Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: SAF, NRA, CCRKBA, WAC sue Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels

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

    Post imported post

    SAF, NRA sue Seattle Mayor over gun ban

    Here it is, the long-awaited legal action to stop Mayor Greg Nickels' gun ban in city parks.

    Our own Gray Peterson is one of the individual plaintiffs.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d28-SAF-NRA-file-lawsuit-to-overturn-Seattle-parks-gun-ban

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/ykgltve



  2. #2

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Now, the best advice I can give for all of you folks who either attended, or missed, Jim's soire down in Normandy Park the other evening is to FOLLOW HIS COUNSEL on any matters relating to what may or may not be a good idea.

    The lawsuit is filed. Let the legal action run its course.

    DEROS has been wisely guiding events from the OCDO perspective, at least in South King County.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Now, the best advice I can give for all of you folks who either attended, or missed, Jim's soire down in Normandy Park the other evening is to FOLLOW HIS COUNSEL on any matters relating to what may or may not be a good idea.

    The lawsuit is filed. Let the legal action run its course.

    DEROS has been wisely guiding events from the OCDO perspective, at least in South King County.
    Also, despite how much we'd all like to see Nickels be sued in a private capacity, as he is definitely the motivating factor behind this illegal action, it's not in the best interest for us or the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners.

    Go about your business as normal, but don't go out of your way to get arrested or otherwise cause trouble in Seattle. If you have business there and would normally OC, I can't in good faith say "you shouldn't because it would cause problems," but at this time I don't think showing up in a group, with t-shirts, et cetera will do anything to help our cause. The best you can do is donate and/or volunteer to be Dave's bitch... er, to help at the SAF .

    And if you called them, try not to stutter like I did when they pick up the phone before it rings . I was a bit surprised at the fast, responsive service, despite what must be a very very crazy day over there.
    "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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate :celebrate





  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    Nickels is a lame duck. Give him a going away party (tar an' feathers would be ok). Rather then going through a law suit task your new mayor with repealing the ordnance. That would send a message. Just my two cents worth.

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

    Post imported post

    KOMO just ran the story saying a Seattle law firm has agreed to defend the city at no cost.They always use the excuse for the children.If they get away with this then they will say well there are childrn in stores ,resturants,the city itself.These antis use that to spread this slowly through out, well everywhere.

    Personally I have every confidence however in SAF and what they are doing .Also Carrying a side arm for personal protection is a basic right I don't feel we need anyones permission to exersise.BUt we will be patient ! I don't see how the antis can when this when up against state law. So I will wait!

  8. #8
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Also another side note.....

    My daughter and guns...

    Also one more little side not on this concept they use "it's for the children"
    When Last year my oldest daughter found out she was pregnant with her first child I asked her is there anything special she wanted for the baby.She said Dad its time I learn to protect myself and my child.I want a handgun for the house.I got her a Bersa .380 and over the last year we have been to the range to the point where she is now quite proficient with it.Now she is not just mydaughter but a new mother with the means and will to protect her new son and her family.Her confidence in that ability has grown a thousand foldwith her proficiency.
    She is also a bank manager that works late and ends up closing by herself.So now she is in the process of getting her concealed carry.
    It isn't the first time she has been around weapons.I taught all 3 of my daughters at around 12 with the mini 14 I had at the time.They couldn't hit much in those days but they sure had a blast and from an early age understood firearms safety and responsibility.Cost me a bundle in .223 ammo back then too.
    These days I have every confidence in my little girls ability to protect my new grandson and herself.How dare they say it's for the children?.How dare they say my daughter can't protect her little son when they go to the play ground?. I think not!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    The City Attorney has secured the services of the Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. In order to avoid expense to the City, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe has agreed to defend the policy on a pro bono basis.

    Time to add Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to the "Do Not Patronize" list?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    thats a big firm, i wonder what they get out of it

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Boo Boo wrote:
    thats a big firm, i wonder what they get out of it
    Publicity.

    Not to mention huge props from 8% of the population of the greater Seattle area

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spokane, Wa., ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    I still think you all got side tracked, its costing the city, your money. Nickles could not care one bit. Maybe you could get him for being a jerk, but your next mayor should be the target. Have him repeal the ordinance.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    well id stop all state funds to the city but gregwhore probably give him a blank check

  14. #14

    Post imported post

    Mr. Workman, can you please post a scanned copy of the lawsuit in Adobe PDF format at the SAF web site? I would like to post a link to the PDF from my web site.

    All I can find on the SAF web site is a news release.

    Thanks,
    George

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    George Washington wrote:
    Mr. Workman, can you please post a scanned copy of the lawsuit in Adobe PDF format at the SAF web site? I would like to post a link to the PDF from my web site.

    All I can find on the SAF web site is a news release.

    Thanks,
    George
    It's up here:
    http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalac...-parks-lawsuit
    "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

  16. #16
    Regular Member 5jeffro7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post


  17. #17

    Post imported post

    Thank you for posting a link to the complaint -- I read it in its entirety and see a great big gaping hole in the complaint that I think deserves to remedied with an amended complaint.

    The relief that is sought relates specifically to Parks, but the scope of the problem is not limited to Parks. Right here you can see that the Seattle Public Library has a "gun ban", which is not covered in the complaint: http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/96/34/

    If the court grants the plaintiffs the remedies that are requested, they will not apply to the Seattle Public Library, as the relief sought is so narrow, that it ONLY covers the Parks. Furthermore, the remedy that is sought orders signs to be removed, but the Seattle Public Library doesn't issues its notices through signs, it issues them through brochures.

    So, even if Seattle loses this case, they will be free to continue enforcing their "gun bans" at places other than Parks. It is possible that the city would voluntarily agree to toss out their gun ban in the library after losing the case, but what is SAF going to do if the city doesn't stop enforcing the "gun ban" in the library?

    It seems to me that it would be much less expensive to file an amended complaint that seeks broader relief that puts an end to the entire "gun ban" scheme once and for all, rather than to fight it piece meal, one city department at a time.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    George Washington wrote:
    Thank you for posting a link to the complaint -- I read it in its entirety and see a great big gaping hole in the complaint that I think deserves to remedied with an amended complaint.

    The relief that is sought relates specifically to Parks, but the scope of the problem is not limited to Parks. Right here you can see that the Seattle Public Library has a "gun ban", which is not covered in the complaint: http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/96/34/

    If the court grants the plaintiffs the remedies that are requested, they will not apply to the Seattle Public Library, as the relief sought is so narrow, that it ONLY covers the Parks. Furthermore, the remedy that is sought orders signs to be removed, but the Seattle Public Library doesn't issues its notices through signs, it issues them through brochures.

    So, even if Seattle loses this case, they will be free to continue enforcing their "gun bans" at places other than Parks. It is possible that the city would voluntarily agree to toss out their gun ban in the library after losing the case, but what is SAF going to do if the city doesn't stop enforcing the "gun ban" in the library?

    It seems to me that it would be much less expensive to file an amended complaint that seeks broader relief that puts an end to the entire "gun ban" scheme once and for all, rather than to fight it piece meal, one city department at a time.
    Don't really need to. If the court determines that Seattle is in violation of state law in regards to parks, and the appeal holds up, it'll be binding case law which will apply equally to Seattle Public Library, since they are a city agency too just like the Parks Department. It should not need to be re-litigated.

  19. #19

    Post imported post

    It should not need to be re-litigated.
    The key word is "should". I think you are giving administrators in Seattle too much credit for being responsible caretakers of public resources. If you are an irresponsible city administrator and are getting free legal services, you might just decide to force SAF to waste their money in a second go-around.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    George Washington wrote:
    It should not need to be re-litigated.
    The key word is "should". I think you are giving administrators in Seattle too much credit for being responsible caretakers of public resources. If you are an irresponsible city administrator and are getting free legal services, you might just decide to force SAF to waste their money in a second go-around.
    And again, and again, as we've seen with D.C.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Again, it will partly depend on the wording of the decision. If the judge makes it very clear that the city has no authority to ban carry via a rule or regulation under RCW 9.41.290, and it is upheld on appeal by one of the state courts of appeal, then it will be binding precedent on the superior court to follow. If they force re-litigation on a different department on the same issue it would be very annoying to a judge who's case load is very busy due to budget cuts, and would likely read the lawyers for the city the riot act.

    I also note that if the city loses, attorney fees and court costs are generally expected from the losing party.

    Narrow suits such as this are done for a reason. When we won in Heller, we got the registration ban struck down. DC resisted following the wording of SCOTUS, and refused to register semi-autos since that was not challenged, but further legal attacks in the district court level changed this and they waved the white flag. They also passed a "Handgun Roster" law which referenced California, but then they changed the law to also reference Massachusetts and Maryland, and also any gun made before 1985 is exempt. As a result, Hansen v. District of Columbia was dismissed, and Alan Gura followed up with Palmer v. District of Columbia, a carry case.

    Also, let's pay attention to legal developments in California. Nordyke v. King recently went en banc and was heard on September 24th by an 11 judge panel. The bad news is that we as gun owners lost, at the moment, the ability to go to federal court. The good news is that the 11 judge panel is actually favorable to our argument. If fairgrounds are ruled not to be sensitive places by the 11 judge panel for commercial sale of firearms (Alameda's lawyer actually admitted that for self defense purposes, the fairgrounds would NOT be a sensitive area since one can carry a handgun in the fairgrounds under the ordinance that Alameda passed if they happened to have a PC12050 license to carry), then there's no way in hell that a park or a library can be.

    The parks gun rule is been a lost cause from day one, whether it be in the state courts, or federal. There's also plenty of precedent even without the 2nd amendment in the federal courts which can be done in regards to the city acting as a landlord, such as Gathright v. City of Portland.

    The lawyers in this case as well as the organizations are on the ball, George. Let them do their work.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post


    The new city gun ban has become an issue in the current mayoral race. In a KING 5 sponsored mayoral debate aired on October 21st, both candidates weighed in. Candidate Mike McGinn stated he would use city money to fight a lawsuit, such as the one filed today. Candidate Joe Mallahan stated he would not fight such a suit.
    Just an FYI in case you were on the fence on which liberal to vote for as mayor..


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    http://seattlepostglobe.org/2009/10/...-parks-gun-ban

    from his rep:
    If the ban on guns in parks is effective, Joe Mallahan will continue to support it

    She said Mallahan would not repeal the ban and wants to find other ways that might accomplish Nickels' goals.

    From the man himself
    Make no mistake: I support what Mayor Nickels is trying to achieve with the gun ban in city parks.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:

    Also, let's pay attention to legal developments in California. Nordyke v. King recently went en banc and was heard on September 24th by an 11 judge panel. The bad news is that we as gun owners lost, at the moment, the ability to go to federal court. The good news is that the 11 judge panel is actually favorable to our argument. If fairgrounds are ruled not to be sensitive places by the 11 judge panel for commercial sale of firearms (Alameda's lawyer actually admitted that for self defense purposes, the fairgrounds would NOT be a sensitive area since one can carry a handgun in the fairgrounds under the ordinance that Alameda passed if they happened to have a PC12050 license to carry), then there's no way in hell that a park or a library can be.
    This is all contingent on the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago, as the hearing basically said the court will wait for its outcome before making any ruling.
    "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

  25. #25
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    This is all contingent on the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago, as the hearing basically said the court will wait for its outcome before making any ruling.
    yes, and when it was agreed that the decision was to be reheard, they vacated the Nordyke ruling thus sending the 2A back to its unincorporated status. we have to wait until McDonald.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •