Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

The Seattle Times

Local News


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Politics Northwest

The Seattle Times political team explores national, state and local politics.

Blog Home | RSS feeds Subscribe

October 29, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Comments (6)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print view      Share Share

Mallahan: Gun ban is OK as long as it doesn't cost the city money

Posted by Emily Heffter

As long as Seattle doesn't have to pay the legal fees to defend it, mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan is willing to support Mayor Greg Nickels' so called "gun ban," which places signs prohibiting guns in city-owned playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools and water-play areas.

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups sued the city this week over the ban.

Law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe has offered to represent the city for free.

Mallahan opposed the ban initially. He said he supports its intentions, but it wasn't worth a long and expensive legal battle. McGinn supports the ban, and attacked Mallahan in robo-calls, saying Mallahan was siding with the NRA.

But Mallahan's spokeswoman, Charla Neuman, said Mallahan doesn't have a problem with the ban, as long as it doesn't cost the city anything in legal fees.

"There isn't much to object to except whether it costs the city a lot of money right now. We would fail to see the harm in it." Neuman said. "You never know if there's something you don't foresee that comes up tomorrow. But right now, the big concern is costs, and if the cost concern goes away, then by all means, if it makes people feel safer..."

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print view      Share Share

What a cop out. Easy statement to make when everybody in the city knows it going to court and will cost the city plenty of money. Politician will...  Posted on October 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM by tonyspdx. Jump to comment
This is surprising how? His position was always "I don't support the ban because it would be expensive to defend", not "I...  Posted on October 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM by John Hardin. Jump to comment
Does this mean both candidates are "for" ignoring the Constitution? And since when did being an NRA supporter become a reason to have...  Posted on October 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM by The Truncheon. Jump to comment

Recent entries

Feb 9, 10 - 8:37 PM
Husky Stadium, Safeco Field cut out of tax plan... for now

Feb 9, 10 - 12:31 PM
High-speed rail: spend $50 billion?

Feb 8, 10 - 8:23 PM
Report spells out tuition increases under Senate bill

Feb 8, 10 - 6:08 PM
Gregoire wants more clarity on school funding case

Feb 8, 10 - 4:50 PM
Senate Ways and Means passes bill that would ease way for tax increases

Advertising

Advertising

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising

Browse the archives

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

May 2009

Contributors

Jim Brunner
Covers politics.

Keith Ervin
Covers King County government.

Lillian Tucker
Covers the Legislature.

Andrew Garber
Covers politics and state government from Olympia.

Emily Heffter
Covers Seattle City Hall.

Mike Lindblom
Covers transportation.