Seattle: Mayor moves to ban guns with executive order

[Hazcat]

is he in charge of said property?    if yes, then he does have the authority  to dictate policy with in the bounds of the law. 

And therein lies the rub.

[DDMac]

The mayor may do what the owners of the property allow him to do, within the bounds of the law. He is an employee. No?
Mac.

[WatchManUSA]

THE SUSPECT HAS A HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. YET LAST YEAR HE WAS ISSUED A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT.

I don't know the Washington state gun laws but this guy sounds like, if he had documented "drug abuse and mental health problems," he probably wouldn't qualify for a carry permit in most states.  Perhaps the Washington state process is flawed.  Leave it to a politician to over generalize and focus on the wrong end of the problem.  If there is a problem with one there must be a problem with all.

[brosometal]

From the article:

WORKMAN: "When the state legislature adopted what we call state pre–emption back in the early 1980s it put that power, that authority solely in the hands of the legislature which means the city of Seattle, or the city of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, Bellingham, pick a city, they can't set up their own gun laws that are any more strict than the state standard."

After thoroughly checking my thinking cap then re-reading for confirmation of my reading comprehension I have come to the conclusion that the fine mayor of Seattle is in violation of the state constitution.  TAB, you lost again.  The problem is not with the gun, it is with the user.  Substitute hammer for gun in this or any story and see the utter futility of thought that it would take to believe that the mayor of Seattle has a sane idea with his "plan" for public safety.   

Stop.  Breathe Deeply.  Think don't feel.  (There is a theme in here somewhere.)

[tombogan03884]

wait so its wrong for a properity owner to control what is allowed on thier properity?

if you say yes, tell me when you want me to drop off a drum or two of hazmat.

From the article:

WORKMAN: "When the state legislature adopted what we call state pre–emption back in the early 1980s it put that power, that authority solely in the hands of the legislature which means the city of Seattle, or the city of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, Bellingham, pick a city, they can't set up their own gun laws that are any more strict than the state standard."

After thoroughly checking my thinking cap then re-reading for confirmation of my reading comprehension I have come to the conclusion that the fine mayor of Seattle is in violation of the state constitution.  TAB, you lost again.  The problem is not with the gun, it is with the user.  Substitute hammer for gun in this or any story and see the utter futility of thought that it would take to believe that the mayor of Seattle has a sane idea with his "plan" for public safety.  

Stop.  Breathe Deeply.  Think don't feel.  (There is a theme in here somewhere.)

 Yes, there is a theme here,    

[Sponsor]

[kmitch200]

is he in charge of said property?    if yes, then he does have the authority  to dictate policy with in the bounds of the law. 

Your skull can't possibly be that thick. Like playing Devil's advocate, do you?

Then please try to have a reasonable argument in place instead of some half baked nonsense. 

[TAB]

Your skull can't possibly be that thick. Like playing Devil's advocate, do you?

Then please try to have a reasonable argument in place instead of some half baked nonsense. 

I'm not playing devils advocate.   I truely beleave that a property owner( or some one in charge of said property) right to restrict what comes onto and happends on thier property.  Since you don't have to go on that property, his right, trumps your rights.

[tombogan03884]

I'm not playing devils advocate.   I truely beleave that a property owner( or some one in charge of said property) right to restrict what comes onto and happends on thier property.  Since you don't have to go on that property, his right, trumps your rights.

You should take a class on civics, the mayor does not OWN the town so your argument is assinine

[TAB]

You should take a class on civics, the mayor does not OWN the town so your argument is assinine

He is in charge of it... thats no diffrent then a property manger, the owners of said property gave him power over it when they elected him. 

[brosometal]

Please re-read the article.  He does not have the authority according to the state law.  He, the mayor, has overstepped his authority.  It would be roughly the equivalent of a sheriff from another state writing a traffic ticket,"because something needed to be done".