Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Guy looking for people to open carry at Bite of Seattle on Sunday

  1. #1
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    Hey guys, someone is looking for people to OC at Bite of Seattle on Sunday. If you want, give him a call. He posted this on the Seattle 2A Rights.

    "I am trying to get a group together to open carry at Bite of Seattle this weekend at Seattle Center. It is a 3 day event so I was thinking maybe Sunday, because Mike is busy on Saturday, but I am open to any day. If you are interested please contact me, eric at 206-390-5200. Thanks. A right not exercised is a right taken away."

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

    Someone help me with the citation please.

    Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  5. #5
    Regular Member 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    I've been doing a lot of thinking about this "contractual language" loophole that mayor 5 pennies seems to use a lot...

    I'm not an attorney, but....

    it seems that by requiring the lesee to prohibit firearms that the city is, in effect dictating whether or not we can excersize our rights...this is what the preemption is all about, yet it seems that the legislature/courts are content to let the city continue to infringe upon our rights

    doesn't seem like it would be upheld in court...and yes, I'm familiar with the sequim case...doesn't mean I'm happy with how the city is using this loophole....

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    could always grab a few hot dogs at costco then sit outfront of an entrance and have our own bite. since we would not be entering the venue they would not be able to say no

  7. #7
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

    Someone help me with the citation please.

    Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
    From the bolded part, no it's not.
    To quote PNSPA v. Sequim
    It follows that if the
    city had authority to regulate possession of firearms in its
    convention center under RCW 9.41.300, it also had
    authority to regulate sales of firearms under RCW
    9.41.300. The authority to regulate sales of firearms
    flowed from its authority to regulate possession of
    firearms under RCW 9.41.300.(fn4)
    Note that the cited text does not apply to "(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or"... The important thing to this is that the first exemption is an individual exemption, meaning the city cannot act in a manner that restricts possession by an individual licensed under 9.41.070. Even in the oft-quoted "acting in a private capacity" section, the sequim decision states:
    The preemption clause does not prohibit a
    private property owner from imposing conditions on the
    sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290.
    Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it follows that a
    municipal property owner like a private property owner
    may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of
    its property in order to protect its property interests. For
    the same reason that a municipal employer may enact
    policies regarding possession of firearms in the
    workplace because a private employer may do so, a
    municipal property owner should be allowed to impose
    conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a
    private property owner may impose them. 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.
    Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  9. #9
    Regular Member 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    j2l3 wrote:
    Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

    Someone help me with the citation please.

    Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
    From the bolded part, no it's not.
    To quote PNSPA v. Sequim
    It follows that if the
    city had authority to regulate possession of firearms in its
    convention center under RCW 9.41.300, it also had
    authority to regulate sales of firearms under RCW
    9.41.300. The authority to regulate sales of firearms
    flowed from its authority to regulate possession of
    firearms under RCW 9.41.300.(fn4)
    Note that the cited text does not apply to "(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or"... The important thing to this is that the first exemption is an individual exemption, meaning the city cannot act in a manner that restricts possession by an individual licensed under 9.41.070. Even in the oft-quoted "acting in a private capacity" section, the sequim decision states:
    The preemption clause does not prohibit a
    private property owner from imposing conditions on the
    sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290.
    Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it follows that a
    municipal property owner like a private property owner
    may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of
    its property in order to protect its property interests. For
    the same reason that a municipal employer may enact
    policies regarding possession of firearms in the
    workplace because a private employer may do so, a
    municipal property owner should be allowed to impose
    conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a
    private property owner may impose them. 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.
    Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
    ooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkk...now we just need an attorney to show up with us on sunday to explain it to the sheeple that they can't restrict our rights.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
    You are an attorney, are you?

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

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    j2l3 wrote:
    Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

    Someone help me with the citation please.

    Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
    From the bolded part, no it's not.
    To quote PNSPA v. Sequim
    It follows that if the
    city had authority to regulate possession of firearms in its
    convention center under RCW 9.41.300, it also had
    authority to regulate sales of firearms under RCW
    9.41.300. The authority to regulate sales of firearms
    flowed from its authority to regulate possession of
    firearms under RCW 9.41.300.(fn4)
    Note that the cited text does not apply to "(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or"... The important thing to this is that the first exemption is an individual exemption, meaning the city cannot act in a manner that restricts possession by an individual licensed under 9.41.070. Even in the oft-quoted "acting in a private capacity" section, the sequim decision states:
    The preemption clause does not prohibit a
    private property owner from imposing conditions on the
    sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290.
    Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it follows that a
    municipal property owner like a private property owner
    may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of
    its property in order to protect its property interests. For
    the same reason that a municipal employer may enact
    policies regarding possession of firearms in the
    workplace because a private employer may do so, a
    municipal property owner should be allowed to impose
    conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a
    private property owner may impose them. 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.
    Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
    However, the lessee CAN restrict firearms at their event, and can ask you to leave... and if you don't, they can press charges for criminal trespass. The city can get by the laws by not making it a requirement of the lease.... and it is perfectly legal.

    However, if it were made a condition of the lease, I'm sure that the 2A Rights group would fight it.

    The best way to be able to carry at the event is work for their security detail.
    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
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Just to let you guys know, I was at the bite today and there are "No Firearms Allowed On These Premises" signs everywhere. I counted at least 10 of them and most of them are at the entrances. Just a FYI.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
    You are an attorney, are you?
    Sorry to bump a month old topic (I apparently missed the followup), but Dave, can you add the "n't" where you meant it, above? That sentence could be either "You are an attorney, aren't you" or "You aren't an attorney, are you?"

    Do you know that you're being quoted here: http://seattlepostglobe.org/2009/07/...cking-protests
    to say
    "A handful of these guys are exhibitionists," says Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week , which is published by the Second Amendment Foundation , a Bellevue-based gun rights group. "They do themselves and the gun community no favors at all."
    I'm pretty sure that's out of context (if I recall correctly, you stated that being an exhibitionist does no favors, not just being an open carrier, but that's now it parses in quotes).
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

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