• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Seattle Parks Gun Ban

S

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

shakul wrote:
hmmm last thursday (Oct 16) I was asked by two Seattle PD officers to leave the park near Pike Place Market because it was against Seattle Ordnance.
Events:
I was drawing people in the park, practicing some of my figure drawing. Which also happend to include this family; I think they were turists since they had the cameras and binoculars and stuff, the husband had a fanny pack so for all I know he could have been ccing ("maybe"). Anyways after about 5 minutes of sitting on the grass, it started to poke through my pants (seattle park grass is spiky i guess lol) anyways I took my jacket off to sit on and by doing so I revealed my holster on the right side and a two mag holder on the left. Not even a minute or two had passed after I took off the jacket I had to SPD guys (one behind me and one infront of me) asking to show some ID and a permit. I showed him my ID (which had expired) along w. my passport and CPL (so for all intents and purposes I had a governemnt issue ID and nothing was wrong w. that) The cops told me suggested (this sound more like an order though) that I should get my ID revalidated; However becasue of a new ordnance I had to leave the park becasue fire arms were not allowed. Instead of arguing I just put my jacket back on picke dup my bag and left...

And if the ordnance is not even in effect then the cops were out of line...
Click to expand...
They were way out of line and breaking state law. Did you get their names? You may be able to find out who they were through other means. This is cause for a complaint at the very least.
 
S

shakul

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

I would have written their info down and stuff but I had read an article a while back in the NRA ILA talking about this so i thought they were giving me a break. I was kinda freaked to tell you the truth.
 
j2l3

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Get their names, leave and file a complaint. YOu could refuse to leave, but then risk an arrest that also should not happen. Have time and money to fight that one? Cheaper to write the complaint and press the issue.
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Nebulis01 wrote:
adamsesq wrote:
Look at the bottom of the sign.  I would be of the mind to follow their directions and "Call 911" to report the illegal activity of the city violating preemption.

-adamsesq
Click to expand...
this would be awesome. I would totally do this.
Click to expand...


What's stopping you?
 
S

shakul

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
Nebulis01 wrote:
adamsesq wrote:
Look at the bottom of the sign. I would be of the mind to follow their directions and "Call 911" to report the illegal activity of the city violating preemption.

-adamsesq
Click to expand...
this would be awesome. I would totally do this.
Click to expand...


What's stopping you?
Click to expand...

Probably the fact that doing this constitutes a NON emergency and he could get charged w. a misdemeanor.... :p
 
D

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
imported post

Probably the fact that doing this constitutes a NON emergency and he could get charged w. a misdemeanor....
Click to expand...

Hah! That's funny!

If everyone who called 9-1-1 for a non-emergency were charged with a misdemeanor, the entire state budget would need to be used for the court system. My off-the-cuff estimate is that 75% of calls to 9-1-1 are for non-emergencies.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

shakul wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
Nebulis01 wrote:
adamsesq wrote:
Look at the bottom of the sign. I would be of the mind to follow their directions and "Call 911" to report the illegal activity of the city violating preemption.

-adamsesq
Click to expand...
this would be awesome. I would totally do this.
Click to expand...


What's stopping you?
Click to expand...

Probably the fact that doing this constitutes a NON emergency and he could get charged w. a misdemeanor.... :p
Click to expand...
Calling 911 and falsely reporting a crime is a misdemeanor not calling for a non-emergency. You can call 911 for non-emergency crime reports.
 
A

adamsesq

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
367
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

I'm sorry, maybe I need to go back to school. The sign says "Call 911 to report illegal activity" It does not say " to report emergency illegal activity" I just don't see anyone being charged with anything for following the directions of the governmental officials who put up that sign.

And, as a member of the emergency response system who gets to spend a fair amount of time listening to 911 calls and/or talking with dispatchers I guarantee you this would be a far more legitimate call then many of the ones that do come in.

Am I suggesting everyone do it, not unless you are so inclined but I frankly wouldn't have a problem with it.

-adamsesq
 
Gene Beasley

Gene Beasley

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

grishnav wrote:
Saw the sign in the attached image at Westlake park.

Looked up SMC 18.12, found this:

SMC 18.12.140 - Firearms prohibited; exceptions

It is unlawful to carry a firearm in any park; provided, that this section shall not apply to police officers or to Department of Parks and Recreation employees acting pursuant to and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Superintendent; and provided further, that this section shall not apply at shooting, trap-shooting and skeet-shooting ranges.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was doing some research before sending an email regardingthe future of Nickels/Seattle's prospects and the future of his EO and lobbying the state legislature. I was surprised that 18.12.140 no longer exists on their muni code page. Usually when a code is repealed, I have found that the code number remains and says repealed and then references the Ordinance repealing it. Not so in this case.

It took a bit of looking, but buried deep in an Ordinance repealing or amending other SMC, is Section 22: Section 18.12.140 of the Seattle Municipal Code is repealed.

So this was the gist of the email; my prediction thatissue of both the EO and the legislative lobby (which I predict will fall on deaf ears) will fade quietly away.
 
X

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:
grishnav wrote:
Saw the sign in the attached image at Westlake park.

Looked up SMC 18.12, found this:

SMC 18.12.140 - Firearms prohibited; exceptions

It is unlawful to carry a firearm in any park; provided, that this section shall not apply to police officers or to Department of Parks and Recreation employees acting pursuant to and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Superintendent; and provided further, that this section shall not apply at shooting, trap-shooting and skeet-shooting ranges.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was doing some research before sending an email regardingthe future of Nickels/Seattle's prospects and the future of his EO and lobbying the state legislature. I was surprised that 18.12.140 no longer exists on their muni code page. Usually when a code is repealed, I have found that the code number remains and says repealed and then references the Ordinance repealing it. Not so in this case.

It took a bit of looking, but buried deep in an Ordinance repealing or amending other SMC, is Section 22: Section 18.12.140 of the Seattle Municipal Code is repealed.

So this was the gist of the email; my prediction thatissue of both the EO and the legislative lobby (which I predict will fall on deaf ears) will fade quietly away.
Click to expand...

Gene, could you please post the actual city link, as your link is not working for me for some reason.... :banghead:Or PM it to me....

Thanks,

XD
 
A

adamsesq

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
367
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:
Gene Beasley wrote:
grishnav wrote:
Saw the sign in the attached image at Westlake park.

Looked up SMC 18.12, found this:

SMC 18.12.140 - Firearms prohibited; exceptions

It is unlawful to carry a firearm in any park; provided, that this section shall not apply to police officers or to Department of Parks and Recreation employees acting pursuant to and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Superintendent; and provided further, that this section shall not apply at shooting, trap-shooting and skeet-shooting ranges.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I was doing some research before sending an email regardingthe future of Nickels/Seattle's prospects and the future of his EO and lobbying the state legislature. I was surprised that 18.12.140 no longer exists on their muni code page. Usually when a code is repealed, I have found that the code number remains and says repealed and then references the Ordinance repealing it. Not so in this case.

It took a bit of looking, but buried deep in an Ordinance repealing or amending other SMC, is Section 22: Section 18.12.140 of the Seattle Municipal Code is repealed.

So this was the gist of the email; my prediction thatissue of both the EO and the legislative lobby (which I predict will fall on deaf ears) will fade quietly away.
Click to expand...

Gene, could you please post the actual city link, as your link is not working for me for some reason.... :banghead:Or PM it to me....

Thanks,

XD
Click to expand...

Not Gene but: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=&s4=&s5=18.12.140&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F%7Epublic%2Fcbory.htm&r=1&f=G

-adamsesq
 
B

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

my god, that's a lot of reading just to find that the ordinance is repealed. then, to top that off, the ordinance wasn't even defined so you could look tell what it was. I wonder if this was to make it possible for officers to claim there is still an ordinance when in fact it doesn't exist any longer?
If they're handing out fines for this, and they should know that it is repealed (officers should know the laws they enforce, ignorance is no excuse), wouldn't that still be fraud, if not constructive fraud?
 
B

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

indeed, you are correct, sir. unfortunately, there are many who either do not or can not understand that, and some of them have the option of arresting "perps".
 
G

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

bugly wrote:
my god, that's a lot of reading just to find that the ordinance is repealed. then, to top that off, the ordinance wasn't even defined so you could look tell what it was. I wonder if this was to make it possible for officers to claim there is still an ordinance when in fact it doesn't exist any longer?
If they're handing out fines for this, and they should know that it is repealed (officers should know the laws they enforce, ignorance is no excuse), wouldn't that still be fraud, if not constructive fraud?
Click to expand...
Gotta watch those dates man... This was an old thread that was resurrected. At the time of initial posting, all that stuff existed.

I wonder if this change came about because of mayor five penny, or if someone reads the board... :uhoh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top