State Senate bans openly carried guns in public gallery

utbagpiper said:

Ironically and hypocritically, you then turn around and castigate anyone you think is not supporting "Freedom" in quite the way you think you they should.

Notably, there are some sound, logical, arguments to make against laws against abortion. Not surprising that a bigot is so small minded as to fail to make them. To be clear, this is not a personal insult anymore than "statist" is an insult. You have demonstrated bigotry toward conservatives and the religious.

Charles

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

Opponents to gun Rights say the same thing about "Bear" "arms" "militia" "organized" etc.

Click to expand...

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Semantics. You were an embryo too. Still an American (maybe). Still had rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

A Human Being at early stage in development is still a Human Being, no matter semantics.

The Human being status starts when the sperm enters the egg.

No matter all the legal BS. Roe v Wade. Human beings were here before words. Embryo, or sperm, or egg, or human law, human dictionaries, were invented.

Preemption. Humans existed first. Natural Rights existed first.

philosophical enough for ya?

Click to expand...

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Semantics. You were an embryo too. Still an American (maybe). Still had rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

A Human Being at early stage in development is still a Human Being, no matter semantics.

The Human being status starts when the sperm enters the egg.

No matter all the legal BS. Roe v Wade. Human beings were here before words. Embryo, or sperm, or egg, or human law, human dictionaries, were invented.

Preemption. Humans existed first. Natural Rights existed first.

philosophical enough for ya?

Click to expand...

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Ya, OK. You concede to my philosophical argument on the murder of Human Beings that you call embryos, fetuses, and try to call it abortion. OK. Got it.

That was the fallacy you started with right?

Embryo Rights?

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

So if I call you an idiot it's ok if I preface it with "this is not an insult." Awesome!

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

BTW, I never said I advocate having abortions. nor did I even express a moral opinion on the act. I am against STATE INTERFERENCE.

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

I concede that where there is massive disagreement, an no injured party who can make a claim in court, then you err on the side of freedom.

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

I concede that where there is massive disagreement, an no injured party who can make a claim in court, then you err on the side of freedom.

Click to expand...

utbagpiper said:

So when the injured party is dead we err on the side of freedom? What does that mean exactly?

When the injured party is a child subjected to horrible abuse we err on the side of freedom simply because the child is too young to voice his claim in court?

A child two weeks after birth differs from a child two weeks before birth in what material ways that affect a claim to a natural right to life?

For the record, this is a pro-OC site and I'm really more than happy to leave these off-topic subjects left completely unspoken. But if you want to put your anti-religious bigotries on full display by claiming that right wing religious conservatives don't care about freedom, I will call you on it and these kinds of topics will come up.

Stick to OC while leaving your personal biases about conservatives and men of faith off list and I won't bring these subjects up. But if you are to be so boorish as to bring them up, I will counter.

Charles

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

Yup, you guys have some strong religious bias against abortion, which is different than philosophical bias.

So why don't you support gay marriage Rights? It's just a state license, why can they discriminate against gays?

Click to expand...

WalkingWolf said:

Because they don't like gays~~it is called selective discrimination. Or if you will "Butters".

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

No. It's an unsubstantiated claim that human life begins the second the sperm enters the egg.

Click to expand...

utbagpiper said:

Same reason we can "discriminate" against polygamists, consenting adults involved in incestuous relationships, and a host of other relationships. There is no natural right to have society/government grant you official recognition nor benefits for that relationship. You have a claim to be left in peace. You do not have a claim on having society recognize your relationship as anything special.

Historically, society has recognized and granted benefits to marriage so as to encourage men to marry and take responsibility for their children. With the system in place generally, the fairly rare case of infertility was a non-issue relative to the reasons society/government cares about marriage at all.

There is no reason why society should encourage homosexual coupling, polygamy, nor incestuous relationships since these society has determined that these relationships do not provide the benefits back to society that monogamous, heterosexual, conjugal, non-incestuous marriages provide. Lacking any need nor desire to encourage such relationships there is no reason to provide any special benefits to these relationships.

This is analogous to why we provide income tax deductions for home mortgage interest but not for credit card interest. Society wants to encourage home ownership; it has no interest in directly encouraging consumer debt.

Now, a few judges disagree and I suspect the SCOTUS will disagree. But at its core, there is no natural right to have government nor society grant your chosen intimate relationship any special benefits. That society grants benefits to one or some types of relationships does not create an obligation to recognize any other relationships.

And a strict constructionists reading of the 14th amendment makes clear there certainly is nothing therein empowering the federal government to force States to recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages."

Next effort to deflect away from your own intolerances and unsupported claims about how attacks vs who supports RKBA?

Charles

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

Someone is a little worked up over this religious thing

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

I wonder what Pro 2A born again Christian Mike Huckabee thinks about polygamist embracing, modern day prophet inspired Mormonism.

Probably... blasphemy, and all the false worshipers are going to hell.

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

State issued license right?

Click to expand...

Dave_pro2a said:

You gonna join this group to fight for their natural Rights?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025226516_sexworksymposiumxml.html

Next time they are in Olympia, go with them. Maybe they will support us next time.

Click to expand...

Whitney said:

Can anyone explain where the legislature claims authority for "rule making", specifically as it applies to the ban on open carry in public meeting places. The way I read the act they have stepped out of the box with said ban.

It seems they have exempted themselves from the open public records act unless they are truly a "governing body" as proscribed in 42.30, which I believe they are.

42.30.010
Legislative declaration.

The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
Notes:

Reviser's note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases "this act" and "this 1971 amendatory act" have been changed to "this chapter." "This act" [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

42.30.020
Definitions.

As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:

(1) "Public agency" means:

(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;

(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;

(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;

(d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.

(2) "Governing body" means [I believe this covers the legislature] the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.

(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.

(4) "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken.

[1985 c 366 § 1; 1983 c 155 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 43 § 10; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 2.]
Notes:

Severability -- Savings -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.52.374.

42.30.030
Meetings declared open and public.

All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 3.]

---

42.30.040
Conditions to attendance not to be required.

A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.
[2012 c 117 § 124; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 4.]

---

42.30.050
Interruptions — Procedure.

In the event that any meeting is interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are interrupting the meeting, the members of the governing body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session or may adjourn the meeting and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a session, final disposition may be taken only on matters appearing on the agenda. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the governing body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 5.]

42.30.120
Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys' fees and costs.

(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.

(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.

[2012 c 117 § 126; 1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]

---

42.30.130
Violations — Mandamus or injunction.

Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 13.]



~Whitney

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Would think it more germane to devote our attention to RTBA, specifically OC.

Click to expand...

utbagpiper said:

Indeed they do.

If you want to attack religious conservatives as not supporting freedom, you better get straight on who it was that motivated abolition of slavery.

While not necessarily all that conservative, it was the REVEREND Dr. MLK and many other churchmen who lead the charge on civil rights. It was the language of the pulpit employed by such men that spoke to the soul of many white americans who were not initially supportive of the civil rights movement.

It is religious conservatives who lead the charge to recognize the humanity and provide some minimum level of protection to preborn babies.

It tends to be religious conservatives who support freedom from the requirement to pay for others' abortions, who support legal recognition of the right to own and carry firearms, and to maintain freedom of conscience and of peaceful expression thereof.

It is secular liberals who can be counted on to most often attack RKBA just as we can see in Washington as a result of the influx of such persons from Cali.

And there simply are not enough libertarians elected to legislative office to make a material difference.

Charles

Click to expand...