Snohomish County Judge Says Lawsuit V. “Safe-Storage” Gun Law ‘Ripe For Determination

Opinion

Lawsuit
Snohomish County Judge Says Lawsuit V. “Safe-Storage” Gun Law ‘Ripe For Determination

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- A Snohomish County Superior Court judge will allow a lawsuit challenging a so-called “safe storage” ordinance in the City of Edmonds to proceed, ruling that all plaintiffs in the case have standing to challenge the ordinance as a violation of Washington State’s 35-year-old preemption law that placed sole authority for firearms regulation in the hands of the Legislature.

The case is brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and two private citizens, Brett Bass and Swan Seaburg. Judge Anita L. Farris denied a motion by the City to dismiss the case, noting that “the Plaintiff’s claim that the ordinance is preempted by state statute is ripe for determination.”

Edmonds adopted a “safe storage” requirement last year, which violates the preemption statute. SAF and NRA promptly filed suit with the two private citizens.

Judge Farris has done what King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Linde would not do when she dismissed a similar lawsuit against the City of Seattle on technical grounds after the city argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. SAF and NRA have appealed her ruling. Seattle has adopted a “safe storage” requirement, possibly emboldened to challenge state preemption because it also adopted a controversial “gun violence tax” in 2015 that the State Supreme Court allowed to stand.

“We’re encouraged by Judge Farris’ order,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The city knows this ordinance violates the state preemption statute, and we believe this ordinance, and the one in Seattle, were passed specifically to erode the state law.

“The cities have desperately wanted to remove the preemption law so they can establish their own, possibly contradictory gun control rules,” he continued. “Their ultimate goal is to discourage citizens from exercising their rights under the state and federal constitutions by financial intimidation through fines that could climb to $10,000 under the Edmonds ordinance. The cities want to take Washington State back in time, to an era when a patchwork quilt of confusing, conflicting gun laws existed. State Preemption did away with that, and it’s time for the courts to end this nonsense.”


Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

  • 11
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    5 Comment threads
    6 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    9 Comment authors
    Clark KentGregory RomeuWild Billm.John Pyktel Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    m.
    Guest
    m.

    gotta keep them loy-uhs in business

    Clark Kent
    Guest
    Clark Kent

    So your alternative is losing rights without a court fight? With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    John Pyktel
    Guest
    John Pyktel

    The state, county or city should have the right for law bidding citizens the carry and bear arms in the privacy of their own home or outside their on with a concealed carry permit.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @John P, I think that you have your finger on the pulse, but governments do not have “Rights”. Governments only have authorities. Individuals, and only individuals, have “Rights”. Some “rights” are granted by Congress or state legislatures, and can be taken away by that same Congress or legislature. Some “rights” are contractual, and are limited by the contract between the parties. Then there are our Constitutionally enshrined, pre political, “Rights” that can not be diminished, abridged, infringed or taken away. Our pre political Rights are a shield behind which we can stand and no governmental authority can move us. Our… Read more »

    Gregory Romeu
    Guest
    Gregory Romeu

    @Wild Bill, you had one small slip-up…Our, “Constitutionally enshrined and enumerated Rights make us equal to government” Our rights do not make us equal to government, these rights are placed far above.government and are to be protected by those that govern.

    Clark Kent
    Guest
    Clark Kent

    Not correct. Government has powers; individuals have rights. Authorities are individuals. Nice try; no cigar. P.S. The only folks who can ‘dumb down’ the population are the citizens themselves, not the ‘elitists’.

    RJL
    Guest
    RJL

    Nuts…

    Charles Moore
    Guest
    Charles Moore

    Place the source for the “gun violence tax” funds on organic foods, vitamin water and bicycles and see how long it takes for the lefties to start screaming about how illegal such a thing is. 5, …. 4, ….3, …….

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    What’s wrong with this crazy judge? She read the case deeply enough to realise Plaintiffs have standing. Fine. She ALSO had to have noted the issues at stake, as she says they are “ripe for determination”. The matters at law are crystal clear… Edmonds, along with Seattle, have enacted firearms restrictions that are narrower than state laws. This is directly contrary to state law, which clearly preempts all lesser jurisdictions. She SHOULD have issued Summery Judgement WIth Prejudice, finding against Defendant City of Edmonds. That would END the matter permanently. Now how many local citizens with important matters on the… Read more »

    Charles Moore
    Guest
    Charles Moore

    You, sir, are entirely correct in your assessment.

    Webfoot Logger
    Guest
    Webfoot Logger

    The judge could not rule on the basic case at this time because the City of Edmonds sought summary judgement on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, which was the only issue before this judge at this time.

    She has now ruled on that motion, finding that the plaintiffs have standing, and the trial to find the safe-storage law unconstitutional will now proceed.

    One step at a time.