Two weeks after a shooting at Seattle's Northwest Folklife Festival, Mayor Greg Nickels reportedly plans to announce restrictions Monday on concealed weapons on city property.What's with these big city mayors passing illegal laws--that is, ignoring laws they don't like to impose edicts they intend to enforce against We the People? We saw it recently in Philadelphia and we saw it earlier in San Francisco, where they demonstrated they're "The Only Ones" who can break the law with impunity. If anyone else even rhetorically suggests it and they make real clear how strongly they disapprove.
Nickels' office declined to offer any details about the executive order. A news conference was scheduled at the Police Department with Nickels, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske and state legislators...
Essentially, my understanding is that Mayor Nickels is going to announce an (executive order) pertaining to prohibiting weapons on city property...
...Executive orders are directives to city departments. They do not require City Council approval. They typically don't apply to the general public, but to the policies and actions of city employees, agencies and properties.
Any attempt by a city or county to ban guns outright in public parks -- unless it exempted holders of permits to carry concealed weapons -- would be illegal under state law, which pre-empts local governments from enacting gun laws that are stricter than state codes...
[Via Rick R]
4 comments:
Executive orders are directives to city departments. Just as prsidential Executive Orders concern the operation of federal agencies. They are not meant to be fiat ("Let it be so")law over the People. Don't make us come up there.
Anyway, I think more people have died jumping off Seattle's tall bridges than have been shot on city property.
"Anyway, I think more people have died jumping off Seattle's tall bridges than have been shot on city property."
And considering that the "order" would only apply to city employees, you have to ask: how many city employees are shooting somebody without justification? (aside from the cops -- who wouldn't be affected by this anyway.) Just creating another victim disarmament zone.
I lived in Seattle 10 years ago. Now I avoid even going there if at all possible. It's not out of concern for the "common" criminal -- it's because of the political environment; I won't spend my money any place where it will end up in the cities coffers if I can help it.
Such a beautiful city. Too bad it's going to be another Bloombergburg.
Note that the executive order applies to city properties, thus would it not affect the public as the public uses those city properties?
Also, would it apply to city employees when they are off the clock (ie. the city's network admin)?
Post a Comment