1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 9 10 11 12 OMAR ABDUL ALIM, an individual; MICHAEL THYNG, an individual; THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., a Washington non-profit corporation; and NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; a New York non-profit association; No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipality; JENNY DURKAN, Mayor of the City of Seattle, in her official capacity; SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, a department of the City of Seattle; and CARMEN BEST, Chief of Police, in her official capacity, Defendants. 20 Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, allege the following Complaint for declaratory 21 and injunctive relief against Defendants City of Seattle, Mayor Jenny Durkan, the Seattle Police 22 Department and Chief of Police Carmen Best: 23 I. NATURE OF THE CASE 24 The City of Seattle has passed an ordinance regulating the possession of firearms by 25 mandating how firearms must be stored within the city. However, the ordinance’s mandates are COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 1 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 legally unenforceable. The state of Washington has the exclusive right to regulate the possession of firearms in Washington, and cities may not enact local laws or regulations related to the possession of firearms. RCW 9.41.290. The City of Seattle has ignored this clear rule of preemption—a rule which it has been found to have violated in the past, see Chan v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn. App. 549, 265 P.3d 169 (2011)—by purporting to regulate the manner in which Seattle citizens may possess firearms. The rule of preemption could not be clearer: the City of Seattle (like any municipality in the state of Washington) is not permitted to pass laws that target the possession of firearms through any means. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and ask this Court for an order that would require the Defendants to follow the law. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 II. 1. PARTIES Plaintiff Omar Abdul Alim is an individual residing in Seattle, Washington. Mr. Alim is a U.S. Army veteran with extensive experience with firearms and firearms safety. Mr. Alim and his wife have valid concealed pistol licenses. Mr. Alim currently owns a firearm that he keeps unlocked in his home for self-defense and defense of his family. Mr. Alim has been the victim of a previous home invasion and brandished his firearm to scare off the intruder. Mr. Alim has a strong desire to continue having his firearm in an unlocked and usable state in his home as his training and experience tell him that a person cannot be reasonably expected to access a locked firearm under the time and pressure imposed by a home invasion. Mr. Alim fears enforcement of the Ordinance were he to continue his possession of an unlocked firearm. In addition, Mr. Alim would be forced to purchase a safe or gun lock to comply with the law. 2. Plaintiff Michael Thyng is an individual residing in Seattle, Washington. Mr. Thyng has extensive experience with firearms and has been certified to teach various firearms safety courses. Mr. Thyng currently owns a firearm that he keeps unlocked in his home for self- 25 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 2 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 defense and defense of his family. Mr. Thyng has previously been the victim of a breaking and entering at his home, although he was not at home at the time. Mr. Thyng has a strong desire to continue having his firearm in an unlocked and usable state in his home as his training and experience tell him that a person cannot be reasonably expected to access a locked firearm under the time and pressure imposed by a home invasion. Mr. Thyng fears enforcement of the Ordinance were he to continue his possession of an unlocked firearm. 3. Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. ("SAF") is a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the laws of Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. SAF has over 600,000 members and supporters nationwide, including thousands in the state of Washington. The purposes of SAF include education, research, publishing, and legal action focusing on the constitutional right to own and possess firearms. SAF brings this action on behalf of itself and its members. 4. Plaintiff National Rifle Association of America, Inc. ("NRA") is a non-profit association incorporated under the laws of New York, with its principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia. NRA has over five million members, including members in the state of Washington. NRA's purposes include protection of the right of citizens to have firearms for lawful defense, hunting, and sporting use, and to promote public safety. NRA brings this action on behalf of itself and its members. 5. Defendant City of Seattle ("Seattle" or "the City") is a municipal corporation and first-class city organized under the laws of the state of Washington. 6. Defendant Jenny Durkan ("Mayor Durkan") is the Mayor of the City of Seattle. Mayor Durkan is the head of the Executive Department, and in that capacity directs and controls all City offices and departments, except where that authority is granted to another office by the Seattle City Charter. 25 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 3 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 2 3 4 7. which oversees the enforcement of Seattle’s laws and promulgation of relevant regulations. 8. 7 8 III. 9. 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction under RCW 2.08.010, RCW 7.24.010, and RCW 7.40.010. 10. 9 10 Defendant Carmen Best (“Chief Best”) is the Chief of Police. Chief Best oversees the enforcement of Seattle’s laws. 5 6 Defendant Seattle Police Department ("SPD") is an agency of the City of Seattle, Venue is properly in this Court under RCW 4.12.020(2) and RCW 4.12.025(1). IV. 11. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Washington law states in no uncertain terms that the authority to regulate firearms rests exclusively with the State. Washington law expressly states: 12 13 14 15 16 17 The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. RCW 9.41.290 ("Preemption Clause"). 1 18 12. On July 9, 2018, the Seattle City Council passed Council Bill 119266, titled “An 19 Ordinance relating to the safe storage of and access to firearms.” On July 18, 2018, Mayor Durkan 20 approved and signed the Ordinance, making the Ordinance effective and in force on August 17, 21 2018. The Ordinance states that the substantive provisions will be imposed beginning on 22 23 24 25 1 RCW 9.41.300, which is referenced in the Preemption Clause, permits cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities to enact laws and ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms in certain locations and restricting the possession of firearms in a municipality-owned stadium or convention center. RCW 9.41.300(2). This statutory provision is inapplicable to the present case, which concerns city restrictions that have nothing to do with the discharge of firearms or the possession of firearms in stadiums or convention centers. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 4 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 January 14, 2019, as administrated by the SPD and Chief Best. 2 3 13. The Ordinance added Chapter 10.79 to the Seattle Municipal Code, which states, in part: 4 10.79.020 Safe storage of firearms 5 It shall be a civil infraction for any person to store or keep any firearm in any premises unless such weapon is secured in a locked container, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Section 10.79.020, such weapon shall be deemed lawfully stored or lawfully kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user. 6 7 8 9 10 10.79.030 Unauthorized access prevention 11 It shall be a civil infraction if any person knows or reasonably should know that a minor, an at risk person, or a prohibited person is likely to gain access to a firearm belonging to or under the control of that person, and a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains the firearm. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14. The Ordinance makes a violation of these provisions a civil infraction subject to a penalty of up to $10,000. 15. Defendants have enacted and are required to enforce this regulation despite the fact that the authority to regulate firearms rests exclusively with the state of Washington. The Ordinance attempts to avoid the Preemption Clause by stating that it “is not intended to regulate the . . . possession . . . of firearms.” The Ordinance also implies that RCW 9.41.290 is not implicated because the Ordinance “does not impose criminal penalties,” despite RCW 9.41.290 applying to both civil and criminal regulation and the imposition of a $10,000 civil infraction serving as a de facto criminal fine. 16. Defendants’ refusal to recognize the State’s basic preemption principle will cause irreparable harm to citizens who are hindered in their ability to exercise a basic constitutional right of possessing a firearm in the City of Seattle. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 5 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. The individual Plaintiffs possess firearms in Seattle and plan to do so in the future. The Second Amendment’s Seattle members also possess firearms in Seattle and plan to do so in the future. If the Ordinance becomes effective, these Plaintiffs will be forced to alter the manner in which they possess firearms to their detriment. 18. Irreparable harm is faced by those individual Plaintiffs who require a firearm to be unlocked and usable in their home. 7 V. 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -Against All Defendants19. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth herein. 20. A present controversy exists concerning whether Defendants have legal authority to regulate the possession of firearms by regulating the manner in which firearms are possessed. The Plaintiffs’ statutory right to be free from local interference with the possession of firearms is affected by this controversy. and the protection of those rights is germane to the organizational Plaintiffs’ purposes. 21. a. The Ordinance violates Washington statutory and constitutional law and is therefore null and void; b. Defendants lack legal authority to enact any ordinance, law, or rule that regulates the manner in which firearms are stored; and 23 24 Plaintiffs are entitled, under RCW 7.24 and CR 57, to an accelerated judicial declaration that: 21 22 In addition, the individual Plaintiffs’ and the organizational Plaintiffs’ Seattle members’ rights to possess firearms in Seattle is affected by this controversy, 19 20 CAUSES OF ACTION c. Defendants may not enforce the Ordinance. 22. Such declaration will conclusively terminate the controversy giving rise to this 25 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 6 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 proceeding. 2 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 3 - Against All Defendants - 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein. 24. The Plaintiffs’ statutory rights to be free from local interference with the possession of firearms is in jeopardy of immediate invasion, causing actual and substantial injuries without any adequate remedy at law. In addition, the individual Plaintiffs’ and the organizational Plaintiffs’ Seattle members’ rights to possess firearms in Seattle is in jeopardy of immediate invasion, causing actual and substantial injuries without any adequate remedy at law. 10 11 23. 25. Plaintiffs are entitled, under RCW 7.40 and CR 65, to an injunction as enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Ordinance. 12 VI. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered against Defendants as follows: 14 a. 15 16 Declaring that Defendants’ actions in enacting and enforcing the Ordinance were contrary to law and the Ordinance is null and void; b. 17 18 REQUEST FOR RELIEF Awarding Plaintiffs’ fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in this action as the Court deems just and equitable; and 19 c. 20 equitable, or just. Awarding any additional or further relief which the Court finds appropriate, 21 22 23 /// /// 24 /// 25 /// COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 7 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900 1 DATED this 20th day of July, 2018. 2 CORR CRONIN LLP 3 4 5 6 7 8 s/ Steven W. Fogg Steven W. Fogg, WSBA No. 23528 Eric A. Lindberg, WSBA No. 43596 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154 (206) 625-8600 (Phone) sfogg@corrcronin.com elindberg@corrcronin.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – 8 CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, Washington 98154-1051 Tel (206) 625-8600 Fax (206) 625-0900