Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Seattle Times: Gun ban in time for Folklife Festival?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...6_guns03m.html

    By Emily Heffter

    Seattle Times staff reporter


    After a shooting at last year's Northwest Folklife Festival left three people injured, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels vowed to outlaw guns in city buildings, parks and Seattle Center.

    The proposal has languished for almost a year, with the state Attorney General's Office saying the mayor lacks the authority to prohibit guns on city property, a Second Amendment group threatening to sue and questions continuing as to what the policy would really accomplish.

    With another Northwest Folklife approaching on Memorial Day weekend, a spokesman for Nickels said the mayor is moving ahead with an executive order this spring and is prepared to defend it in court.

    Even if the order is not in place, the May 22-25 festival will be gun-free through the city's lease with festival organizers. Signs posted at the Seattle Center event will remind people not to bring guns, and security will be trained to take firearms away or ask people to leave, says Alex Fryer, a Nickels spokesman.

    The new city order would apply even to people who have a state permit allowing them to carry a concealed weapon. Without a permit, it's already illegal in Washington to carry a concealed weapon in public.

    Fryer said the city's parks are already safe, but he pointed out that the shooter at last year's Folklife Festival had a permit to carry his weapon.

    "We believe that our parks and community centers and open spaces are safer without guns," Fryer said.

    The new rule wouldn't have any criminal penalties. People caught with a weapon would be asked to surrender the weapon or leave city property. If they refuse, they could be cited for trespassing, Fryer said.

    Alan Gottlieb, the founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation, said the new rule won't make parks any safer.

    "Criminals who don't abide by the law to begin with aren't going to follow this law either," he said.

    His organization plans to sue the city whenever the mayor issues his order. The group contends only the state has the authority to limit gun possession.

    "This is really stupid, and it shows the fact that the mayor doesn't care about wasting taxpayer dollars to push his own agenda," Gottlieb said.

    Fryer said the cost of a lawsuit would be worth it if the new policy saves even one life.

    Washington state law says cities can't restrict firearms beyond state law. But Nickels says a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling — involving an event in Sequim which that city wanted to declare gun-free — clears the way for Seattle to restrict firearms on its own property.

    Fryer said a number of cities around the state have banned firearms on some property.

    Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin said the council is generally supportive of the proposal. "It seems clear to me that we should have the ability to regulate these weapons on our own property," he said.

    Meanwhile, the city is training Folklife security workers in its new policy, and a spokeswoman for the festival said this year's will be "the safest ever."

  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    [SNIP]
    Even if the order is not in place, the May 22-25 festival will be gun-free through the city's lease with festival organizers. Signs posted at the Seattle Center event will remind people not to bring guns, and security will be trained to take firearms away or ask people to leave, says Alex Fryer, a Nickels spokesman.
    [/SNIP]
    Opportunity for a get together?

  3. #3
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Geez. Looks like the mayor wants lawsuits and some people to live well for a while.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Well I would hope one part of the plan is to seek a court order to stop implementation/enforcement of the new rule while it makes it's way through the courts, in the same manner that a federal court stopped implementation of the National Parks carry rule.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    Mayor proposes idea

    AG says no, that's stupid (well, against the law)

    Mayor sets up hearing for people to voice opinion (Because he really cares what we think! Really!! He does! )

    People show up, Mayor doesn't. People say it's stupid, and against the law.

    Mayor says, F- you people, I'm doing it anyways!



    *Sigh* So much for representing people and respecting the law... not that I really expected him to do that.

  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    Well I would hope one part of the plan is to seek a court order to stop implementation/enforcement of the new rule while it makes it's way through the courts, in the same manner that a federal court stoped implementation of the National Parks carry rule.
    How will that help if as stated above an order is not passed, yet they post signage and instruct local security to trespass OC'ers?

    Based on the wording of the text above (the city's lease with festival organizers) and the Sequim decision, we may not have much recourse. He fully intends to use the loophole that our wonderful court system handed him, and every other organization (cough, I won't say it) that wishes to ban guns on public property.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    Well I would hope one part of the plan is to seek a court order to stop implementation/enforcement of the new rule while it makes it's way through the courts, in the same manner that a federal court stoped implementation of the National Parks carry rule.
    How will that help if as stated above an order is not passed, yet they post signage and instruct local security to trespass OC'ers?

    Based on the wording of the text above (the city's lease with festival organizers) and the Sequim decision, we may not have much recourse.* He fully intends to use the loophole that our wonderful court system handed him, and every other organization (cough, I won't say it) that wishes to ban guns on public property.
    This still does not fly. This rule, even though it is similar to the Sequim case, affects the general public. The reason the court agreed with Sequim is because the rule in the lease set limits on the lessee and NOT the general public. This festival is open the the general public for free. The Sequim case was involving an event that required an entrance fee.
    "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

  8. #8
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    This still does not fly. This rule, even though it is similar to the Sequim case, affects the general public. The reason the court agreed with Sequim is because the rule in the lease set limits on the lessee and NOT the general public. This festival is open the the general public for free. The Sequim case was involving an event that required an entrance fee.
    Wouldn't it be nice if he shared your reasoned view? I suppose we will have to wait until the festival to determine whether he intends to have the lessee ask people to leave.

    I understand that it would not hold water in the long run.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I've never been to a Folklife Festival and never had much interest in it until now. However, now I'm interested in attending, so if anyone wants to pick a time and place to enter the festival, I'll join in on the fun.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    diesel556 wrote:
    deanf wrote:
    Well I would hope one part of the plan is to seek a court order to stop implementation/enforcement of the new rule while it makes it's way through the courts, in the same manner that a federal court stoped implementation of the National Parks carry rule.
    How will that help if as stated above an order is not passed, yet they post signage and instruct local security to trespass OC'ers?

    Based on the wording of the text above (the city's lease with festival organizers) and the Sequim decision, we may not have much recourse. He fully intends to use the loophole that our wonderful court system handed him, and every other organization (cough, I won't say it) that wishes to ban guns on public property.
    This still does not fly. This rule, even though it is similar to the Sequim case, affects the general public. The reason the court agreed with Sequim is because the rule in the lease set limits on the lessee and NOT the general public. This festival is open the the general public for free. The Sequim case was involving an event that required an entrance fee.
    Another way of looking at the situation is to ask the question:

    Can one party (the city/county/district) delegate authority that it does not have (the ability to restrict firearms possession by the general public in a non-9.41.300 restricted place) to a second party (the lessee) and/or make such a restriction part of the lease terms?

    It would seem that, according to the Sequim ruling, the answer would be 'yes' ASSUMING that the event is of a private nature (admission cost/tickets/invitation only/etc.) and not one of free admission to the general public.

    I've never been to Folklife, so I can't speak as to the nature of the gathering, but others here have noted that in the past it was free admission. Such would seem to negate the legality of any firearms restriction.

    IMHO I'd suggest that anyone wanting to test the waters familiarize themselves with RCW 9A.36.070 - Coersion and be prepared to execute a citizens arrest for the commission of a Gross Misdemeanor in their presence and upon their person.

    If they relieve you of your sidearm without your permission, then be prepared to slap them with RCW(s) 9A.56.300 and 9A.56.310 (theft of a Firearm and Possession of a stolen firearm, respectively). Both of which are Class B Felonies BTW.

    Followed, of course, with a charge of 3rd degree assault (RCW9A.36.031) should they offer ANY resistance to your citizens arrest. (That one is aClass C Felony)

    Fight fire with fire!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    If they relieve you of your sidearm without your permission,
    I would never give my sidearm to a security guard. And I would cite all prevalent laws pertaining to open carry and the Washington State Constitution's preemption over any ban Mayor Nickels wants to make. I would attempt a citizens arrest on any security guard who tried to forcefully take my weapon.

    If it was a police officer, then I would make them aware that taking my weapon without my permission would be theft and I would be pressing charges. I would then cite those RCWs you cited.

    However, I believe that rather than be alone there. We ought to go as a group. If there was more than 10 of us, I think there would be no force applied by the other side. Also, we should write and call all newspapers and TV News stations that we intend on going to the folk-life festival in protest... and invite them along with us. Show them we are good, law abiding citizens with families and we're not a bunch of crazies with guns....
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Phssthpok wrote:
    If they relieve you of your sidearm without your permission,
    I would never give my sidearm to a security guard. And I would cite all prevalent laws pertaining to open carry and the Washington State Constitution's preemption over any ban Mayor Nickels wants to make. I would attempt a citizens arrest on any security guard who tried to forcefully take my weapon.

    If it was a police officer, then I would make them aware that taking my weapon without my permission would be theft and I would be pressing charges. I would then cite those RCWs you cited.

    However, I believe that rather than be alone there. We ought to go as a group. If there was more than 10 of us, I think there would be no force applied by the other side. Also, we should write and call all newspapers and TV News stations that we intend on going to the folk-life festival in protest... and invite them along with us. Show them we are good, law abiding citizens with families and we're not a bunch of crazies with guns....
    If it is a Police Officer, than you should STILL GO FOR THE ARREST (nothing prevents a citizens arrest of a police officer in the commission of a crime), and add Title 18, section 242 to the list of charges. (actually in reading the text again you could also apply that to non-police officers as well). And since we're 'going there', one could add T18,S241 for conspiring with Mayor Nichols to deprive you of your rights. (those are FEDERAL crimes BTW...of which 241 is a felony).

  13. #13
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Phssthpok wrote:
    If they relieve you of your sidearm without your permission,
    I would never give my sidearm to a security guard. And I would cite all prevalent laws pertaining to open carry and the Washington State Constitution's preemption over any ban Mayor Nickels wants to make. I would attempt a citizens arrest on any security guard who tried to forcefully take my weapon.

    If it was a police officer, then I would make them aware that taking my weapon without my permission would be theft and I would be pressing charges. I would then cite those RCWs you cited.

    However, I believe that rather than be alone there. We ought to go as a group. If there was more than 10 of us, I think there would be no force applied by the other side. Also, we should write and call all newspapers and TV News stations that we intend on going to the folk-life festival in protest... and invite them along with us. Show them we are good, law abiding citizens with families and we're not a bunch of crazies with guns....
    If it is a Police Officer, than you should STILL GO FOR THE ARREST (nothing prevents a citizens arrest of a police officer in the commission of a crime), and add Title 18, section 242 to the list of charges. (actually in reading the text again you could also apply that to non-police officers as well). And since we're 'going there', one could add T18,S241 for conspiring with Mayor Nichols to deprive you of your rights. (those are FEDERAL crimes BTW...of which 241 is a felony).
    While I understand what you're saying, we should only escalate this to a fight for our rights and not provoke idiot police officers to draw weapons on us. Rentacops are another thingall together, but police work for the city and can be sued for wrongful arrest, and so on and so forth. There could be a supreme court battle in our future that will kick Mayor Nickels in the sack (figuratively speaking) if we do this right. We advise the police of what they are doing wrong and if they continue, we get badge numbers, and make our own report. Must carry with us video cameras and stay in groups as we would likely be able to make the statement we're trying to make.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

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

    Post imported post

    Fryer said the cost of a lawsuit would be worth it if the new policy saves even one life.
    Cute, so if it instead costs a life, I suppose Fryer would be volunteering to give his up in place of the innocent victim's? I'm so profoundly sick of the all costs-no benefits point of view regarding firearms...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    If a citizen's arrest is made against a police officer, which police agency do you expect to investigate, and which prosecutor do you expect to proceed against the officer?

    I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky legal theory here. I mean on the street, right there where it happens.

    How are you going to detain him?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    This still does not fly. This rule, even though it is similar to the Sequim case, affects the general public. The reason the court agreed with Sequim is because the rule in the lease set limits on the lessee and NOT the general public. This festival is open the the general public for free. The Sequim case was involving an event that required an entrance fee.
    If the City leases the grounds to Folklife, then Folklife assumes all private property authority as tenant, including the authority to eject or refuse service as it sees fit.* I don't see where charging an entry fee has anything to do with it.

    I'm not sure if Folklife is a fully private corporation.* The history on their website suggests that the City was a partner and sat on the board of Folklife when it was originally incorporated back in the 70's.* After that the time line gets a little murky as to their corporate status.

    All this argument is moot.* If the city is bent on enforcing the new rule at Folklife by using the alleged private status of Folklife as proxy, then they will do it, and there's no way to stop them, short of a court order.



  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Post imported post

    Be carefull on this one!

    There is a state law that prohibits carry at "Music Festivals". Reading the law it appears that Folk Life might just qualify!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If a citizen's arrest is made against a police officer, which police agency do you expect to investigate, and which prosecutor do you expect to proceed against the officer?

    I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky legal theory here. I mean on the street, right there where it happens.

    How are you going to detain him?
    Exactly, better to let them break the law and unlawfully detain you than to get into a shoving match with the police in a 'who's arresting who' battle that can only end badly. You know for a fact that they'll consider you attempting to make a citizens arrest as 'resisting arrest'. No matter if you're right or wrong, the best way to fight the police is passively and using your knowledge of the law to punish them via the courts once your rights have been violated.

    Look, they're going to push and push and we need to draw a line in the sand, but we cannot be starting a shooting war which is what would likely happen if several armed civilians tried to arrest several armed police officers.

    Just sayin...
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    Does anyone have any idea when this "rule" goes into effect? I mean especially regarding carry in parks.

    If such a ban were to occur, we would have a better chance of fighting it by having a meet in a public park without a potentially private event to murk up the waters.

    Getting asked to leave a park for OC when state law is so clear on the matter could only turn out in our favor, since the Sequim case does not apply to a normal park without any events occuring by any stretch of the imagination.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    If a citizen's arrest is made against a police officer, which police agency do you expect to investigate, and which prosecutor do you expect to proceed against the officer?

    I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky legal theory here. I mean on the street, right there where it happens.

    How are you going to detain him?
    He's not, but it makes him feel good to beat his chest about it and sound big, while making the rest of us look like a bunch of bubba's. Also a good way to get shot. Sometimes it is best to take a different tack than the one you want to. Doesn't make you look as cool though.

  21. #21
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    We could walk on the sidewalk around the Seattle Center with these signs.
    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbil...reezone2-s.jpg
    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbill-crimezone-s.jpg

  22. #22
    Regular Member mtlhdtodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Wa
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    trevorthebusdriver wrote:
    We could walk on the sidewalk around the Seattle Center with these signs.
    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbil...reezone2-s.jpg
    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbill-crimezone-s.jpg
    I like it!!! Seems I need to walk a few pounds off and what better way.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    trevorthebusdriver wrote:
    We could walk on the sidewalk around the Seattle Center with these signs.
    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbil...reezone2-s.jpg
    http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbill-crimezone-s.jpg
    That sign always bothered me. It looks too much like a simple "No Weapons Allowed" sign, and in the unlikely event that the text is even read, it's unlikely to turn anyone away.

    I'd suggest a gun with a green circle around it, and the text:

    Attention Criminals! Illegally possessed firearms OK on these premises. Law-abiding patrons have been disarmed for your convenience.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Based on the wording of the text above (the city's lease with festival organizers) and the Sequim decision, we may not have much recourse. He fully intends to use the loophole that our wonderful court system handed him, and every other organization (cough, I won't say it) that wishes to ban guns on public property.
    I'm not familiar with the Sequim decision. Does it basically say the 41.300 doesn't apply?
    I've never been to Folklife, so I can't speak as to the nature of the gathering, but others here have noted that in the past it was free admission.
    Last time I was there (about 4 years ago) it was free with a suggested $5 donation. Don't know what that affects.








  25. #25
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    security will be trained to take firearms away

    :shock:


    I can see a security guard getting shot after pulling out his pepper spray and yanking on someones holster....
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

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
  •