Warden Decision - Does not revive Seattle Parks Ban

In regrettably bad journalistic practice, stories such as this proclaimed that as a result of Warden v. Seattle today, the Seattle Parks Gun Ban was revived. The journalist did, at least, get the part about the Chicago case right, and the likelihood that post-SCOTUS on that, it will be something of a moot point. Still, bad reporting and poor practice.

The case in question, Warden v., that you'll be seeing on KOMO tonight is *not* the one that the SAF triumphed over Seattle in a month or so back. That case remains a triumph, and the Parks Ban remains quite thoroughly dead.

Warden was the Gent from Kent who marched into the SW Community Center to get "standing" to sue, and based his case before the Federal Court on Second Amendment and Section 24 of Article I of the WA Constitution. This is what was shot down today. Thankfully, Warden did not address the Pre-emption issue, thus it was not *available* to be shot down.

Chan, et al. v. Seattle, etc was the case brought before the King Co. Superior Ct. by the SAF, NRA, and several individual plaintiff's against the city...and its' primary argument was that Pre-Emption (as described in RCW 9.41) precluded Seattle from enacting a gun ban on city property. The judge took that argument, and ran - ruling that not only did pre-emption preclude the city from such a ban, but that the city was subject to both the provisions of the Federal & State Constitutions.

The Federal decision in Warden case today was unfortunate, and may fail on appeal - undoing a great deal of the misfortune in today's decision. While technically more or less correct (following the current trend of decisions in the 9th Circuit), todays Warden decision claiming that neither the Washington nor Federal Constitutions applied to the City strikes me as neither original, good, nor intellectually honest. Good law often comes from trial court judges with the courage to rule contrary to precedent when the conflict between statute and constitutional provision(s) is this astonishingly clear.

The critical element of the SAF case ruling (the judge enjoining the city from enforcement or displaying signage) remains intact, and the 2A and WA Constitutional issues are *debateable* - only time will tell.

I am not an attorney, not even for pretend. None of the above consists of legal advice, and only a full-bore ninny would consider it so. For legal advice, see an attorney, not me!