adopted. By that rhetorical standard, we may say we feel that the world is flat, or that we’re being abducted by aliens on a nightly basis, or that socialism improves a society where ever it’s tried.

  4. Gregory, This all came about because someone with a concealed pistol license (who probably shouldn’t have been issued one) pulled his gun and shot some people at the Folk Life Festival at Seattle Center last spring. Nickels is specifically targeting people with concealed pistol licenses.

    Lyle, Leavenworth bans firearms from their parks. See the sign? There may be others as well.

  5. Keep in mind some of the signs around here (WA) are old and predate current RCW. Someone asked a park ranger about it one time and he said they could only afford to replace the signs when they broke down.

    But don’t let that detract from the prior post, which I love! There are businesses that post those things in abject stupidity.

  6. So not only are they tagging the Second Amendment, but the forth as well. How can you “inspect” someone for a concealed weapon without searching them.

    Screw them and the horses they rode in on.

    Also with regards to leasing, does the city then inherit liability should a shooting occur on the property? They have forcibly disarmed all law abiding citizens there in. Seems like the buck stops with them.

  7. Yes its right, in public place there is no requirement to have firearms but it also true about people’s safety. But now it’s become more complicated to prevent firearms in public place because I just heard about a cell phone with pistol !!

Comments are closed.