Reminder for Dec. 15th

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. :banghead:

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.

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.

imported post

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

Any type of weapons check point should be challenged

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

I think as long as no one waves their guns around, the OC won't be the main issue. If whoever is in charge does confront you, then you still are within legal rights.

And if they don't listen to you all all, tell you to **** off and take your guns with you or whatever they have in mind- there's still state preemption. There's nothing to worry about.

imported post

I wish I could make this meeting; unfortunately, I will be hanging out with a friend at Rocksport in West Seattle. Long story, but I am sure you all will represent well.

However, I will be doing something there that I do not ordinarily do: OC'ing.

The interesting part of the law is that if you see kids in a restaurant/bar, you can carry, but when the kids are no longer allowed, neither is the weapon.

I will have a good time pointing this and other hypocrises out in the next couple of days.

imported post

cynicist wrote:

I think as long as no one waves their guns around, the OC won't be the main issue. If whoever is in charge does confront you, then you still are within legal rights.

And if they don't listen to you all all, tell you to @#$% off and take your guns with you or whatever they have in mind- there's still state preemption. There's nothing to worry about.

Click to expand...

How many times do you have to hear it:this is not about being technically correct. It is ALL about avoiding ANY confrontation that the press can make hay over and the opposition can turn into a case against us.

To those who insist on carrying their weapons into this hearing let me offer this for you to think about. If you are the center of a scene that results in our losing the whole case there is nothing that the rest of us can do to you. You have your Second Amendment rights and you have your First Amendment rights, all of which technically apply. But you are the one who will have to live with the consequences. Think about it.