Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
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.
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.
