Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: SMACKDOWN: Seattle appeal denied by WA Supremes; parks gun ban goes down!!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    SMACKDOWN: Seattle appeal denied by WA Supremes; parks gun ban goes down!!!!

    SMACKDOWN: Gun rights prevail as WA Supremes deny Seattle’s appeal

    The Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the City of Seattle’s request for review in its loss to the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association in a case that struck down the city’s attempt to ban guns in city park facilities…


    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...attle-s-appeal

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    Well written, thank you, Dave.

    Now if we can just get the rest of the state to fully understand what this TRULY means, we'll be getting some where.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Now that's a darned shame. And me feeling much safer with a sign telling the bad guys to leave their guns at home. Now I have to keep carrying this heavy .45 everywhere I go...

    It's a rare good deal from the machine. Nice to see once in a while.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  4. #4
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    Nice!
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Now it is assumed that Seattle (and other cities) will come after preemption at the legislative level.
    Live Free or Die!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Now it is assumed that Seattle (and other cities) will come after preemption at the legislative level.
    You got it, mon!


    Seattle bitterly vows to lobby for erosion of state preemption



    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ate-preemption

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    So does this refusal to review mean that Seattle gets to write a check for SAF/NRA legal fees? If so they should get their name on a plaque somewhere honoring them as among the other morons that lost on the issue of gun control, in court.

    GoGo is right, expect a full court press in the next legislative session, assuming they can get their @$$es out of the budget crack they've found themselves in. If they're still flubbering around, gun legislation will be the farthest thing from their minds (assuming there is more than one or two complete ones among them).
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    You got it, mon!


    Seattle bitterly vows to lobby for erosion of state preemption



    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ate-preemption


    I just don't get it. The guy that started this whole thing was illegal in the first place, so what would another law do.

    If Seattle goes for this you can bet Bellingham will stand with them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    I see the whole thing, starting with the original park's ban, as a ruse. They knew they would loose, and they plan to somehow use the loss as evidence that preemption should be modified.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I see the whole thing, starting with the original park's ban, as a ruse. They knew they would loose, and they plan to somehow use the loss as evidence that preemption should be modified.
    Of course.

  11. #11
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    It's frustrating to see them repeatedly wasting tax payers money when there are legitimate issues to be tackled.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  12. #12
    Regular Member Hardbuck90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, WA
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by decklin View Post
    It's frustrating to see them repeatedly wasting tax payers money when there are legitimate issues to be tackled.
    The city officials who pushed challenging state law in court and used tax payer money should be fired

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by decklin View Post
    It's frustrating to see them repeatedly wasting tax payers money when there are legitimate issues to be tackled.

    The only monies actually being spent by the city are the fees they'll have to reimburse SAF and NRA for as well as the the cost of the original signs and the man hours to install and remove them. The cities legal work was a pro bono thing by one of the local law firms.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  14. #14
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    Great news thanks for the update!
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 223to45 View Post
    I just don't get it. The guy that started this whole thing was illegal in the first place, so what would another law do.

    If Seattle goes for this you can bet Bellingham will stand with them.
    Bellingham has already said they would lobby Olympia.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Since preemption has been in place since 1983, does anyone know if any parts have been challenged over the last 29 years?

    I don't see much success in any effort to change it. The argument against letting every city and county pass their own versions of gun restrictions would go against the original argument for the law. Much of the rhetoric by City leaders is probably more for the purpose of vote getting.

    Don't think the Legislators haven't considered the growing number of CPL's issued and the increased number of firearms owned by individuals. They see these numbers as voters and just like any other dedicated group, more likely to vote than the average apathetic registered voter.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Yes, they had 29 years to disagree and change the law.

  18. #18
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    The cities legal work was a pro bono thing by one of the local law firms.
    ...which they probably intended as "advertising" and are now regretting. "You spent how much of the partnership's money on a case you knew was doomed?"

    What was the firm's name, so that we can point at them and laugh?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Bellingham has already said they would lobby Olympia.
    Is that in print somewhere? I need a reference link.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kalispell, MT
    Posts
    20
    Checking in from Montana--congrats Seattle residents--this is great news!

    Good luck keeping the pre-emption on the books in Olympia next session.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Bellingham has already said they would lobby Olympia.
    Let's change this to read "the People of Bellingham will lobby Olympia"

    "Shall not be infringed"
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Is that in print somewhere? I need a reference link.
    It was at a council meeting....I had the link to the video I'll try to find it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    This was in uncoolperson's post on another forum its from the Herald but the link isn't there anymore. http://hunting-washington.com/smf/in...c,16470.0.html
    BELLINGHAM - City Council members and Mayor Dan Pike are asking the state Legislature to prohibit people from carrying firearms in the city's parks.
    Council members on Monday, Dec. 15, repealed a city law - common in many cities around the state - that prohibited firearms in parks after they were told by city attorneys that the law was not enforceable. State law supersedes the city's, and council members can't make stricter rules about public property, according to Evan Jones, an assistant city attorney who works in the criminal division.
    In a 5-2 vote, with council members Barry Buchanan and Louise Bjornson opposed, the council repealed the law from the municipal code. Councilman Jack Weiss was absent. The council then unanimously asked the city's lobbyist, Dick Little, to see if state legislators would allow cities via state law to ban guns from parks.
    For Buchanan, the issue comes down to the safety of kids, pointing out that it "doesn't make sense" to have guns in parks where children are playing. Bjornson couldn't be reached for comment.
    Jones told the council that the issue is one of liability, and that because the law is unenforceable, someone could sue the city for false arrest.
    The Bellingham Police Department had been told prior to the repeal of the law not to enforce it - but not before a man in 2007 was arrested in Bellingham while watching his son play in the park. A passerby reportedly saw a gun in the man's back "pants pocket," Jones said.
    The city prosecutor, after reviewing the case and deciding state law didn't allow for prosecution, dropped the charges, Jones said.
    "(Liability) does concern me, yes," Buchanan said. "But it's kind of a no-win situation. I'd definitely rather err on the side of public safety."
    Attorney General Rob McKenna's office, in a non-binding opinion in October, said that such bans in parks and other city-owned property are not allowed by state law.
    It turns out that Bellingham isn't the only municipality that has this law on the books.
    Some 42 cities and seven counties have some type of ban on firearms in parks and other city-owned public places, said Alex Fryer, a City of Seattle spokesman.
    In Whatcom County, Lynden, Ferndale and Blaine all have a gun ban in parks like the one repealed by Bellingham City Council members. Around the state, other cities like Buckley, Centralia and Spokane also have a gun ban in parks, Fryer said.
    Seattle has been embroiled in a guns debate following a shooting that injured three people at the Folklife Festival in late May. Mayor Greg Nickels is trying to further restrict guns from city-owned property.
    Meanwhile in Bellingham, Mayor Pike said he hopes the Legislature will listen to the city's concerns.
    "Personally, I think that it's reasonable to have some places where guns aren't allowed and I think parks are a good example," Pike said. Pike said he doesn't believe guns should be at City Hall, either.
    At 153-159 min mark in this vid from Jan 12 2009 they discuss the ban breifly. I cant seem to get the other videos found or uploaded looks like Bham only archives to 2009 the other ones were in 2008 dec.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    http://www.cob.org/web/COUNCIL.nsf/$...C?OpenDocument

    Here is the minutes and it mentions were they motioned to lobby the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardbuck90 View Post
    The city officials who pushed challenging state law in court and used tax payer money should be fired
    Fired hell! they should be in JAIL! (Or prosecuted at least)

    Official Misconduct
    Coercion


    ...and Definitions for above.

    Tar, feathers, rail....some assembly required....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •