At least, I think he does. I think this, because he apparently likes to pursue agendas that result in inevitable legal cases against the city that the city doesn’t stand one chance of winning. From the Seattle Times comes this gem:
After a shooting at last year’s Northwest Folklife Festival left three people injured, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels vowed to outlaw guns in city buildings, parks and Seattle Center.
The proposal has languished for almost a year, with the state Attorney General’s Office saying the mayor lacks the authority to prohibit guns on city property, a Second Amendment group threatening to sue and questions continuing as to what the policy would really accomplish.
Well, yeah. I mean, that’s pretty cut and dried, isn’t it? Look, I’m no fan of guns myself. I don’t support the NRA, who I think is overzealous in their protection of the Second Amendment, which itself seems a little fuzzy in this day and age (really, did our forefathers foresee the existence of something like assault rifles? Should that matter? I think it should). I’m fully in favor of regulating guns, and making those who want to own and fire them obtain registrations and licenses. I think guns should be carefully tracked and watched over. I don’t even own a gun – in fact, amazingly enough, I’ve never even fired one. Not once. So, clearly my bias is not with gun owners.
But even I recognize a sure loser when I see one. Again, from the Seattle Times article linked above:
With another Northwest Folklife approaching on Memorial Day weekend, a spokesman for Nickels said the mayor is moving ahead with an executive order this spring and is prepared to defend it in court.
Even if the order is not in place, the May 22-25 festival will be gun-free through the city’s lease with festival organizers. Signs posted at the Seattle Center event will remind people not to bring guns, and security will be trained to take firearms away or ask people to leave, says Alex Fryer, a Nickels spokesman.
The new city order would apply even to people who have a state permit allowing them to carry a concealed weapon. Without a permit, it’s already illegal in Washington to carry a concealed weapon in public.
…Washington state law says cities can’t restrict firearms beyond state law.
Seattle mayor Greg Nickels
So, let me make sure I have this straight. The mayor of Seattle wants to circumvent the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights as well as State law, even though the State Attorney General has told him it won’t fly, an activist group waits with a lawsuit in hand ready to deliver the moment the order is given, and the State of Washington itself has a law on the books prohibiting cities from restricting firearms beyond state law, but the mayor wants to go through with this anyway? He cites a State Supreme Court ruling from 2006 that involved an event in the small Washington town of Sequim as setting a precedent for this, but that seems to have involved (and I’m no lawyer, so someone correct me if I misread this) an event in the context of a private party, the same as if I told you not to bring your gun into my house (which I’m perfectly entitled to do), not a public event open to everyone. Even then, the decision seems a bit wishy-washy and not in the slightest bit airtight. And this is what Mayor Nickels wants to potentially bet millions of dollars on?
Ultimately, it doesn’t seem to me that Mayor Nickels has the authority to enact such an order. It’s blatantly unconstitutional, and the State Attorney General, who is probably a bit more of an expert on State law than Mayor Nickels is, has told him flat-out that it won’t hold water. Whenever I hear about cases like this, I think of Kitzmiller v Dover, and how people with an agenda can move recklessly, thoughtlessly forward on a virtual suicide mission just because of their strong beliefs, not realizing all the while that judges don’t much consider beliefs – they tend to consider law. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with what Mayor Nickels wants to do, I’m just saying that it’s throwing good money down the toilet, because it doesn’t seem to me there’s any way to win a case like this. You don’t bring a loser to the championship fight, and that’s exactly what Mayor Nickels is doing. Unfortunately, it’s not his pocket in particular that’s affected – it’s the pockets of his constituents, whom he’s doing a great disservice. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Look, I’m no fan of writers myself. I don’t support the Americains, who I think are overzealous in their protection of the First Amendment, which itself seems a little fuzzy in this day and age (really, did our forefathers foresee the existence of something like High speed presses, Television and the Internet? Should that matter? I think it should). I’m fully in favor of making those who want to write and publish obtain registrations and licenses and submitting all works for approval before the public can see it. I think information should be carefully tracked and watched over.
May you sit comfortably on your petard.