By Charles E. Brown
Seattle Times staff reporter
Dec. 16, 2008

If Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels' proposed firearms policy is on track to become law by executive order, little short of a successful legal challenge is likely to derail it.

The proposal has its supporters. And sidetracking it may be an uphill battle…

Earlier this year, Nickels directed all city departments to "study the adoption and enforcement of policies, rules and contractual agreements" that would prohibit possession of firearms and other dangerous weapons on city property.

If such a ban had been in place eight months ago, a Memorial Day weekend shooting at the city's Folklife Festival at Seattle Center might have been avoided, Nickels' mayoral aide Alex Fryer said.

Nickels' proposed administrative rule would ban possession of firearms on most city property, with some exceptions. It does not require City Council approval.

The proposal includes no specific criminal or civil penalties, but anyone refusing to comply could be cited or arrested for criminal trespass.

The public hearing Monday night at Seattle City Hall opened the proposal to public comment. Nearly 200 people attended, and more than 70 signed up to speak.

To Carender, a 29-year-old South Seattle resident, Nickels' proposal violates the U.S. Constitution and state law. "It also opens the gate to tyranny," she said.

According to Public Health — Seattle & King County statistics, as recently as two years ago firearms were the fourth-leading cause of injury-related death in King County. Tony Gomez, the health department's manager for chronic diseases and injury prevention, called the unchecked possession of weapons a complex public-health problem and said Monday night "it's a public safety problem." The health department supports the measure.

Carender questioned whether the mayor has authority to prohibit guns on public property. "I wouldn't be surprised if there was a legal challenge," she said.