Seattle sued over public building gun ban

From the Evergreen State:

SEATTLE -- A Kent man who chose to "exercise his right to bear arms" by carrying a holstered Glock pistol into a community center earlier this month has taken the mayor to federal court.

Robert C. Warden filed a complaint against the Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and the city itself in U.S. District Court, alleging the city's gun ban defies his constitutional right to bear arms.

...

Warden's complaint defines the gun ban as a "substantial and comprehensive infringement of Second Amendment rights" -- an opinion the state Attorney General Rob McKenna shares, according to Warden. In a formal written opinion, McKenna said cities in Washington state do not have the power to regulate the possession of firearms on or in city property generally open to the public.

The complaint seeks an order permanently prohibiting the city and Nickels from enforcing any law that "in any way regulates any aspect of firearms unless specifically authorized by Washington Sate statutory law."

Warden, 44, protested the city's new gun ban by walking into the Southwest Community Center in West Seattle while carrying his gun at high noon on a Saturday earlier this month.

He had forewarned parks officials of his intent and, as a result, was asked to leave immediately after entering the center. Warden complied.

Warden, an attorney licensed to practice in Washington, said the incident gives him legal standing to file a lawsuit over the ban, which he believes is illegal. ...

Article here. Hopefully, in addition to a permanent injunction against the city, the city will be forced to pay a hefty settlement or punitive damages for its blatant disregard of state law.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Pennsylvania] City passes gun control ordinance, despite state preemption law:

At the June 9, 2009, City Council Meeting, the Council unanimously approved Administration Bill No. 9, “requiring prompt notification to authorities of lost or stolen firearms, and imposing penalties.” The new ordinance would require gun owners to report the loss or theft of any registered firearms within 72 hours of their discovery.

One city woman addressed the Council to express her concern about the ordinance, citing that, according to her understanding, the bill would violate a state ban on gun registration, compromise a state-sanctioned right to bear arms, and create legal costs for both taxpayers and gun owners.

Several city children also addressed the Council to state their support for the ordinance, reading prepared statements to describe the benefits of such controls. This presentation was followed by a public statement from Joe Grace, Executive Director of Ceasefire PA, a Philadelpha-based group that fights to reduce gun violence through public policies like the one being enacted in Lancaster. ...

[Illinois] Another county passes Second Amendment resolution:

It took three votes -- including one that went to a chairman's tiebreaker -- but a non-binding resolution in support of the Second Amendment won Kane County Board approval Tuesday.

The 19-4 vote, with one member voting present, didn't come without some jousting by board members. Drawn up as a general recitation of the constitution's guarantee of freedom to keep and bear arms, the resolution weathered one attempt to table it for more discussion and one member's effort to strengthen its opposition to restrictive gun legislation.

For two years, the group Illinois Pro 2A has asked all of the state's 102 counties to pass a resolution affirming support of the Second Amendment. Pro 2A provides a template that offers a strong objection to certain gun control proposals, but Kane's County's modified version was tempered to be more general. Based on the group's data, Kane becomes the 91st county to adopt such a resolution, although it isn't clear what specific language is used in each of those measures. ...

[Ohio] Women take advantage of firearms training classes:

Thanks to Joy and Faith Ferkel, more than 75 men and women are now better prepared to defend themselves and their families, having taken the National Rifle Association-certified concealed carry courses taught by the mother/ daughter team.

Most of the female students have taken advantage of all-women classes.

The Ferkels began offering the all-women classes last year as a way to provide a comfortable setting for women to learn how to shoot a gun and obtain a concealed carry permit.

"Women have different reasons for choosing a women-only class," Joy said. "Some feel intimidated by those they know have more firearm experience, some have personal protection issues that they believe other women understand, and some want the encouraging camaraderie of a ladies' sewing circle."

"It's easier to ask questions and easier to take the skills test (in an all-ladies class)," said Kim Kuieck, who took the class this spring. "It's easier to think about what you're doing, instead of what everybody's thinking about you."
...
Just as the women had varying reasons for taking an all-ladies class, they also had different reasons for obtaining a concealed carry permit in the first place.

"I felt like it was a civic duty," VanWey said. "I believe all citizens should be armed, not only to defend themselves, but to defend others. If citizens are well-trained and know how to use the firearm, it can only help them."
...
For others, it was fear of another kind that brought them to the class. Mel Wammes was robbed at gunpoint while working in a Fremont tavern last year.

"Everyone had left, except a friend and the captain of the dart league," she said. "A man came in demanding money. He had a mask on, he had his hood up, and he was wearing gloves."

That night, both she and her friend were physically assaulted. "That's when I decided, that's it. Never again will I get hit across the face." ...

Seattle tries to subvert preemption law

From the Evergreen State:

In the wake of last year's shootings at Seattle's Folklife Festival, Mayor Greg Nickels pledged to ban guns on city property. But except for one public hearing, there's been little sign of activity. Now as the festival kicks off this weekend at Seattle Center, city officials say the new policy is in effect.

When folk music fans arrive at Seattle Center for the festival, they'll see signs posted saying no guns allowed. And that applies even to concealed weapons with legal permits.

Bob Scales is Seattle's senior policy analyst on this issue. He says gun owners will have a few options.

Scales: "They can either take their gun and either take it home or store it legally in their car. Or if they want to store it at Seattle Center they're making safe storage devices available."

There are lock boxes in Key Arena, where gun owners can leave their guns until they're ready to go home.

The city included new language in its leases with the Folklife Festival and other renters this year. These groups are now required to take steps to keep guns off city property. Right now, the policy only applies to locations covered by those leases. Later this year, the city will implement the gun ban in all city parks and buildings. But they aren't calling it a ban. That's because state law preempts tighter gun laws by cities.

Scales says it's a "rule."

Scales: "The state preemption clearly prohibits the city from passing a law. A rule is not a law. What a rule is, is essentially a formalized policy." [emphasis added]

And if someone breaks that rule by bringing a gun to Seattle Center or City Hall, there won't be any penalty. The penalty will be a citation for criminal trespass, if the person is asked to leave and refuses.

Alan Gottlieb heads the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue. He's been a vocal critic of the Seattle gun rule. He says it violates state law and he'll be in court as soon as the city implements it. ...

Article here. Imagine if the city tried to subvert anti-discrimination laws by passing a "rule" that no blacks, or hispanics, or asians, could enter the festival. Think they'd get very far? Or a "rule" that tried to muzzle free speech in all city parks?

In general, a municipality's administrative rules cannot override state law, absent some explicit authorization by the state legislature or state Constitution. Municipalities are political subdivisions of the state, and hence subject to its power.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[New York] Article: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to introduce gun ban bill:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.

Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.
...
Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday. [emphasis added] ...

[California] Federal appeals court upholds gun manufacturer and seller liability protection law:

Firearms manufacturers and sellers cannot be held liable for criminal misuse of their products, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday in a case stemming from a white supremacist's 1999 shooting rampage at a Jewish community summer camp in Granada Hills.

The suit brought by the mother of a man fatally shot by Buford O. Furrow Jr. and the families of five others wounded -- including three preschool children -- sought to hold Georgia-based Glock Inc., dealer RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle and a Chinese manufacturer liable for negligence.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the constitutionality of a 2005 federal law that retroactively shielded gun makers and distributors from responsibility for criminal acts involving properly functioning weapons. ...

[Utah] Lawmaker wants states rights gun law:

New protections for gun owners are on the agenda in Utah, where state Rep. Carl Wimmer is preparing to introduce a bill that would assert the state's sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

Utah apparently is following Montana's lead in attempting the plan that would protect residents' Second Amendment gun rights.

Wimmer intends his legislation to exempt from federal gun regulations any Utah resident seeking to own a firearm made in Utah.

Wimmer explained to WND that he intends to introduce a bill, not a resolution.

"A resolution has no teeth to it because a resolution amounts to a state saying to federal government, 'We are going to stand up and assert our rights, if you will let us please do so, federal government,'" said Wimmer. "A bill is an actual state law that will put into place the fact that if a firearm is manufactured in Utah, sold in Utah and kept within the boundaries of Utah, that firearm will be exempt from federal regulation under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution." ...

[Missouri] Lawmakers debate campus carry, but bill stalls:

JEFFERSON CITY - Only supporters made their voices heard at a Senate hearing on a bill that would allow guns on college campuses.

Five people defended a measure which would allow for college students to carry and conceal firearms on the state's college campuses.

Originally, House Bill 668 was a measure to lower the age for a gun permit to 21 from 23. But then the legislative process ran it course, which led to an additional amendment to allow for concealed handguns on college campuses.

The University of Missouri System and Missouri State University each opposed the measure when the conceal and carry provision was added.
...
Senate Judiciary Committee Vice Chairman Sen. Jack Goodman, R - Mt. Vernon, offered several opportunities for anyone to voice their opposition but no one did.

The committee chair, Sen. Matt Bartle, R - Jackson, has already spoken up in support of the bill. The measure needs only one more vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee before it reaches the Senate Floor.

By early Tuesday morning, it became clear the bill will not be able to go through all of the steps needed for it to pass before the legislative session ends this week.

[Nebraska] City amends concealed carry ban to conform to state law:

City officials passed an amendment Monday to allow concealed weapons, putting Beatrice in line with state statute.

The Beatrice Council approved 7-0, with councilman Calvin Carey absent, an amendment to the city’s ordinance that would allow for concealed weapon permit holders to carry within city limits.

Under previous city law, concealed weapons of any kind were not permitted within city limits. However, the amendment makes allowances for those individuals with a permit to carry. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun rights:

Sen. Lautenberg wants to close the gun show "loophole":

Exploiting the tenth anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, perennial gun control advocate Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced his latest gun show bill. Lautenberg was joined at the press conference by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jack Reed (D-RI). "The Hill" quotes Lautenberg as saying:

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole,” said Lautenberg, the bill’s sponsor. “The reason it’s still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington.”

The bill is S. 843: “A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.” What makes it a greater threat than other gun bills in the 111th Congress is the fact that Lautenberg has signed eleven powerful Democrats as cosponsors, including formerly pro-gun Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Dave Workman says Milwaukee police chief setting stage for confrontation:

Milwaukee, WI Police Chief Ed Flynn is playing with political nitro glycerin, and he doesn’t seem to realize it, or perhaps he simply doesn’t care.

Quoted by the La Crosse Tribune, Chief Flynn says he will ignore a finding by State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that peaceable open carry of firearms is legal. Flynn’s directive to officers in his department is “if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.”

The chief displayed a rather cavalier, if not outright arrogant, attitude when he added, “Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.”

My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.

Perhaps some higher legal authority might explain to the chief that it is also irresponsible to send a message to the public that a police chief can literally tell the state attorney general to pound sand, he’s going to do it “his way,” and too bad if that violates someone’s civil rights. Already, some people have been arrested for carrying openly, according to my colleague Candace Dainty.

Note to Chief Flynn: Wisconsin is still part of the United States, not a police state. This is the kind of attitude that gets people grumbling about “jack-booted thugs.”

Yet “police state” is exactly what critics in the Open Carry movement have suggested Flynn is trying to establish, evidently with the support of anti-gun Gov. Jim Doyle, and State Rep. Leon Young, a Milwaukee Democrat who plans to introduce legislation banning open carry. ...

[Colorado] CCW permit applications soar:

The number of people in Grand County seeking permits to carry a concealed handgun increased by 283 percent from 2007 to 2008.

Statewide, the increase was 212 percent, and the trend shows few signs of abating.

“We just haven’t seen an end to it,” said Grand County Sheriff Rod Johnson.
...
“We believe it started with the presidential election,” the sheriff said of the rapid acceleration in the number of people seeking the permits.

He said permit-seekers often volunteer political views regarding Second Amendment issues and that many of them recently have expressed concerns about the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House.

Democrats traditionally are more inclined than Republicans to favor gun-control legislation.

“I believe that citizens have the right to own and carry” firearms, [Sheriff] Johnson said. “Permit holders have never caused me any problems.” [emphasis added] ...

[Texas] Op-ed: College professors support campus carry bill:

Mass public shootings are a horrific feature of modern life. Many of the bloodiest examples of this scourge have occurred on college campuses. As professors, we are particularly sensitive to this danger.

Despite this – no, because of this – we support a bill currently pending in the Texas Legislature that would permit the concealed carrying of firearms on college and university campuses in the state by holders of concealed-handgun permits.

Any public policy involving matters of life and death should be decided only after weighing carefully the competing risks. Examining the relevant facts and data indicates that permitting Texas permit holders to carry weapons on college campuses would improve safety because:

•The best available empirical evidence shows that concealed-carry laws reduce the incidence of mass public shootings.

•Mass public shootings occur almost exclusively in places – like universities – where concealed carry is proscribed.

•There are numerous examples of firearms owners acting to disarm would-be mass murderers, thereby saving lives.

•Concealed-handgun-permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals.

If gun bans truly reduced the risk of mass public shootings, then gun-free zones would be refuges from such havoc. Sadly, the exact opposite is true. All multiple-victim public shootings in the United States with more than three fatalities have occurred where concealed handguns are prohibited. Moreover, the worst primary and secondary school shootings have occurred in Europe, despite its draconian gun laws. ...

NSSF explains why Tiahrt amendment restricting gun-trace data is needed:

There are good reasons for preventing firearm tracing data from becoming public information. Doing so protects the lives of law enforcement officers and also the integrity of undercover operations that may have been in place for weeks or even months. Restricting access also prevents the misuse of the data to bring nuisance lawsuits, as New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg did when he launched his own private sting operation against out-of-state firearms retailers and interfered with up to 18 federal investigations for which he was chastised in a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

For these reasons and others, legislation called the Tiahrt Amendment rightly protects gun ownership information from being released to the public, while at the same time allowing law enforcement to access and share the data for their investigations.

Introduced by Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) in 2003, the legislation has been renewed every year since then and has the support of the Fraternal Order of Police. Even New York's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, opposed the public release of such sensitive information, saying in a 2002 letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft, "The release of trace information . . . seriously jeopardizes not only . . . investigations, but also the lives of law enforcement officers, informants, witnesses, and others." [emphasis added] ...

Gun, ammo sales booming:

Gun sales are soaring in the US amid fears that President Obama is planning a new crackdown on the ownership of weapons.

The country is even facing a shortage of ammunition as gun stores are besieged by customers - even though the President has insisted he is not planning new legislation.

Seven million people have applied for background record checks with the FBI in the last few months so they can obtain a gun licence.

The Guns and Ammo store in Manassas, Virginia, says it has seen a 50% rise in sales since November's election. ...

[Pennsylvania] NRA sues Pittsburgh over city gun ordinances:

The National Rifle Association today sued Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Pittsburgh City Council in an effort to overturn a law that penalizes gun owners who fail to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours.

The 19-page lawsuit was filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court on behalf of four Pittsburgh gun owners who say the ordinance — intended to crack down on "straw purchasers" of guns — "severely restricts" their Second Amendment right to keep firearms in their homes.

"The plaintiffs will be prevented from exercising their rights under state law to freely own, possess and transport firearms," according to the lawsuit.
...
The NRA argues the law should be declared invalid because city lawmakers don't have the authority to regulate firearms under the state's Uniform Firearms Act of 1939. It states: "No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession or transportation of firearms." ...

[Wisconsin] Anti-gun Gov. Doyle wants to repeal state preemption law:

Governor Jim Doyle (D) is proposing to repeal the state's preemption statute which prohibits localities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than the state's. Wisconsin's preemption law was originally passed in 1995 when Doyle was Attorney General. Doyle was vocally opposed to statewide preemption and its passage left a bitter taste of defeat in his mouth that has never gone away. Now, Governor Doyle is using the arrest of law-abiding Wisconsin citizens exercising their constitutional right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense as a platform to call for its repeal.

If Doyle succeeds in repealing preemption, it would bring Wisconsin into the dark days of draconian gun laws. Cities, counties, and municipalities cannot be allowed to pass ordinances, rules, or regulations more stringent than state law. This leads to a patchwork of laws across the state, which can be confusing for residents and non-residents visiting the state. It can also make criminals out of law-abiding citizens who inadvertently run afoul of a local ordinance. Imagine the extremists in Madison determining their own gun laws! Rest assured, they would use Chicago as their model for their gun laws. ...

[Wisconsin] Mike Stollenwerk says Milwaukee police chief using Bull Connor's playbook:

Earlier this week WISN.com TV News caught on video a consensual encounter between West Allis police officers and Brad Krause who happened to be open carrying a holstered handgun in public. Like the old Roman saying, the police officers' action can be described simply as: they came, they saw, they left.

In states where open carry has become popular the police often don't even come anymore unless they see or are told of actual unlawful conduct.

But while Wisconsin gun owners like Mr. Krause prepare to play ball with consensual police inquiries into their orderly open carrying of holstered handguns, Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn appears to be borrowing a page from Bull Connors' playbook. As the Birmingham, AL Public Safety Commissioner in the 1960s, Bull Connors became a symbol of bigotry by using fire hoses and police attack dogs against protest marchers.

Now comes Milwaukee police chief Ed Flynn - hailing recently from Massachusetts but acting like he's from the old South - telling his officers to "take down anyone with a firearm despite Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully." Chortled Flynn, "My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it."

With good reason, Reason Magazine notes "You know you have a problem when the chief refers to peace officers as 'troops.'" ...

[Wisconsin] Gene German muses on lawmaker's proposed ban on open carry:

... The Governors reaction to last Monday’s memo by Attorney General VanHollen was to suggest that the state should return to the days when local jurisdictions could enact their own set of ordinances – implying Milwaukee for example could ban open carry if it wanted to. What the Governor (who is also a former Wisconsin attorney general) seems to have ignored is a local ban on open carry would also be an unconstitutional infringement on a citizens protected right.

Rep Leon Young, a former Milwaukee cop is telling everyone that he is “fast tracking” a new state law to ban open carry statewide. Of course, that law would be unconstitutional also for the same reasons. Fortunately, we already have a pretty good idea what the Wisconsin Supreme Court will say about any such law.

Chief Justice Shirley Abramson said in her dissent in Hamdan;

Article I, Section 25 does not establish an unfettered right to bear arms. Clearly, the State retains the power to impose reasonable regulations on weapons, including a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons. However, the State may not apply these regulations in situations that functionally disallow the exercise of the rights conferred under Article I, Section 25.

So, what we don’t know yet is would the Wisconsin Supreme Court only overturn Rep. Young’s new law banning open carry or would the court overturn both the new law and the old ban on concealed carry too? Why force the court to choose? The court could just overturn them both. The sooner Rep. Young can “fast track” his new law banning open carry to the Governor’s desk for his signature, the sooner we will be able to get the Supreme Courts answer to which law or laws will have to fall.

With the help of Governor Doyle and Rep. Young all Wisconsin citizens may soon be able to carry guns totally unrestricted like they did before 1872 - again. ...

[Alaska] College students rally for campus carry:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Some students at the University of Alaska Anchorage want to be allowed to carry guns on campus.

George Hines, a UAA student, organized a protest Thursday against a UA-system gun ban. About 15 sign-waving students showed up for the protest, held at a street corner near campus. ...

[California] Shooting sports fair closes due to ammo shortage:

The Raahauge's Shooting Sports Fair, a hands-on gun show where you can shoot all the latest firearms on the market, has been cancelled for 2009. The Sports Fair is normally held the first weekend in June each year at Mike Raahauge Shooting Enterprises in Corona. Mike Raahauge said the fair was cancelled because it had become impossible for all the firearm makers to get enough ammunition for this event.

"I just spoke with all of the manufacturers and none of them can get ammo," said Raahauge late last week. "We could hold the fair, but we'd probably be out of ammunition by Friday afternoon."

"Whether the shortage is due to the election of President Barack Obama or the economic downturn or fear of an increase in crime, ammo sales have been like plywood and bottled-water sales before a hurricane in Florida," Raahauge said.

Since President Obama's election, gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed. Most ammunition manufacturers are operating multiple shifts on their production lines and still can't produce enough ammunition in the major handgun and military-style rifle calibers to meet demand. Besides ammunition, there is also a shortage of semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and reloading components. ...

Nevada town drops effort to ban guns on town property

From Pahrump, Nevada:

There was definitely a hot time in the old town Tuesday night, due in part to an item placed on the town board meeting agenda by Pahrump Town Manager Bill Kohbarger that would have barred firearms on town-owned property, in town-owned buildings and at town-sponsored events.

Fired up residents braved the frigid winds blowing down from snow-capped Mt. Charleston as they streamed into the Bob Ruud Community Center 30 minutes early to ensure a seat for the meeting.

By the time the meeting was called to order at 7 p.m., dozens of residents were standing in the back of the hall.

The board's first order of business after the pledge of allegiance was to permanently remove the firearms ban from the agenda, on advice from the town's attorney, Rick Campbell.

He said, "My research shows the town does not have the legal right to enact these types of ordinances." That ended the matter for the board but didn't stop the 200 or so people in attendance from wanting to voice their opinions. Residents waiting to address the board lined up behind the speaker's podium and around the back of the auditorium.

Board Chairman Nicole Shupp tried to cut off the speaking, but attendees protested, wanting the board, and specifically Kohbarger, to know where they stood on the issue.

A man stating he was from District 5 was first to speak. His name was lost in the noise of the crowd as they reacted to the fact they would not be able to speak on the matter. "The colors have been shown," he said. "We are not okay with this. We can see what's coming in this country. The government is getting out of control. When it comes to gun rights and the Second Amendment, we can't give any more ground. We have zero tolerance on this issue." [emphasis added]

The speaker paused as the hall broke out in thunderous applause. ...

Article here. Time and again we see politicians trying to push their gun control agenda, despite state laws preempting them from doing so.

OSHA: Oklahoma pro-gun law not preempted

From the Oklahoma City Journal Record:

OKLAHOMA CITY – The federal agency in charge of workplace safety does not believe the Occupational Safety and Health Act pre-empts an Oklahoma law prohibiting employers from forbidding the storing of firearms in workers’ cars, according to a letter filed in an appeal with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oklahoma has appealed an October 2007 federal judge’s ruling, which said the 2004 state law conflicts with federal worker-protection laws, including the OSH Act.
The letter stating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s position, from Thomas Stohler, acting assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, to state Rep. Jerry Ellis, principal author of the Oklahoma law, was filed on the state’s behalf by Washington, D.C., attorney Charles J. Cooper.

Cooper said Stohler’s letter makes clear that the federal law does not pre-empt the Oklahoma statute.

“The district court’s judgment thus no longer has any legal support and should be reversed,” Cooper said in a letter to 10th Circuit Court Clerk Elisabeth A. Shumaker.
In the OSHA statement-of-position letter, Stohler said, “[W]e do not believe that, as a general matter, the general duty clause of the OSH Act pre-empts your state’s law.”

The clause requires employers to maintain workplaces free of “recognized hazards.”
Stohler said the OSHA law specifically preserves states’ authority to regulate occupational safety and health issues on which no OSHA standard is in effect.

“Since no OSHA standard specifically governs the issue of the presence of firearms in vehicles in company parking lots, states generally retain broad authority regarding individual rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or state equivalent constitutional provisions, as they affect employers within federal OSHA’s jurisdiction,” Stohler stated.

“Gun-related violence is not a recognized occupational hazard in industry as a whole, under normal working conditions,” he wrote. “Therefore, state laws protecting an employee’s right to transport and store firearms in a locked car on employer premises would not on their face impede the employer’s ability to comply with the general duty clause.”

Stohler said employers are not required to implement policies to protect against random, unforeseeable acts of violence.

Article here. Hopefully, the Tenth Circuit will reverse the District Court's ruling, which held that the federal Occupational Safety and Health law preempted the state statute now under appeal. That statute prohibited employers from prohibiting employees from keeping firearms in their locked vehicles parked on company parking lots.

Update 20-Feb-2009: The original article on the Journal Record site has been archived in their subscription-only archive. A copy of the original article, however, is available here.

Nebraska cities can't ban guns, says Attorney General; cities disagree

From the Cornhusker State:

LINCOLN — City officials across Nebraska were reviewing their options Wednesday in light of an attorney general's opinion that said state law trumps local ordinances banning the carrying of concealed weapons.

Lynn Rex, executive director of the League of Nebraska Municipalities, said one possibility might be to seek legislation yet this year.

"We are still in the process of assessing the opinion," she said.

Rex said the opinion will be a major concern for the communities that have set tighter restrictions on where holders of permits may carry concealed handguns. She said the state law would not have passed had it not allowed a local option.

Local concealed weapons ordinances were believed to be allowed under a state law that lists the authority granted to cities and towns.

But in the opinion, Attorney General Jon Bruning's office quoted portions of the concealed carry law that say a permit is "valid throughout the state" and that "a permitholder may carry a concealed handgun anywhere in Nebraska" with certain exceptions.

The concealed carry law does not explicitly allow local bans, according to the opinion. Without such express permission, state law would predominate.

State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, who sought the opinion, said he did so because he was tired of battling legislatively to force cities and towns to repeal local bans. He tried and failed to get such legislation in 2007.

Now he believes that cities and towns with local concealed weapons ordinances will have to change their laws or risk being sued.

Article here.

Of course, getting anti-gun mayors, city managers and police chiefs to obey the law on their own is another story:

KEARNEY — Hub Territory cities can continue to ban the carrying of concealed weapons despite the Nebraska attorney general’s opinion.

Attorney General Jon Bruning announced an opinion Wednesday that a conceal-carry law passed in 2006 applies to all communities, despite clauses that allowed cities local control.

Lexington City Manager Joe Pepplitsch said until he hears differently, he will assume that Lexington’s ban remains in effect.

“An attorney general’s opinion has no legal effect. There’s a lot of questions about it, but we’ll probably take no action,” Pepplitsch said. “We have an ordinance prohibiting concealed weapons, and it doesn’t pre-empt any other laws, so for us it’s a nonissue. We’re not taking any action on it.”

Article here.

New Pittsburgh gun control ordinance goes into effect

From the Keystone State:

A controversial gun-control law passed by Pittsburgh City Council will take effect within 10 days without Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's signature.

Whether it will be enforced remains to be seen.

The law, which many believe violates the state Constitution, requires gun owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours of noticing it's gone. The measure is designed to stop the flow of guns into the streets through straw purchasers -- people with clean records who buy guns to sell to criminals.

In a letter to council, Ravenstahl said the city's Home Rule Charter, as well as the state Uniform Firearms Act, "preclude enforcement of this ordinance." A similar law in Philadelphia was struck down by Commonwealth Court, a decision that was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The law might violate a 1995 agreement between the city and gun rights advocates, in which the city agreed to leave gun-control laws to the state, Ravenstahl said.

City Council passed the law Dec. 2 in a 6-1 vote, making a veto "futile," Ravenstahl said Monday.

Article here.

Seattle holds public hearing on proposed gun ban

From Seattle Weekly, on this week's public meeting on Mayor Nickels' proposed gun ban:

Although it is convenient to characterize the opponents of Nickels' gun ban merely as a lot of flannel and camo-clad yokels from Auburn or Kent or Enumclaw, the audience was far more representative of the city as a whole than one might stereotypically expect.

There were healthy numbers of liberals and progressives, environmentalists and community activists mixed in with Republicans and Libertarians who were opposed to the notion that, despite being licensed to legally carry a concealed firearm, they'd be forced to walk unarmed in city parks while gang members, stalkers and sundry other criminals are free to pack heat.

Lonnie Wilson, a Lynnwood resident, said he and his partner frequently visit Seattle because it is the center of gay cultural life in the region. He has had a concealed pistol license for eight years.

"As a gay man, I have to be very careful about holding the hand of my partner in public," Wilson said. "I don't want to hide myself just to be safe. Minorities such as myself are the biggest target of hate crimes."

Yvonne Kinoshita Ward, a civil rights lawyer and former President of the Asian Bar Association of Washington said the ban hurts the most vulnerable in the community, minorities, women, domestic violence victims and the disabled. She quoted FBI crime statistics stating that of the 9,000 hate crimes committed in 2007, 41 percent occured on government-owned property.

"Wicked and cowardly men who commit hate crimes do not obey the law," Ward said. "Do not disarm or criminalize those they seek to harm."

Maggie Willson, from Seattle, described herself as a "gun-toting tree-hugger" who campaigned for Barack Obama. She spoke about being raped at knife-point and living in fear for several years before a friend taught her how to shoot.

"Gun bans hurt women more than they hurt men," Willson said adding that she now feels secure, as a CPL holder, to hike at Carkeek Park.

Article here.

Pittsburgh passes anti-gun ordinance, despite state law prohibition

From Pittsburgh:

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― A bill approved by Pittsburgh City Council would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.

It passed by a vote of 6-1. But the debate in council chambers was over whether the bill has any teeth to it - as well as perceptions of why a state law may limit the city's power.

"And it started when the National Rifle Association, gripping their gun with their cold dead hand - the most ridiculous statement I ever heard in my life - went to our legislature and I don't know if you're ever tangled with the NRA but I have on three separate occasions," said Council president Doug Shields. "They don't play nice. They don't stick their neck out in public. They work the back room."

Shields claims the state law that may make the bill meaningless was arranged by the NRA.

Rev. Ricky Burgess, though, voted no - saying however the state law was written, it is clear.

"No municipality in this commonwealth under any circumstances may regulate firearms of any kind at any time for any reason," said Burgess. [emphasis added]

But Councilmember Tonya Payne voted for it.

Article here. You may recall that Councilwoman Payne was reported as saying she didn't care whether the ordinance was constitutional or not. When our elected servants don't think it important to act within the law, ordinary citizens may decide to follow suit.

Councilwoman: "Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?"

From the Keystone State:

Pittsburgh City Council gave its first approval today to legislation requiring that anyone report a lost or stolen firearm report that within 24 hours or potentially face a $500 fine.

The 6-1 vote, with two abstentions, sets up a final vote likely next week, which would send the legislation to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl for his signature or veto, and then potentially to the courts, where similar measures have been challenged.

"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" said Councilwoman Tonya Payne, a supporter. "This is what's right to do, and if this means that we have to go out and have a court battle, then that's fine ... We have plenty of dead bodies coming up in our streets every single day, and that is unacceptable." [emphasis added]

The lone no vote was by Councilman Ricky Burgess, who argued that it would be a "false cure" that would be "particularly cruel" to his violence-plagued northeastern Pittsburgh district.

"This legislation will not strike a blow to straw purchasers," he said. "This ordinance will not be enforced, no loopholes will be closed and no lives will be saved, because no municipality can legally regulate firearms of any kind, at any time, for any reason."

Article here. The sad part isn't that Councilwoman Payne doesn't seem to care whether the laws she votes for passes constitutional muster, or that she (presumably) took a solemn oath to support said Constitution, but that she will likely suffer no ill effects from such an outrageous statement.

Meanwhile, in Easton, PA, the city council rejected a similar ordinance proposed by that town's mayor:

City council resoundingly defeated a measure Tuesday that would have required the owners of lost or stolen handguns to report the missing firearms to police.

Council members Ken Brown, Elinor Warner, Pam Panto, Roger Ruggles and Sandra Vulcano voted against requiring that residents must report a missing handgun within 24 hours of discovering the gun lost or stolen. Violators faced a $1,000 fine or 90 days in prison.

Mayor Sal Panto and Councilman Jeff Warren voted in favor.

Panto introduced the measure in October as part of a coalition of eight mayors backing identical laws meant to send a message to Harrisburg about the need for stricter gun laws.

Despite a legal opinion from the city solicitor that the law would prove indefensible in court, the mayor pressed on Tuesday with the vote. Panto even said the city wouldn't pay to defend the law should someone challenge it.

"Why have an ordinance that doesn't hold up in court?" Ruggles asked.

Article here.

Seattle mayor plans gun ban, despite Attorney General's legal opinion

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

An unequivocal "no" from the state Attorney General's Office is often enough to shoot down a city proposal.

Not so with a move by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to ban legally permitted handguns from city-owned parks and buildings, an effort that, if successful, could shatter a 47-year-old state prohibition against cities' regulation of firearms.

The Mayor's Office continues to build a case for the ban despite an Oct. 14 opinion issued by Attorney General Rob McKenna's office arguing that the city cannot pre-empt state gun law. The mayor hopes to introduce an administrative order next month.

Article here. When government officials sworn to uphold the laws and constitution don't obey the law, at some point ordinary citizens may decide that they don't need to obey those laws either.

Some people can't get enough registration

From Cleveland:

Hundreds of Cleveland residents voluntarily register their guns with the city, even though a state law banned Cleveland and other cities from forcing people to register their weapons.

Cleveland officials said they have always enforced state laws, even those that conflict with city ordinances, after the state passed a law last year that revised portions of the concealed-carry law and implemented one set of gun rules statewide, nullifying local firearms ordinances.

For example, the city no longer requires people to register their handguns with City Hall. But some people continue to do so, and the city willingly takes down their information, said Lt. Thomas Stacho, a police spokesman.

Article here. So sad.

Philadelphia can't set own gun rules, says court

A Pennsylvania court has ruled that state law prohibits the City of Brotherly Love from passing its own gun control ordinances:

PHILADELPHIA — A state court ruled Friday that Philadelphia was not entitled to set its own gun laws, invalidating five measures passed by the City Council last year and striking a blow against the city’s efforts to strengthen gun control.

The Commonwealth Court dismissed a petition by two City Council members, Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller, who filed suit last year arguing that the state’s Uniform Firearms Act did not pre-empt Philadelphia’s gun laws.
...
“While we understand the terrible problems gun violence poses for the city and sympathize with its efforts to use its police powers to create a safe environment for its citizens,” the five-judge panel wrote in a 21-page opinion, “these practical considerations do not alter the clear pre-emption imposed by the legislature.” The decision was by a vote of 4 to 1.

Article here.

Ohio Supremes strike down Clyde gun ban

The Ohio Supreme Court has struck down a Clyde city ordinance that banned firearms in city parks:

(Sept. 18, 2008) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that a Clyde city ordinance banning possession of firearms in municipal parks is unconstitutional because it conflicts with a general state law that permits licensed individuals to carry a concealed weapon on any public property other than at locations specified in the state statute. The Court’s 4-3 decision was authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell.

In January 2004, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 2923.126, a state law allowing persons who meet certain qualifications and obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in Ohio other than in excepted locations enumerated in the statute. In uncodified language adopted as part of the concealed carry bill, the legislature declared that its purpose was to adopt a general and uniform regulatory scheme for the concealed carry of firearms in all parts of the state. In adopting that scheme, the legislature stated that it intended to preempt the future adoption or enforcement by any Ohio municipality or political subdivision of any local ordinance that conflicted with state law by prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon in a location where concealed carry is permitted by R.C. 2923.126.

In June 2004, the Clyde City Council enacted a municipal ordinance that prohibited any person within the confines of any city park from possession of a deadly weapon. The ordinance expressly included in its weapons ban persons who were licensed to carry a concealed firearm “pursuant to R.C. 2923.125.” In August 2004, Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OCC) filed suit in the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas seeking a declaratory judgment that the Clyde ordinance was void and unenforceable because it was in conflict with R.C. 2923.126.

While the Clyde case was pending, the Sixth District Court of Appeals in Toledo v. Beatty upheld a Toledo city ordinance banning guns from city parks. Citing Beatty, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Clyde, affirming the enforceability of its ordinance. OCC appealed. While that appeal was pending, the legislature adopted new legislation, H.B. 347, reaffirming its intent to enact a statute that would “provide uniform laws throughout the state” regulating the concealed carry of firearms and explicitly stating that Ohioans have a fundamental constitutional right to possess a firearm where such possession is not expressly prohibited by the U.S. or Ohio constitutions or by a state or federal law. In light of the adoption of H.B. 347, the 6th District abandoned its previous holding in Beatty, reversed the ruling of the trial court, and invalidated the Clyde city ordinance as in conflict with a “general law of the state.”

Clyde sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the appellate court ruling.

The majority in today’s decision, rejected Clyde’s claim that the challenged ordinance was a valid exercise of the city’s “home rule” powers granted by Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Ohio Constitution, and affirmed the 6th District’s holding that the local ordinance is unconstitutional because it conflicts with a general law of the state.

Read the rest of the opinion summary here. The court's opinion is available here.

One more win for law-abiding gun owners, one more setback for city tyrants politicians.