Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

SAF pledges to sue Seattle mayor over gun law

September 22, 2009 by  

SAF pledges to sue Seattle mayor over gun lawSeattle Mayor Greg Nickels has been trying to ban legally-carried firearms in city Parks and Recreations Department facilities, and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has vowed to sue him if he proceeds.

Alan Gottlieb, the organization’s founder, has said the rule would violate Washington State’s firearms preemption statute, adopted more than 25 years ago.

"If this rule is [passed]," Gottlieb said, "it is our intent to immediately file a lawsuit against the city with our sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I guarantee there will be lots of people lining up to become plaintiffs."

He further sought to stress that the state Attorney General Rob McKenna has already said the mayor had no authority to impose gun laws that are more restrictive than state statute, and under the current state law private citizens are entitled to carry concealed handguns on public property if they are properly licensed.

Nickels has been trying to introduce the ban for over a year; however it is unclear if he will be successful as he came in third in last month’s mayoral primary, effectively eliminating him from competing for the post.

Founded in 1974, SAF is the nation’s oldest and largest education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the constitutional right to privately own and possess firearms. It has more than 600,000 members and conducts programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “SAF pledges to sue Seattle mayor over gun law”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at


    And here all this time I thought they were nothing more than(WORD REMOVED FOR OFFENSIVE CONTENT) sissies up there…..jus kidd’n light’n up.

  • JeffH

    Seattle, your mayor is just one of many that follows NY’s Bloomberg attempts to undermine your Constitutional rights!

  • Dickie

    Well, People here starts just only one of your rights,The goverment is starting to take,But many more WILL COME!,You do what you want,You can set around on your butt,And say they won’t do that,Or wait for someone else to stand by theirselves,While you watch tv,go to a ball game,Hang around and boast about THEY ARE NOT GOING TO {TAKE MY GUN},Well you lazy bum THEY WILL!,If you can’t see what is going on around you,Or you are to lazy,To go out,YES you actualy have to get off your a–,And do something,Or I promise YOU,YOU WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHTS,Then you have NOBODY TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!.

    • JeffH

      Dickie: This isn’t the beginning by any means. If you and others have waited until now to take up the fight, it is by no means too late to do so. Our Second Amendment right have been under attack for many decades. I live in California, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in America. The likes of Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Leno, De Leon all hide under the “sensable gun law” monicker.
      The major criminals in California are, for the most part, gang members and illegal aliens. In Los Angeles alone, 76% of violent crimes are commited by illegals.
      When will government quit punishing law abiding citizens? Never.

      Join or donate to a strong pro-gun group that can lead the fight against thes idiots in government.

      • eyeswideopen

        Just wondering why you all think Obama is trying to take your guns away, when he just signed law allowing guns in Parks? Why would he do that if he intends to take your guns? Duh??

        • Raleigh

          Why does ‘Honest-Obe’ want to take the guns out of the hands of American citizens?? Because it worked to perfection every time it was used for the same purpose as Omama….Nazi Germany…Soviet Union…Iran….Cuba….Venezuela… infinitum. It turns ARMED CITIZENS into UNARMED SUBJECTS.
          The National Parks legislation change was ‘in-the-works’ before O-drama got in office. He would have made sure it never got anywhere but ‘File-13′ if it was proposed now. As to the ‘why?’ of his signature on it…(1 – Don’t telegraph your intentions to the ‘enemy’ ( US…by the way…)early in the game…. (2 – He could sign an Executive Order to recind it at a convenient time…AKA a ‘Crisis not to be wasted’…real or manufactured….or just flat-out Marshall Law.
          James is correct as to ‘An Unalienable Right.’ ( What part of ‘…Shall Not Be Infringed’ is not understood???)
          And ‘Dragonaught’ is absolutely dead-on….the little part of Their Oath Of Office that states …” ( I ) Swear to UPHOLD and DEFEND the Constitution of The United States of America against all enemies, Foreign…AND DOMESTIC”! Violation of the ‘Domestic’ part is just as serious as the ‘Foreign’ part…it’s called SEDITION and/or TREASON.

  • saneperson

    You guys are all friggin nuts. It must be in the water or something

    • JeffH

      You are entitled to your opinion. The fight to remove Second Amendment rights is just the beginning of the loss of freedom. If we lose the right “to keep and bear arms”, what will be the next freedom to lose. There are already threats on our freedom of speech.

      • s c

        The kooks who ‘contribute’ feedback to this web site are entitled to their opinions. However, when their opinions are part of a plan to destroy our Second Amendment freedoms, we’re obligated to put these airheads in their braindead, utopia-loving place.
        It’s only a matter of time until they get bold enough to put the Second Amendment to the ultimate test. That’s when they will learn the hard way that they shouldn’t have slept through history class.
        It takes a special breed of mindless zombie to think that not having
        weapons will make America safe. German civilians in WWII learned that lesson. Every society that dares to be inexcusably stupid will learn matters the hard way. It’s the reward they deserve for surrendering the one thing that all politicians seek to numb and destroy [the brains of the people they want to enslave].

  • Advisor

    Suing a city is expensive, and you can’t sue an elected official because of immunity…..BUT the attorney(s) advising the official and city do not have immunity for bad advise and advise that goes against US law. Soooo…it is time to test the attorneys malpractice insurance. SUE THE ATTORNEY PERSONALLY FOR BAD ADVISE TO AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. The attorney is responsible for the advise he gives….You might find the advise will change.

  • JeffH

    A clear case of “The Mayor vs. The People
    Through an independent poll taken by Zogby International/O’Leary Report shows that 84% support the Second Amendment as a personal individual right, backing up a 1975 DMI poll that was released by Congress. Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Andrew McKelvey published a manifesto for anti-gun politicians to “take back the Second Amendment”. They quickley found out that only 8% of voters believe that the Second Amendment does not protect an individuals right to own guns. Bloomberg’s war room for gun control is coordinating with mayors of 451 tax payer run municipalities across the nation; and with big time lobbyists.

    Not only do Seattle residents need to fight this evil, everyone that supports Constitutional rights need to join the fight everywhere. Our current administration has made it very clear that they are also going to take our guns when the time is right. These kinds of statements only support the growing fear that there is far more at stake than just losing your “right to keep and bear arms”. Our freedom is a stake.

  • Dale, Oklahoma

    Seattle Mayor Nickels may want to reconsider about
    taking away Washington State residents abiltiy to
    defend themselves from criminals. After all, isn’t
    this the same State whose bureaucrats thought that
    it was a good idea to let a INSANE MURDERER out on
    a “field trip” to the Spokane County Fair where he
    proceeded TO ESCAPE?!?
    I guess too much caffeine rots the common sense area
    of the brain.

    • Dragonaught

      Any Politition who votes against any Constitutional Right is violating their Oath of Office and is hence a Criminal.

      We need to protect ourselvs from those Criminals as well.

    • eyeswideopen

      Dale, here in Fl, we have a law that you can’t carry a firearm, knife within 1000 ft of a school. College student was arrested for having a regular knife (without sharp blade) of floor of her car. Was left over after picnic. I thought that was stupid, until kid at middle school used same type of knife to hurt another 11 yr old. Most cities don’t allow guns or knifes where children will be playing. I can never pick up my neighbors kids as I have a permit to carry and keep gun in car. Just something we live with in Fl.

    • Robert

      That white powder that politicians like so much is NOT caffeine! (Do a search on Mena, Ark. and drug smuggling.)

  • James

    I would just add that the right to bear arms is an inherent inalienable right. It is not dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence it existed before the federal government was created. The Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” is a restriction the Founders placed exclusively on the new national government. Thus the right to bear arms is not a constitutional or second amendment right the sole purpose from the Second Amendment was to prevent the federal government from infringing on it. The Amendment does not grant or secure the right, as many have been misled to believe.

    • JeffH

      AND…hypocrits like Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Michael Bloomberg and your own Seattle Mayor Nickels who believe that Second Amendment fanatics just don’t get it….it does not guarantee the mythical individual right to bear arms.
      I live in California and have been shooting and owning firearms for over 45 years withour incident. Earlier this year I had to pay $25 to take a test and get fingerprinted just to buy a handgun. Now I am waiting to find out if I will be able to purchase ammo online.
      These anti-gun activists are dangerous and intend to leave Americans defenseless with the simple idea that government will protect you.
      Government has certainly protected taxpayer dollars, and government is always there to protect you before a crime is commited.
      Americans, be concerned about your freedom.

    • JeffH

      Read the Heller vs D.C. ruling.

      • JeffH

        Sorry, DC vs Heller

  • Harold Olsen

    It’s for idiotic stuff like this that we voted Nickels out of office in August. He’s a lame-duck (as well as a lame-brain) mayor. Hopefully, the person we elect in November will get the message and, unlike Nickels, will listen to what the citizens of Seattle want and not just ignore them.

    To Dale in Oklahoma: You’re absolutely right. But then, you have to remember, Washington is one of the most liberal, if not THE most liberal state in the union. We’re in close competition with California on that and we seem to be winning (or maybe I should say losing).

  • marvin

    the goverment wants to take your gun befor obama gives amnesty to 20 milliom illegals with your goverment trying to give amesty and free health care and food stamps and free housing take 350 border agents from are southern border and send them to the northern border want to close gitmo with no plans on what to do with them unemployment went up last mt have,s anyone you know got a job from the obama shovle ready job you may get a job as a czar if your brain is fried or work as head of dhs and not no it is illegal to enter this country with out a visa or passport or get elected to congress or the sec of treasure if you don,t pay your taxes for 10 years

  • http://ordy@fedtel./net Eric g

    People live in differant areas and have differant experiences .In the overpopulated cities with both parents working and hundreds of people even a 1000 living in one square block . With cops with guns always close by. I agree that with less guns some people may feel safer . I would think the cops would feel a lot safer too ,if all the people would turn in there guns ? Australia another rural country was talked into turning in their guns . instead of the crime rate going down it went up . As criminals went wild robbing and even killing more rural helpless people then ever before in Australia. Here in lies one of the problems all the people do not turn in their guns . Here in the rural america we cling to our guns . We are planning local militas Where we keep our guns in the hands of the the people now posessing them . If the crime rate goes up much more , we may have to raise taxes and buy more guns ,for people that think they may need them . A example maybe a gun for a person that has thought it necessary to have a restraining order put on someone else. If a court has issued a restraining order we will issue a gun ,unless some one objects . If anyone objects to someone having a gun we will have our law officers respond and evaluate this person . we wont allow guns to be in possession of convicted criminals or unsable people where there maybe reason to believe they may be dangerious to us or even themselves . This is gun controle , a gun controle that I believe would make us all safer ,not leave us all sitting ducks . So rural america is insanely clinging to their religion and their guns . If we are being robbed in rural america We might have to call a cop twenty five even fifty miles away . Evreything is way to late , the police say the criminals are probabley out of their juristiction by now . A study of World History says over and over that the real crime begins after the people have been seperated from their ability to defend themselves . In plain English good gun controle easy and plenty crime .

  • http://ordy@fedtel./net Eric g

    Dont expect the constitution to protect any of your rights . The constitution has realy never been followed unless the government wanted to obey it . I liked the idea sueing the lawyer for giving bad advice . Unconstitutional advice , if you can get him into court and a jury , and he advised the government to do wrong , you just might win . They should pay higher malpractice insurance than doctors . I think Class action suit against the trail attorneys for murder would be a good won . becuase the attorneys have scared the doctors so much they did not dare to work on a patients and let her die , I would rather that the doctor try . NO one should bleed to death from the phemia artery with a doctor standing over you , waiting for a surgeon for three hrs . Sueing the lawyers for malpractice is better than sueing the government becuase the goivernment has passed laws that the government cant be sued . Have you ever heard the more laws the less justice . I think we live pretty good I’am well satisfied with my predicuement . but I’am very disapointed in our justice system , seems the higher the court the more disapointing . We cant even see the presidents birth certificate courts wont let us . Over 40% of the people in one State dont even believe he is a US citizen

  • Rich

    Hey maybe that would also be a good idea for those trial lawyers advising the people to sue Dr.’s for things that were not malpractice. I am not saying that all of the suits brought against Dr.’s are frivolous, but many many are. How about we start doing things like this to ensure the lawyers look up and understand the laws they are advising on rather than clogging our legal system with idiotic cases that should never have seen a courtroom in the first place. This is just a thought as obviously I liked the idea but am not sure if this would work to lessen or grow the amount of frivolous cases in our courts today.


    My mama “wore army boots”, and I am proud of her and my father who also served, and all of the other family members of my family who have given their time and blood. My father taught me to be a “dead eye”. My brother has a collection of firearms as well as other weaponry, as a marshal artist of the black belt levels in Karate and Judo. I also learned marshal arts under him and his teachers. I cannot say I am innocent of anger, in fact I have quite a temper, however I believe that I can say that I have it under control. I cannot (nor do I want to) count the times my life has been on the line, usually in defense of some other not able to defend themself. My mothers’ people were hunted for sport, our people subjected to genocide. Yet I carry no arms nor defensive weaponry. I do not expect anyone else to follow my personal path. I cannot see such a world as is without weapons until there is a change in humanity, fear being the ruler of this world. I believe only the blind to reality, can follow the path of forcing others into corners to defend themselves. Even a cuddly kitten will come out with all claws and teeth when it feels itself backed into such a corner. The early settlers of this country understood this concept, and sot to guarentee their decendents this safety and sanity. Purity of heart has its reward, but sometimes blood must be shed first.

  • BrotherPatriot

    Greetings everyone, I have some important news relating to this article…

    Today, 3/12/2013…I got a message from a friend that he ran into trouble at our local Costco store regarding him exercising his 2nd Amendment right. The checker noticed the butt of his pistol as he leaned across the counter & immediately, got loud & vocal about Costco’s policy of being a “gun free zone”. My friend said it was his duty to ensure he was compliant with such places & he did not notice any signs up stating Costco was such an establishment. After checking around with other stores both in & out of the State of Washington, it is indeed Costco’s formal standing policy to not support American’s 2nd Amendment rights.

    I did some quick research before going down to the local Costco store to find out what my states laws were regarding this equation. This is what I found out…

    1) State regulations relating to the issuance of concealed carry permits generally fall into four categories described as Unrestricted, Shall Issue, May issue and No Issue.

    2) Washington State is a Shall Issue so as long as you have your legal concealed weapons permit and you follow those laws & no other laws supercedes them.

    3) There is an “Opt Out Statute” that some states use. “Opt-Out” statutes (“gun-free zones”) are used by the following states (Please do note that Washington State is NOT on this list): Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,[48] Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin all allow private businesses to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which, in some of these states, is grounds for revocation of the offender’s concealed carry permit and criminal prosecution. By posting the signs, businesses create areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun similar to regulations concerning schools, hospitals, and public gatherings. In addition to signage, virtually all jurisdictions allow some form of oral communication by the lawful owner or controller of the property that a person is not welcome and should leave. This notice can be given to anyone for any reason (except for statuses that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other CRAs, such as race), including due to the carrying of firearms by that person, and refusal to heed such a request to leave may constitute trespassing. In some jurisdictions trespass by a person carrying a firearm may have more severe penalties than “simple” trespass, while in other jurisdictions, penalties are lower than for trespass.[49]

    There is considerable dispute over the effectiveness of such “gun-free zones”. Opponents of such measures, such as, state that, much like other malum prohibitum laws banning gun-related practices, only law-abiding individuals will heed the signage and disarm. Individuals or groups intent on committing far more serious crimes, such as armed robbery or murder, will not be deterred by signage prohibiting weapons. Further, the reasoning follows that those wishing to commit mass murder might intentionally choose gun-free venues like shopping malls, schools and churches (where weapons carry is generally prohibited by statute or signage) because the population inside is disarmed and thus less able to stop them.

    In some states, business owners have been documented posting signs that appear to prohibit guns, but legally do not because the signs do not meet local or state laws defining required appearance, placement, or wording of signage. Such signage can be posted out of ignorance to the law, or intent to pacify gun control advocates while not actually prohibiting the practice. The force of law behind a non-compliant sign varies based on state statutes and case law. Some states interpret their statutes’ high level of specification of signage as evidence that the signage must meet the specification exactly, and any quantifiable deviation from the statute makes the sign non-binding. Other states have decided in case law that if efforts were made in good faith to conform to the statutes, the sign carries the force of law even if it fails to meet current specification. Still others have such lax descriptions of what is a valid sign that virtually any sign that can be interpreted as “no guns allowed” is binding on the license holder.

    4) I also found this…State Preemption of local restrictions?

    RCW 09.41.290 RCW 09.41.300

    State Law does not allow more restrictive local laws.

    5) Now you all must also take into account that as of this time, Costco does NOT have any signs up showing that it’s a gun free zone & even if they wanted the store to be such a gun free zone…by implementing such a practice they ARE infringing upon our 2nd Amendment rights because Washington State does not follow the Opt Out Statute.

    Now I ask of you…I believe in Family, God & Country. I am a Patriot. Why, if a store doesn’t support the American 2nd Amendment right then why on earth would a patriot support such a store? I hope I have given you all something to research into and to find your own states standing regarding a business who is trying to impact your rights and liberty. Now I like Costco but I must admit, I’m sure I’ll take my business elsewhere if they continue trying to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights.

    God Bless America…never, EVER turn in or register your defense weapons.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.