• 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.

Seattle Times: Gun ban in time for Folklife Festival?

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

trevorthebusdriver wrote:
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.
 

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
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.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
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....
 

Gene Beasley

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

cynicist wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Sequim decision. Does it basically say the 41.300 doesn't apply?
Well worth the read. If you resort to skimming, look for the phrase "application to the general public." The case law section of Nowthwest Citzen's Defense League downloads has some pretty good information.

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=24
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Gene Beasley wrote:
cynicist wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Sequim decision. Does it basically say the 41.300 doesn't apply?
Well worth the read. If you resort to skimming, look for the phrase "application to the general public." The case law section of Nowthwest Citzen's Defense League downloads has some pretty good information.

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=24
"Regarding RCW 9.41.300, the city merely observes that it did
not place any restrictions on possession of firearms," from the text of the court's opinion. Not sure how Nichols thinks he can ban possession when this case didn't deal with possession, only sales.
 

deanf

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

I can see a security guard getting shot after pulling out his pepper spray and yanking on someones holster....

I can't. You are going to resist the efforts of a uniformed security guard at a security checkpoint or other station with deadly force? Even if he does assault you? Knowing full well that while his efforts may be illegal, if you cooperate you may have an airtight civil case against him and his employer and the City? You're going to use deadly force and suffer all the attendant consequences? Which do you think will be more severe, the inconvenience of being illegally detained by security, or the inconvenience of shooting him?

Foolish.
 

Gene Beasley

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

heresolong wrote:
Regarding RCW 9.41.300, the city merely observes that it did not place any restrictions on possession of firearms," from the text of the court's opinion. Not sure how Nichols thinks he can ban possession when this case didn't deal with possession, only sales.
Whoever is offering them advise (and I have my suspicion) is cherry-picking key phrases here and there while ignoring the overall intent. The ignore the contractual element while ignoring the several times that Sequim stressed the difference between the facts of the case before them and application to the general public (drawing from Cherry) PSNPA v. Sequim at 19:

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.
The find phrases, like PSNPA v. Sequim at 18:

Therefore, Cherry supports the general proposition that when a municipality acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party, the preemption clause does not apply.

I think this gets spoon fed to someone with 1) an agenda, 2) is easily swayed, 3) thinks they/their city is important enough to hold sway with either the courts or legislature to get what they want. This is just a cursory stab at an analysis. IANAL, YMMV. I do know that AGO 2008 No. 8 explains the reasoning in-depth. And since I am well into my sleep time; morning for me comes at 16:20; I need to get to sleep.
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

RCW 70.108.150 Firearms — Penalty. It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport or convey, or to have in his possession or under his control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment
Everyone seems to be forgetting about this little gem.

Folk life qualifies as a outdoor music festival and as such it would be a misdemeanor to carry a firearm on to the premises.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

WHOA! Time Out!!

Slow down.

Would you guys just relax, please? SAF has been working on a lawsuit for the past several months. Plaintiffs are lined up (at least one of whom will be familiar on this forum) and any conduct that might jeopardize the success of that lawsuitshould be discouraged.

Not only could it blow up in our collective faces, but it would likely give the mayor all the momentum he needs totrot down to Olympia next year and really screw with state preemption. Do you want to be responsible for that?

Pleasedon't be too eager to go down in history as the person(s) who mucked up the SAF lawsuit and also gave Nickels a launch pad for a successful dismantling of statepreemption.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
WHOA! Time Out!!

Slow down.

Would you guys just relax, please? SAF has been working on a lawsuit for the past several months. Plaintiffs are lined up (at least one of whom will be familiar on this forum) and any conduct that might jeopardize the success of that lawsuit should be discouraged.

Not only could it blow up in our collective faces, but it would likely give the mayor all the momentum he needs to trot down to Olympia next year and really screw with state preemption. Do you want to be responsible for that?

Please don't be too eager to go down in history as the person(s) who mucked up the SAF lawsuit and also gave Nickels a launch pad for a successful dismantling of state preemption.

 

 

This is good advice and good news. Thanks Dave.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

deanf wrote:
I can see a security guard getting shot after pulling out his pepper spray and yanking on someones holster....

I can't. You are going to resist the efforts of a uniformed security guard at a security checkpoint or other station with deadly force? Even if he does assault you? Knowing full well that while his efforts may be illegal, if you cooperate you may have an airtight civil case against him and his employer and the City? You're going to use deadly force and suffer all the attendant consequences? Which do you think will be more severe, the inconvenience of being illegally detained by security, or the inconvenience of shooting him?

Foolish.


Reality is, someone is attempting to use force against me to remove my firearm from my posession.. I don't know wether some retard security guard who thinks he's the king shit is gonna shoot me with my own gun. At that point I can see theft, attempted kidnapping, assault, etc etc.. Surely would be justified...

What would YOU do if someone started yanking on your holster and tried to shove pepper spray in your face?

I know I'd defend the weapon, create distance, and prepare to neutralize the threat...
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
WHOA! Time Out!!

Slow down.

Would you guys just relax, please? SAF has been working on a lawsuit for the past several months. Plaintiffs are lined up (at least one of whom will be familiar on this forum) and any conduct that might jeopardize the success of that lawsuitshould be discouraged.

Not only could it blow up in our collective faces, but it would likely give the mayor all the momentum he needs totrot down to Olympia next year and really screw with state preemption. Do you want to be responsible for that?

Pleasedon't be too eager to go down in history as the person(s) who mucked up the SAF lawsuit and also gave Nickels a launch pad for a successful dismantling of statepreemption.
I agree with the above statement. SAF has made it plainly clear that they will sue Seattle as soon as they put any part of this executive order into effect. It looks like they also jumped the gun and started negotiating early into their leases with Folklife, and if I were to take a guess, Pride this year as well.

Nickels couldn't get anything done this year on gun issues at all. Next year and the next session after that doesn't look so good for him either.

Scenes of open carriers getting arrested after attempting to "citizen arrest" security officers, or getting shot by police officers while trying to "arrest" a guard is not my idea of a "fun time" or "way to make a statement", it's also a way of getting our state preemption statute gutted or repealed entirely. Think of how King 5 and the Seattle Times will spin the story?

Oh, and while you're waiting, you're sitting in a jail cell (and none of you that do pull a stupid will be thought of like MLK in Birmingham Jail), or if you're really unlucky, your body will be in a morgue for a few days. Worst part is, neither sitting in a jail cell or ending up in the morgue will do anything for anyone except deny your life and presence to the ones who love and care for you the most. You'll do the OC movement in this state, or even nationwide, a disservice by doing what's been suggested in this thread.

Sheriff Bull Connor turning the fire houses and dogs on unarmed and peaceful protesters turned the rest of the country against the South. None of us here are Selma marchers, and shouldn't presume to even think that we are, or that we will be regarded as the same thing.

When King and others engaged in civil disobedience, they did so with the specific intent to challenge the law with the the backing of the NAACP Legal Foundation and the ACLU.

Guess who kept losing legal cases and setting things legally back for them? The folks who were considered the "Lone Wolves", who had scrounged up what little money they had to hire a private lawyer (or where lawyers themselves). who had no particular skin in the game. You know, "Lone Wolves" like Gary Gorski (the primarily employment lawyer who gave us the horrific Silveira v. Lockyer decision), James Maloney (the apparent egomaniac who lost us the 2nd Circuit on incorporation until we can get a good case up to SCOTUS), and of course, let's not forget Miller lawyer who didn't even bother to show up in court.

Heller was our Brown v. Board of Education. It still took 15 years to do cleanup detail, but the first 5-7 years was critical to the NAACP's legal success in taking down segregation nationwide. This situation is merely a very small ground battle in a much larger legal war that's being waged nationwide, especially two states to our south (California). Let the legal professionals, who spent a large part of their careers in Second Amendment issues, handle this.

Nickel's be doing this :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss: when the hammer falls on him, and you'll all going to be pointing and laughing at him. Trust me.
 

deanf

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

Reality is, someone is attempting to use force against me to remove my firearm from my posession.. I don't know wether some retard security guard who thinks he's the king @#$% is gonna shoot me with my own gun. At that point I can see theft, attempted kidnapping, assault, etc etc.. Surely would be justified...

What would YOU do if someone started yanking on your holster and tried to shove pepper spray in your face?

I know I'd defend the weapon, create distance, and prepare to neutralize the threat...

That's fine, but would you be legally justified in using deadly force?

Would you have reasonable grounds to believe you were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm? Please articulate why being disarmed by a uniformed security guard at a security checkpoint or other security station would give you cause to believe this. Please carefully consider the context.

Would you actually believe you would be in such imminent danger? Please articulate your grounds, carefully considering the context.

Would the danger be such that you could only save yourself by the use of deadly force? Please articulate the reasons you beleive that deadly force is the only option to save yourself. Please carefully consider the context.

You have a legal responsibility to use only the force necessary to save yourself. Please articulate your reasons for believing that deadly force is necessary to prevent being disarmed and/or detained by a security guard. Please carefully consider the context.

The context: We'll use your example. A security guard (you have no reasonable grounds to believe he is retarded) demanding you disarm and armed with pepper spray. A laying of hands on you. You're attempting to enter the festival. Also included in this context is the fact that you could have chosen not to be there at all, that you could chose to leave at any time, and that you could chose to comply fully with his orders, legal or not.

For reference: Defending the Self Defense Case.
 
Top