• 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.

Reminder for Dec. 15th

redboneshadow

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
101
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Richard6218

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

Flanders007

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Messages
81
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

trevorthebusdriver

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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?
 

deanf

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

redboneshadow

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
101
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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
 

Nebulis01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
113
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

Richard6218

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

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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
 

holeinhead

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
159
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
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.
 

adamsesq

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

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.
 

Gene Beasley

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

trevorthebusdriver

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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?
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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?
 

Richard6218

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

deanf

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

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.)
 
Top