Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Good Video RE: Seattle Gun Ban on seattlechannel.org

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Alan Gottlieb from SAF picks apart the seattle gun ban...

    http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos...asp?ID=3060913

  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Point of order: There is no Seattle gun ban. Only mayor Chuckles' attempts at one.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    You'll also notice that's our own Dave Workman being interviewed there.

    Great job, Dave.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    That was a good video; thanks for sharing.

    Notice that the poll on the website was overwhelmingly AGAINST the ban; that's good news.

    It was also interesting to hear (maybe you all knew this, but I didn't) that the mayor is supposedly making this a "rule" -- rather than a law or an ordinance -- which is what supposedly makes it legal even with pre-emption. Being a rule, it's just like the rule in a private property such as a store: If you get caught, you can be asked to leave. If you don't leave, you can be charged with trespassing. But . . . you haven't broken any laws until/unless you refuse to leave when asked to do so.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    So, the City of Seattle is saying they can take away a constitutionally protected right on the basis that they are allowed to manage their property like any other business.

    Private business owners can freely deny the right to assemble on their property, and can deny freedom of speech on their property as well (By, for instance, asking people who are saying things they don't like to leave their property or face criminal charges).

    So the City of Seattle is saying that they reserve the right to deny Citizens of the State of Washington all THREE of the following constitutionally protected rights on all city owned public property?

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.

    SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.


    Seems Mayor Nickels has forgotten about this:

    SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    The City of Seattle is a Government entity, they are required by law to protect and maintain individual rights, and one individual right is the right to bear arms in defense of oneself. They can not use statues, ordinances, or rules to deny this right without just cause.

    What a waste of time, they KNOW this rule won't work and won't stand when challenged, why do they bother.... Because they think it makes them LOOK good. Just like the stupid streets Nickels closed down for NO REASON last summer just because gas prices were high.

    He postures and poses and makes waves just to get votes in the next election. It is just Grandstanding and a waste of money and time. So sad.






  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    VERY good point about the loss of other rights via this slimy pigeonholing of the law as a "rule". I look forward to the day we celebrate the defeat of this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    "So, the City of Seattle is saying they can take away a constitutionally protected right on the basis that they are allowed to manage their property like any other business."

    By Mayor Knuckles' argument then, one could open a brothel as long as one owned the property and managed it himself. Beware, Mayor Knuckles, of unintended consequences.

    MD

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    "So, the City of Seattle is saying they can take away a constitutionally protected right on the basis that they are allowed to manage their property like any other business."

    By Mayor Knuckles' argument then, one could open a brothel as long as one owned the property and managed it himself. Beware, Mayor Knuckles, of unintended consequences.

    MD
    I don't understand your logic at all.

    Running a Brothel is prohibited by statute so nobody can do that.

    This is a constitutional issue, not a statute issue.


    BTW, I looked up PNSPA vs. Sequim, which appears to be the basis for Nickels argument that he can impose an unconstitutional rule on public property.

    The decision specifically says:

    "The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public."

    So the very decision he is using to support his right to impose this rule in fact states specifically that the most critical reason the decision was being made was because it was not being applied to the general public.

    Mayor Nickels rule would apply to the general public, thus this decision specifically states he can't impose this rule instead of supporting his right to impose it like he claims.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Greg The Mouth Nickles should read this.

    From John Farnam, firearms instructor and combat vet.



    Subject: NY Incident

    8 Apr 09

    NY Incident, from a friend close to the investigation:

    "Without getting into data that is not yet in public view, I believe we can
    take two key learning points from this terrible incident:

    (1) This VCA scored an impressive KIA/WIA ratio. When handguns are
    involved, the ratio is usually 20/1, or even less. When heaver weapons are
    involved, and, as with the Columbine Incident in CO, police do not respond
    aggressively, the ratio is much higher, as we see! Responding officers did
    not make
    entry for forty-five minutes. That is a long time in a one-way fight!

    (2) However, even with the best of tactical plans, we police are rarely in
    a
    position to save anyone from violent criminals. We are oh-so good at
    chalking out bodies and collecting evidence. We positively excel at figuring out
    precisely what happened, and who did what. All of which is cold comfort for
    those at the pointy end of the spear, in the present tense!"

    Lesson: Be in a position to defend yourself, or suffer the consequences. It'
    s that simple!

    Don't wait to be rescued, and don't worry about someone else's rules.
    There are no "degrees of dead," and you won't get to change channels nor go back
    to the beginning and reboot!

    We're going to see this again!

    /John


  10. #10
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    Machoduck wrote:
    "So, the City of Seattle is saying they can take away a constitutionally protected right on the basis that they are allowed to manage their property like any other business."

    By Mayor Knuckles' argument then, one could open a brothel as long as one owned the property and managed it himself. Beware, Mayor Knuckles, of unintended consequences.

    MD
    I don't understand your logic at all.

    Running a Brothel is prohibited by statute so nobody can do that.

    This is a constitutional issue, not a statute issue.
    Actually, it is a statute issue and not a constitutional one... yet. That's exactly what Alan Gottlieb said in the interview. It violates RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption... that's a statute.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  11. #11
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    "Running a Brothel is prohibited by statute so nobody can do that."

    Enacting a law, by whatever name, more restrictive than state law (RCW 9.41.290) is prohibited by statute so nobody can do that. That's my logic.

    Your point about the invalidity of the Squim decision is a good one. It amazes me that these people think that wishing will make the Squim decision apply or that we won't see that it doesn't apply.

    MD

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    arentol wrote:
    Machoduck wrote:
    "So, the City of Seattle is saying they can take away a constitutionally protected right on the basis that they are allowed to manage their property like any other business."

    By Mayor Knuckles' argument then, one could open a brothel as long as one owned the property and managed it himself. Beware, Mayor Knuckles, of unintended consequences.

    MD
    I don't understand your logic at all.

    Running a Brothel is prohibited by statute so nobody can do that.

    This is a constitutional issue, not a statute issue.
    Actually, it is a statute issue and not a constitutional one... yet. That's exactly what Alan Gottlieb said in the interview. It violates RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption... that's a statute.
    I was referring to the fact that I was bringing up the constitutional side of the issue and MD was using my constitution specific point to bring up a point that is not related to the constitution in any way. Bearing arms is a right protected by the constitution, opening a brothel is not protected by the constitution.

    In addition MD's point still makes no sense because Nickels argument is that he can break the law BECAUSE he is running the city like a private business, so I don't understand how the brothel idea relates because a private business couldn't open a brothel so the city can't either.

    The only way the brothel idea would make even the littlest bit of sense would be if by "One" he meant "a municipality" and not any old person who owns a property. However, "One" is usually interpreted as "anyone", not as "a municipality, or a Mayor."

  13. #13
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    So the very decision he is using to support his right to impose this rule in fact states specifically that the most critical reason the decision was being made was because it was not being applied to the general public.

    Mayor Nickels rule would apply to the general public, thus this decision specifically states he can't impose this rule instead of supporting his right to impose it like he claims.
    Folks...

    He knows this, HONESTLY he does. He knows he will loose in court, but what yall arnt getting is that he does not care. He and his tax payer paid support staff and lawyers are quite aware that they don't have a legal leg to stand on, but then, he doesn't have anything to lose by his estimation. Its not his money he is spending, it builds good will with his constituents and more bad will with those who already hate him.

    If he looses he still wins because he gets his constituents who go "see what he tried to do for us but the bad bad courts ruled against him." He gets to shrug his shoulders and hug the babies and say "I tried! I'm sorry my good sheep, but I so much wanted to protect you all, but the conservative courts and evil state legislature wouldn't let me." And all his constituents go "Awwww, that poor man!" And make no mistake, the majority of Seattle residents ARE his constituents. They are the ones who keep voting him in, time, after time, after time.

    If by some act of the devil himself he wins in the courts....well...you can figure that out yourself.

    I assure you, he and his people have already long figured out this is a political win win for them.

    What we CAN do is get behind the SAF so they can crush him as badly as possible in court and create legal precedence on the books that will help to stop anything like this from happening again.

    Debating WHY he is doing this is honestly pointless if it distracts you from a definitive course of action. Campaign against him on the streets and amongst your peers, and support the SAF in their opposition against Dricky Nicks.

    Find his constituents and change their minds one at a time with reason and logic. I have already started in my own office with the Seattle residents who tip the scales in his favor, the ones who just don't know or don't have an opinion.

    For as much as this matter means to us, you might be very surprised how many Seattle residents just don't know this is even going on in their own city, or don't have enough of the details to think it could effect them.

    Education is key, not speculating on the "ultimate" motive. This IS a conspiracy, it IS skin deep, but Dricky Nicks is counting on all the people who wont scratch or will ignore the itch all together because they have been told its a GOOD itch.:?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    arentol wrote:
    So the very decision he is using to support his right to impose this rule in fact states specifically that the most critical reason the decision was being made was because it was not being applied to the general public.

    Mayor Nickels rule would apply to the general public, thus this decision specifically states he can't impose this rule instead of supporting his right to impose it like he claims.
    Folks...

    He knows this, HONESTLY he does. He knows he will loose in court, but what yall arnt getting is that he does not care. He and his tax payer paid support staff and lawyers are quite aware that they don't have a legal leg to stand on, but then, he doesn't have anything to lose by his estimation. Its not his money he is spending, it builds good will with is constituents and more bad will with those who already hate him.
    Yeah, I pretty much said this earlier.

  15. #15
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Actually FMCDH, one thing I don't think he's considered is he faces a whole slew of civil rights charges along with charges against him for dereliction and abuse of his position, as he's been told by the State AG that it's not legal. He is well aware of the law and is trying to disobey it. If pressed, I could see him spending some serious time in jail.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  16. #16
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Actually FMCDH, one thing I don't think he's considered is he faces a whole slew of civil rights charges along with charges against him for dereliction and abuse of his position, as he's been told by the State AG that it's not legal. He is well aware of the law and is trying to disobey it. If pressed, I could see him spending some serious time in jail.
    Maybe true, but he and his tax payer paid lawyers don't see it happening. He figures by taking the angle that he has with this "its not really a law" scheme that he can get around all that, and his advisory have obviously told him hes safe.

    He lives in a liberal bubble, plain and simple.

    I personally think its going to get popped, but he obviously doesn't.

    I sincerely hope your right just_a_car, and this lands him jail or even prison time.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    That would be nice but I think if he went to jail over it he would become a martyr for the anti-gun movement. It doesn't make since that they could put in a rule like you can on private property, then the public parks would be private parks. It confuses me that government public property can even be considered private in this way. Would that also mean that public officials could shoot you for trespassing on "their" land.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    FunkTrooper wrote:
    That would be nice but I think if he went to jail over it he would become a martyr for the anti-gun movement. It doesn't make since that they could put in a rule like you can on private property, then the public parks would be private parks. It confuses me that government public property can even be considered private in this way. Would that also mean that public officials could shoot you for trespassing on "their" land.
    Yeah, the law seems a little confusing at first, but it is actually quite simple...

    The law they are basing the stupid gun ban rule on is one that was actually about a private contract between a public entity and a private entity. The state basically was trying to say that when a public entity enters into a contract for private purposes they can then act in the same manner a private entity would be able to act in that situation, including banning guns as part of the contract. They were not saying that a public entity can act as a private business at all times under all circumstances. Only when they are actually directly engaging in an entirely private transaction.

    So if the City decides to put on an event in a park they can't ban guns, because they are still acting in a public capacity. However, if I tried to rent the use of the park from them for my own private purposes, such as a family reunion during which nobody else could use the facility, they could stipulate "no guns allowed" as part of the contract between them and I. But, if I requested a permit to hold an anti-gun ban protest in that park they could not ban guns because there is no private contract, they are acting in a public capacity of licensing the use of the park for a specific, but still entirely public, purpose.

    The pre-cursor decision (Cherry) was about employer-employee relationships, which are again private contracts, which is basically what gives the employer, even if a public entity, the right to manage their employees just like any other employer would be able to do. They can NOT use this decision to tell the general public they can't have guns in the public areas of their buildings. It is only when a section of a public building is completely off limits to the general public, such as the bus depots for Metro Transit, that the city is then acting in a sufficiently private capacity and can institute a general ban on guns in the facility (and I am not even fully certain they can do so in that particular situation, It just seems likely they can under these two decisions).

    A general ban on guns on city property clearly does not involve them acting in a specific private capacity, and therefore these two decisions in NO way allow them to institute such a ban.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    All it takes is for his legal council to tell him that he can legally do it and there is no dereliction of duty or civil rights violation, on his part anyway, because he was acting in good faith. The AG opinion is just what it says it is, an opinion. It is not legally binding but rather a guide to show how the state of Washington interprets the law. It is a mere guide for lawmakers to use to either revise a law because it doesn't mean what they intended or to leave the law alone because the opinion is what they intended.
    "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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •