Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Reminder for Dec. 15th

  1. #1
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    Stop the Seattle Gun Ban Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels plans to ban Guns
    With no regard for your right to self-defense
    And In defiance of state law

    Your Attendance is Critical! Let your voice be heard NOW!

    On December 15, 2008 a public hearing will be held in the Bertha Knight Landes room at
    Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, with sign-in beginning at 5:30 p.m.

    This ban will infringe on your right to carry in these areas:

    * All city ow!ned property

    * All city parks

    * The Seattle Public library

    * The Seattle Center

    Please Attend This Important Hearing.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    How many active posts do we need on this topic??
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    FOR BENEFIT OF ANY WHO HAVE BEEN HIDING UNDER A ROCK SOMEWHERE;

    If you are going to attend the meeting, please DO NOT OC to this event. If you want to conceal, that may be ok as it meets the City's regulations as they presently stand. However, they may set up a screening station at the door, in which case DO NOT try to pass through with your weapon. We don't want any confrontations that will be blown up way out of proportion in front of the press and will give the other side ammunition against us. If you see a screening station, TAKE YOUR WEAPON BACK TO YOUR CAR AND LEAVE IT THERE.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    FOR BENEFIT OF ANY WHO HAVE BEEN HIDING UNDER A ROCK SOMEWHERE;

    If you are going to attend the meeting, please DO NOT OC to this event. If you want to conceal, that may be ok as it meets the City's regulations as they presently stand. However, they may set up a screening station at the door, in which case DO NOT try to pass through with your weapon. We don't want any confrontations that will be blown up way out of proportion in front of the press and will give the other side ammunition against us. If you see a screening station, TAKE YOUR WEAPON BACK TO YOUR CAR AND LEAVE IT THERE.
    + 1

    If you want to try a quasi civil disobedience maneuver, go with the empty holster.

  5. #5
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    If you are going to attend the meeting, please DO NOT OC to this event. If you see a screening station, TAKE YOUR WEAPON BACK TO YOUR CAR AND LEAVE IT THERE.

    I don't get this.

    OC and CC(with CPL) arecurrently ok at City Hall. They want to pass a law to make it not ok. We want to tellthem it is not ok to make this law. So we are going to do this by disarming? That makes no sense to me.

    Can they even have a "no guns at all just at this meeting" rule?


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    If you OC to the meeting, your gun becomes the issue of the hour. The focus will be on it - not on your testimony or attendance to support our side. It will dilute your message.

  7. #7
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If you OC to the meeting, your gun becomes the issue of the hour. The focus will be on it - not on your testimony or attendance to support our side. It will dilute your message.
    You are correct and per Dave Workman only cc at this meeting due to that fact. We dont want to detract from the main purpose as to why we are there. This does not mean that i do not support open carry because i open carry myself. We just need to all come together as one in support of our rights with this meeting.

    Mike Cheney
    President
    Citizens For The 2nd Amendment Group

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    FOR BENEFIT OF ANY WHO HAVE BEEN HIDING UNDER A ROCK SOMEWHERE;

    If you are going to attend the meeting, please DO NOT OC to this event. If you want to conceal, that may be ok as it meets the City's regulations as they presently stand. However, they may set up a screening station at the door, in which case DO NOT try to pass through with your weapon. We don't want any confrontations that will be blown up way out of proportion in front of the press and will give the other side ammunition against us. If you see a screening station, TAKE YOUR WEAPON BACK TO YOUR CAR AND LEAVE IT THERE.
    I could not DISAGREE more!

    We are going to fight for our rights and you would like us to go into it being complacent with them denying those rights in the first place? I understand not wanting to cause a ruckus but OCing or CCing to the hearing should have no impact on the decision whatsoever.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Well, "should" and "will" are 2 completely different words, aren't they?

    Please remember that this sub-thread on this, in the original post, started thus:
    The place will be full of reporters... The wrong move here ... could easily be portrayed ...
    Yeah, I think that last word is the significant one here [i.e. 'portrayed']: hardly any of those reporters will be on the side of freedom, and they have quite a bit of experience at slanting stories.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    Well, "should" and "will" are 2 completely different words, aren't they?

    Please remember that this sub-thread on this, in the original post, started thus:
    The place will be full of reporters... The wrong move here ... could easily be portrayed ...
    Yeah, I think that last word is the significant one here [i.e. 'portrayed']: hardly any of those reporters will be on the side of freedom, and they have quite a bit of experience at slanting stories.
    Remember this: we are playing POLITICS here, and being technically correct does not necessarily carry the day. If you give the other side something to blow up on us, we lose. And KOMO-4 News would like nothing more than to run a story about some bozo carrying a gun in the Mayor's hearing room. I'm telling you, if that happens we might as well pack our bags.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    redboneshadow wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    If you OC to the meeting, your gun becomes the issue of the hour. The focus will be on it - not on your testimony or attendance to support our side. It will dilute your message.
    You are correct and per Dave Workman only cc at this meeting due to that fact. We dont want to detract from the main purpose as to why we are there. This does not mean that i do not support open carry because i open carry myself. We just need to all come together as one in support of our rights with this meeting.

    Mike Cheney
    President
    Citizens For The 2nd Amendment Group
    "A right unexercized is a right lost." Responsible open carry should bepracticed at this meeting and at all other public meetings. The open carry of firearms IS the strongest political statement that can be made. People that do not support open carry at the meeting are compromisers.

    Live Free or Die,

    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    I'm on the fence on OC at the meeting. On one hand, we shouldn't have to give up our convictions to appease the media and others who might be scared or annoyed at seeing a gun on someone's hip. On the other, because this ban is not specifically on OC, it might be distracting to the message and just give the anti's something to talk about rather then our position against the ban.

    Personally, I CC more often than OC anyways, and I don't think this would be the best avenue for an OC stand. If I make it to the meeting, CC will likely be my choice. In this fight, OC has more possibility to do more harm than good IMO.

    Go with your conviction though. If you feel like you're giving up a part of yourself by not OCing, then OC. This is America, where we're free to be who we are. However, if your main priority is to carry, and CC or OC is just a method to you, then I think CC would be the prudent option in this case.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Just my observation as an interested outsider. IMnSHO as they say.

    If the ban gets implimented then we loose both OC and CC rights. If the ban gets rejected we will still, or so it appears, have OC rights. If you OC to the meeting it could very well "scare" some people into thinking this ban is necessary because of all "these people running around here with guns."

    I think I'd rather defeat the ban and leave the OC/CC issue out of this stage.

    -adamsesq

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Sorry, Thundar, but you don't get it. Please recall that this whole thing started with the incident at Folklife, and because of the very slanted press coverage, and because Clinton Chad Grainger plea bargained and thus his case never went to trial, we still aren't sure that the situation didn't start with a legitimate attempt at self-defense on Grainger's part. Certainly some of the claims his attorney made suggest he would have raised that as a defense.

    Now, we're dealing with exactly the same press corps here, and it's far too possible for us to be right on the current law and our rights, but still lose in the court of public opinion, with the result that there will be more pressure on the legislature to change the preemption statute.

    That would be a disaster. And most of the reporters and other media folks present would like it to turn out that way.

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

    Post imported post

    holeinhead wrote:
    This is America, where we're free to be who we are. However, if your main priority is to carry, and CC or OC is just a method to you, then I think CC would be the prudent option in this case.
    Well said. Thundar, you're welcome to your opinion and to do it your way. I am sure that there will be someone at the hearing with the same opinion. No one is really in any position to tell them what to do. I am not an appeaser because they have carefully considered my options and chose differently than you. For me to OC because you think I should, that would be appeasment.

    If this was a purely OC issue, I would agree with you. It's not. This affects OC, OC/CC, and strictly CC people. If there is a time that we need to come together and just be proponents of carry, this is it.

    Anyone who has any notion that Nickels and crew are going to take note of our numbers and the validity of our arguments and quash the plan needs to think again. This is going to court and they are going to the legislature to try to bust (or at least chip away at) preemption. Count on it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    Richard6218 wrote:
    And KOMO-4 News would like nothing more than to run a story about some bozo carrying a gun in the Mayor's hearing room.
    Wouldn't the point of carrying at the meeting be that we are NOT bozo's running around with guns, but that we are responsible citizens excersizing our 2A right to defend ourselves in an area where there is no law against it?



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Trevor,
    Wouldn't the point of carrying at the meeting be that we are NOT bozos
    Sure, that would be your point.

    Now, what is it about our local media that makes you think they would want to convey that point honestly?


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    Gene Beasley wrote:
    holeinhead wrote:
    This is America, where we're free to be who we are. However, if your main priority is to carry, and CC or OC is just a method to you, then I think CC would be the prudent option in this case.
    Well said. Thundar, you're welcome to your opinion and to do it your way. I am sure that there will be someone at the hearing with the same opinion. No one is really in any position to tell them what to do. I am not an appeaser because they have carefully considered my options and chose differently than you. For me to OC because you think I should, that would be appeasment.

    If this was a purely OC issue, I would agree with you. It's not. This affects OC, OC/CC, and strictly CC people. If there is a time that we need to come together and just be proponents of carry, this is it.

    Anyone who has any notion that Nickels and crew are going to take note of our numbers and the validity of our arguments and quash the plan needs to think again. This is going to court and they are going to the legislature to try to bust (or at least chip away at) preemption. Count on it.
    Whatever your view is on this, it comes down to one issue: theatrics. If you choose to OC at this event you are creating the potential for a confrontation. Confrontation is the LAST thing we need to have happen because the press will be there just waiting for something like that. They want to paint us as a bunch of cowboys wanting to shoot up the neighborhood, and that's exactly what we want to prevent. It's not a matter of "appeasing" the press, and it's not a matter of giving up rights. It's a matter of projecting an image. If we project an image that doesn't represent our message, we lose. Let's use some common sense here, folks. There are times to play tough and there are times to lay low. I maintain this is the latter.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Wouldn't the point of carrying at the meeting be that we are NOT bozo's running around with guns, but that we are responsible citizens excersizing our 2A right to defend ourselves in an area where there is no law against it?
    Our point in being at the meeting should not be to prove or disprove what or whowe are. What or who we are is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the upcoming illegal administrative rule that cannot and must not be enacted. That's it. We should focus on that, not who or what we are.

    "Lifelong NRA member"
    "I fought in X War to protect these freedoms"
    "Violation of the 2nd Amendment . . ."
    "Violation of the state Constitution . . ."
    "I'm licensed by the state to carry . . ."
    "I'm a law abiding citizen . . ."
    "victim rich zone"
    "criminals won't obey"

    All of those and similar arguments or statements are outside the scope of the issue of the hour, which is that the City will be violating state preemption with it's rule, and the AG agrees. We should focus our comments like a laser beam on preemption and preemption only.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    Dean,

    I'm not so sure about that. Sure, a big rambling intro about "how I've served" or a tangent about the 2nd amendment would be most unhelpful.

    On the other hand, I was definitely planning a brief intro of myself, in particular addressing why I have standing to address the Council. Admittedly, this would not be necessary in an ideal world (heck, a person from Mars ought to be able to tell them they're violating the preemption part of RCW 9.41).

    But in real life, given human nature, I think the actual council members might pay a bit more heed to a non-resident who's a business owner with a lot of customers and other Seattle-related connections that bring him into the city frequently, than they will to someone from out of the area whose only interest is seeing state law followed. (Please note I'm just saying what I think is, not what should be.)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    I do get all the points here and I dont agree with no OC. Guns, carried IS THE TOPIC. Violation of state law is the topic. Media drawing attention to someone legally carring ones legal gun during a legal public meeting about guns is wrong?

    and what if one person gets mugged on the way to or from putting their weapon back in thier car? The Media would spin it too, look it wasnt in a park, he should have had his weapon with himthat he used to carry all the time.

    Any type of weapons check point should be challenged as we would do it in any other PULBIC place with or without media present. Dont let them even get one foot of pre-emption started by posting an illegal weapons check.

    My 4 cents....as inflation is killing me.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    My 2 Cents:

    We open carry at the meeting, the Legislature will repeal state preemption or allow Seattle to do this ban via an exception specific to them. Right now the Legislature and the State Democratic Caucus are pissed off at Nickels for pulling this stunt because gun owners are calling them day in and day out telling them that they will hold them responsible for Nickel's actions. Hell, we might be able to get a stronger preemption statute out of this whole deal IF WE PLAY OUR CARDS RIGHT.

    This is crass politics, and we need to play it right. If they do this, they will be sued, and we'll not only take out Seattle's ban, we'll also take out SeaTac's use of this rule, and other cities.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    +4 to Lonnie (hey, inflation's affecting me, too.)

    As I said in the other thread: wise a serpents, harmless as doves.

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

    Post imported post

    Triple Tap wrote:
    I do get all the points here and I dont agree with no OC. Guns, carried IS THE TOPIC. Violation of state law is the topic.
    Any type of weapons check point should be challenged

    Under ordinary circumstances I would agree with you 100%. Illegal actions by any government entity including LE should be challenged. What you don't understand is that this is not a normal situation.Guns carried is NOT the topic; the topic is the City of Seattle's attack on preemption. As has already been well stated by several members anything that draws attention away from that is a distraction. We need to keep the press focused onthat primarytopic. If they get distracted by an incident involving someone's gun the topic will have changed, and they will twist the story backward and make us look like fools. We want our point to carry the day.

    If you leave your gun in the car to avoid a confrontation you are not giving up any rights, you are being smart. On the other hand if there is no checkpoint and you are carrying concealed (repeat: CONCEALED) there should be no problem. Just use your good judgment and avoid confrontation at all costs.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Right now the Legislature and the State Democratic Caucus are pissed off at Nickels for pulling this stunt because gun owners are calling them day in and day out telling them that they will hold them responsible for Nickel's actions. Hell, we might be able to get a stronger preemption statute out of this whole deal IF WE PLAY OUR CARDS RIGHT.
    A couple of questions:

    1) What is your source of information about the State Democratic Caucus?

    2) Is it your own analysis about obtaining stronger preemption (it is already one of the strongest laws I have seen), or was this provided to you by some other if person/organization? If it is another person/organization, who?

    3) Do know what the view of the governor is with regard to preemption?

    4) What is the correct way to play the cards?

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •