zaitz
Banned
what is the latest on this, if anything?
thanks for drawing fire, if that was your intent!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Was told that the Washington State Convention Center is Private Property
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
what is the latest on this, if anything?
thanks for drawing fire, if that was your intent!
mnrobitaille
Regular Member
The Washington State Convention Center is operated by a Public Facilities District, so RCW 9.41.300 does not apply, as according to legal sources the arena/convention center has to be operated by the municipality, not a public/private non-governmental entity. Though depending on if the arena/convention center is owned by the municipality, there could be cause for a court case if anyone wants to be a guinea pig (minus all cases currently heard).
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.100.010
(3) A public facilities district is a municipal corporation, an independent taxing "authority" within the meaning of Article VII, section 1 of the state Constitution, and a "taxing district" within the meaning of Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/municipalities
municipality (redirected from municipalities)
Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
mu·nic·i·pal·i·ty (myo͞o-nĭs′ə-păl′ĭ-tē)
n. pl. mu·nic·i·pal·i·ties
1. A political unit, such as a city, town, or village, incorporated for local self-government.
2. A body of officials appointed to manage the affairs of a local political unit.
It is a municipality and so 9.41.300 does apply.
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
Last edited:
Lord Sega
Regular Member
Can you confirm that you will be appealing (sounds like you have several grounds to do so), or at least reviewing your options?
Any penalty for the SGT lying under oath?
Just curious... what was your sentencing / fine?
mnrobitaille
Regular Member
However the case if a person OCs into an arena/convention center which is covered under RCW 9.41.300, then they would have to show their CPL to maintain possession of sidearm/allowed admittance (though they may be asked to CC the firearm).
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
What part of "shall not apply to" do you fail to understand?
So CC CANNOT be required
The law does not make a requirement for display in this case, only that I have been issued a CPL.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Difdi
Regular Member
His logic is quite clear, although it is wrong.
It comes down to a culture clash. Historically, the United States in general and Washington state in particular have been freedom cultures. Anything not explicitly prohibited by statute is legal, and statutes must conform to the Constitution to be valid.
But there are some people who are profoundly uncomfortable with that concept. They believe deep down that if you don't have permission, you must be breaking the law. Somehow. People with that mindset are becoming more and more common of late.
The judge is a member of the permission culture -- since there is no law specifically authorizing open carry, it must be prohibited despite the existence of the state Constitution and the plain English meaning of the statutes.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Update.
Heading in this morning for the remand hearing.
Will post the results, likely Saturday evening. Maybe during a break from work today.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Heading in this morning for the remand hearing.
Will post the results, likely Saturday evening. Maybe during a break from work today.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
New pretrial is set for 01FEB2016
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Whitney
Regular Member
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Basically, the lower court has to follow the rules, this time. I may have to go through the whole trial process again.
I will know more after the next court date.
I have no respect for the Seattle AG, prosecutor, and/or judges anymore.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
If i'm still in the city, i'll try to attend. This is unbelievable. All this because you were told a blatant lie, ending in corrupt courts talking utter horse manure. Now what are the rules as far as media? I would love to get audio of the judges corruption, manipulation and lies. I will then proceed to do up an article on it and expose this as much as possible.
Please tell me how to do this without causing you further harassment and persecution. I am well aware there are issues with ongoing court cases and I don't want to jeopardise your chances of winning
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Will send you a PM with the case number, that way you can access all records that are publicly available.
The pretrial is just more dog and pony show.
Seattle municipal court room 1003 @0900 01FEB2016 this will not be a big event should be about 15 or so minutes once I am called up.
Will post the trial time, date, and place if they go that far.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Last edited:
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Following this sickening travesty of "justice" with interest.
You may want to consider editing your initial post and noting the current status of things.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I simply post updates. That way there is a thread to follow.
Another member found a very pro-freedom attorney's office and I am still waiting for the contact information of that office. I want to see if they would take my case against Seattle depending on how all of this pans out.
The superior court ruled that since I have a CPL that the convention center could not restrict my method of carry. That the lower court was wrong when it told the jurors otherwise. Despite this it would appear that the Judge on Friday could not have been bothered to even read the remand ruling and throw the case out then and there. When my public defender moved to have the case dismissed in light of this, he said that this is not a gun charge but a trespassing charge. So, either way, this last judge is lazy, an idiot, and/or corrupt. No matter how it is, I see him as unfit to be seated in any public office.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Trust me, I know all about them trying to make it a trespass case not a gun case. They cannot win the gun case. I have been there and done that......
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Understood, but you could do both.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
If I back edit the story, then it would look like I am changing the recorded story. Unless you're suggesting that I simply tack on to the tail of the initial posting?Understood, but you could do both.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Either that or just list the current state of things there, in addition to posting them as things occurred. My suggestions were made in order to possibly help/give the matter broader understanding and visibility.
My court-involved doings have gotten so large I took a similar route so casual readers could see the state of things easily.
Hey, it was just my 2 cents - no biggie either way.
Last edited: