Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: City of Seattle Wants your opinion

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    The City of Seattle actually wants the public's opinion about Mayor Greg Nickels' plan to ban firearms from public property.

    http://www.seattle.gov/firearmsrule/

    I gave them a piece of my mind.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Yah, me too. Poorly made form as well. A person could send that in dozens of times with different comments, and I'll bet money they don't have a filter for using the same IP address...

  3. #3
    Regular Member FREEDOM_FOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post


    On the web site it states that there will be a public hearing on Dec. 15 at the city hall. Can you all up north OC in City Hall? If so, why not make an appearance?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435

    Post imported post

    Thank you for posting the link.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    157

    Post imported post

    yes, thank you for sharing. I also sent something to them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    I sent my 2 cents.
    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Told them if they pass this unlawful act that they can kiss goodbye any chance of me spending any more money in Seattle.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    Sent message!

  9. #9
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    I posted my 2 cents as well. Short 'n sweet. Thanks for the link.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    My entry:

    I'm terribly dismayed that Mayor Nickels is attempting to violate the very clear language of the State Constitution, in spite of the findings of the state's Attorney General. The danger of violence involving a firearm comes from people who do not obey the law and I cannot see how this will change with the passing of new laws. These measures will only disarm those who follow the law, making them easier prey for criminals (you remember, those people who DON'T OBEY THE LAW).

    Because these measures violate the State's preemption language, opponents of the Mayor will have solid legal ground to challenge these restrictions in court and the city of Seattle will waste exhorbitant sums of money defending new laws that will inevitably be struck down.

    I think there are better ways for the Mayor to spend the time and money of the taxpayers he was elected to serve.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post



    My input:

    The City of Seattle is proposing a reactionary solution to an extremely rare situation; this is the equivalent of banning all cars to solve DUI violations. Is the City so myopic that it can't see that attempts to stop illegal activity by restricting law-abiding citizens have historically failed miserably?

    The Washington State Constitution unequivocally protects the right of citizens to bear arms for self protection. The legislative pre-emption was passed to ensure that citizens who choose to legally carry a firearm for protection do not have this right impaired by inconsistent laws in various jurisdictions. Banning legally-possessed weapons from city property will not make parks and buildings safer for citizens, but does violate the Constitution by impairing the right to self-defense.

    If the City desires to take a strong stance on gun violence, it should increase the penalties for illegal possession of weapons on city property. Prosecute every case to the fullest -- for example, file Federal charges against criminals who illegally possess guns on school grounds (the federal statute provides for up to five years imprisonment).

    If Mayor Nickles isn't going to abide by his oath to support the Consitution of the State of Washington, I suggest he resign his office and move to a state without a history of strong self-defense provisions. Similarly, if the Seattle City Council chooses to allow the mayor to flagrantly violate the Constitution, you have no business holding a public office.

    Punish the criminals -- not the citizens.


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    I promised to sue if i was trespassed, hell i could use some extra money.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:

    My input:

    The City of Seattle is proposing a reactionary solution to an extremely rare situation; this is the equivalent of banning all cars to solve DUI violations...

    Punish the criminals -- not the citizens.
    Dang. Yours sounds better than mine.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    You guys mistakingly believe that they care about the constitution.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    Not sure if I am going to get the time off from work to be there, so here's what I sent:


    Mayor, Councilmembers:

    In addition to this comment, I will be attending the December 15 hearing. I am disappointed at this proposal, as I believe that the mayor and each of you know full well that you are attempting to put into place a ‘rule’ that is illegal and cannot and will not be enforced.

    The State Attorney General’s Opinion (2008 No. 8) provides you with the legal interpretation that you should follow. Your legal staff is giving you bad advice on this issue. I know that falling revenue from property taxes and sales tax is going to impact the city for some time. The economic downturn should make you cautious on what you waste your citizens’ tax dollars. From the AG web page; “While these formal legal opinions are not binding in any way, they have historically been given "great respect" and "great weight" by the courts.” If implemented, this will end up in court. I think that all of you know that you will not prevail.

    While it might appear that you are dealing with a purely Seattle issue, other cities are choosing to follow your same game plan and let you and your citizens foot the legal bill. I think your strategy is to lay the groundwork for the elimination of state preemption through the legislature. Good luck with that. You might want to review the last state initiative results from 1997, the Handgun Safety Act (I-676). It failed by 70.6% to 29.4%. The whole state is watching and you are about to unleash a backlash that will dwarf the I-676 trouncing.

    You should read two cases. Cherry v. Metro and PNSPA v. City of Sequim, which flows from Cherry. These are both covered in the AG Opinion. You should read them for yourselves to see the very thin ice that your legal counsel and mayor have put you. They are not long and not difficult to understand. Please also have your legal staff explain the implications of 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, and 42 USC 1988 and how these might personally affect each of you. These are federal codes regarding deprivation of rights under color of law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Gene Beasley wrote:
    Not sure if I am going to get the time off from work to be there, so here's what I sent:


    <snip>Please also have your legal staff explain the implications of 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, and 42 USC 1988 and how these might personally affect each of you. These are federal codes regarding deprivation of rights under color of law.
    Again I must voice my complaint of someone referencing 18 USC 242 WITHOUT doing the same for 18 USC 241. The two go hand in hand any time more than one person is involved with a 242 violation. 42 USC 14141 may also come into play depending on the circumstances.

    242 is a misdemeanor....241 is a FELONY.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    Gene Beasley wrote:
    Not sure if I am going to get the time off from work to be there, so here's what I sent:


    <snip>Please also have your legal staff explain the implications of 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, and 42 USC 1988 and how these might personally affect each of you. These are federal codes regarding deprivation of rights under color of law.
    Again I must voice my complaint of someone referencing 18 USC 242 WITHOUT doing the same for 18 USC 241. The two go hand in hand any time more than one person is involved with a 242 violation. 42 USC 14141 may also come into play depending on the circumstances.

    242 is a misdemeanor....241 is a FELONY.
    So if this passes, what's to stop the US Attorney from prosecuting Nickels and his gang for violations of these Sections? And what would be required to start such an action? I would jump for joy to see Nickels hauled away in handcuffs by the Feds.

    OTOH, why wasn't this used against the city councils of DC and Chicago for theirgun bans?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Generally the federal statutes are applied to a police officer who violates your rights while under the color of law. You have to prove that act done while under the color of law violated your rights.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    Generally the federal statutes are applied to a police officer who violates your rights while under the color of law. You have to prove that act done while under the color of law violated your rights.
    The summary preceding the recitation of Section 242 says in part:

    Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials

    While this does include police officers, by projection it could also include mayors and city council members as "others who are acting as public officials" who conspire to pass legislation that violates civil rights, including, inter alia, Second Amendment rights. So if a mayor and city council enact legislation that violates the Second Amendment this could be construed as a conspiracy under this Section, as I read it.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Left a comment telling them the proposed action is in violation of both State and Federal law. I promised legal action when I am cited with an intent to name the current mayor and council members and the mayor and council members in office when I am cited in both their Official capacity and as individual citizens.

    What a bunch of DWEEBS!!!!!

    JoeSparky
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Here is my post to the city's "feedback" site:

    I cannot understand why you continue to press this issue in the face of negative advice of the State Attorney General (AGO 2008 No. 8) overwhelming public opinion and the obvious conflict with State law (RCW 9.41.290), the Constitutions of the United States (Second Amendment) and of the State of Washington (Article XI, section 11), as well as 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. Your staff is giving you bad legal advice.

    The response to your proposal is inevitably going to be litigation, which you cannot win. It is beyond my understanding why you want to bankrupt the City of Seattle in stressful economic times for such a losing cause.

    The whole purpose of RCW 9.41.290 was to eliminate the confusion created by inconsistent policies of all the various municipalities and counties in the State. By enacting preemption, the legislature created uniformity throughout the State. Your proposal is a huge step backward in this issue.

    As a practical matter, your prohibition of the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens is not only unconstitutional and illegal, it will not solve the problem of gun violence. A firearm lawfully carried is the citizen’s protection against criminals when the police cannot be on the scene in time to prevent a crime. Your proposal to disarm law-abiding citizens is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is unconscionable.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Posted my response:

    I would like to know where you believe you're getting your authority to ban legally carried firearms on city property. I thought that state law RCW 9.41.290 is clear that, "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."

    You are also in violation of state law RCW 9.41.300 (2)(a):
    "(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others;"

    Regardless of the laws of the state your answer to do a sweeping ban of all legally carried firearms does not address the issue of violence in our state, it only allows violence. There are reason why Chicago, and WA DC, have one of the highest murder rates in the country while also having the toughest gun laws. You are endangering the citizens of this state, the tourists, and opening up the city of Seattle to lawsuits. I ask you to vote down this ban.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    I'd be curious to find the statistics for injuries and deaths on Seattle public property and compare firearms-related vs other (such as bicycles, heart attacks,etc).
    It may show that the mayor would be better serving the public by banning the use of bikes and double cheeseburgers from city property.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    spike89 wrote:
    I'd be curious to find the statistics for injuries and deaths on Seattle public property and compare firearms-related vs other (such as bicycles, heart attacks,etc).
    It may show that the mayor would be better serving the public by banning the use of bikes and double cheeseburgers from city property.
    I'd be curious to find the statistics for injuries and deaths on Seattle public property and compare firearms-related vs other (such as bicycles, heart attacks,etc).

    Irrelevant.

    banning... double cheeseburgers from city property.

    Careful. I believe New York City has sucha ban, or something very close to it. Don't put ideas in his head.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    My point is that he is trying to ban firearms in the interest of public safety, with no real record that they are any more responsible for injuries/deaths on city property than various other things. His edict is arbitrary and capricious.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •