• 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.

City of Seattle Wants your opinion

sv_libertarian

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

FREEDOM_FOREVER

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Oregon, ,
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?
 

Izzle

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
157
Location
, ,
imported post

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

3/325

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
332
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
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.
 

Charles Paul Lincoln

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
222
Location
Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
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.
 

3/325

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
332
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
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.
 

Gene Beasley

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

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
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.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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. :lol:

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

Kildars

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
536
Location
Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
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.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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
 
Top