• 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.

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

G

George Washington

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
60
Location
, ,
imported post

George Washington,

If you feel so strongly about this why don't you file your OWN lawsuit instead of criticizing the work being done by others?
Click to expand...

I havecontributed money to organizations which have funded the lawsuit.
 
G

George Washington

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
60
Location
, ,
imported post

Bookman wrote:
But you don't trust them to know what they're doing? So WHY are you contributing money?
Click to expand...

Because they are the only game in town. Isn't that obvious to you?

Ifthere was an alternative organization called "We sue cities once and promise to get it right the first time" I would join that organization.

As it stands right now, SAF and NRA will win a lawsuit, then they will win a second lawsuit, ad infinitum.

Instead of wasting your time on trying to analyze my checkbook, why don't you ask the following question of those who are calling the shots.
  1. Why is the Public Library's illegal "code of conduct" being exempted in this lawsuit.
  2. Are the organizations that are calling the shots, going to allow the city to continue enforcing an illegal "code of conduct" in the library?
  3. Is it a goal of SAF and NRA to bring multiple similar lawsuits, with the purpose of gaining an edge in propaganda by repeatedly defeating the city on the same issue over and over again?
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Lawsuits have to be specific and have standing. Overly broad lawsuits will be thrown out. Having the right and specific plaintiffs and challenging one specific law at a time is the only way a lawsuit can and will go forward. I think that the suit at hand is superb, a gay gun owner! Perfect! If Nickels directive (can't even call it a law) is overturned it is gone, period. It will be a huge loss to the anti's.

Do other laws need to be challenged, yes! The library, yes.
 
Bookman

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
imported post

Specificity. It's the old adage to "Keep It Simple Stupid". (That's NOT aimed at you. It's just how I learned it)

And I'm not analyzing your checkbook. I'm just confused about why you are continually arguing with/about an organization you claim to support. From your posts it seems you don't trust them to know their collectives heads from a hole in the ground.

If I feel that way about something or someone I sure as H-E- double-hockey-sticks don't throw money at them. I find another team playing the same game.

In short, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. I think I have it now, though. You're attempting to win ALL the gun battles in Washington and elsewhere in one fell swoop.

Well, it isn't going to work. Wars are won one battle at a time. And that strategy seems to be working. We're setting precedents all over the country and using THOSE cases to win other cases. It's a domino effect with a multiplier thrown in as one precedent setting case is used to win the next few up to bat.

This isn't a TV show. Winning these things takes time. Things aren't figure out during the commercial break.

So PLEASE leave the people alone and let them do their job.
 
A

arms_libertas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
66
Location
Seattle (Ballard), Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


I sent the following emails to the Seattle Public Library:
Email1 (2/12/10):

Hopefully the Seattle Public Library management has been made aware of the decision by the King County Superior Court regarding the City of Seattle's gun ban on public property. The decision, issued 2/12/10, found that the prohibition was illegal and struck it down.

Will the Seattle Public Library be changing their Rules of Conduct prohibiting the posession of firearms, specifically Category E, item 1; "Posession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property."

Thank you

Response:

Greetings from The Seattle Public Library.

Thank you for your question regarding a recent court decision around the city of Seattle's gun ban on public property. The Library is aware of the decision and it is under review.

Thank you for contacting The Seattle Public Library.

Sincerely,

Andra Addison
Communications Director
Click to expand...


Email2 (3/5/10):

Hi Andra-

I wanted to circle back with you regarding the Seattle Public Library's policy on the prohibition of firearms.

Specifically, Category E, item 1; "Posession, except by law enforcement officers, of a firearm on Library property."

As I mentioned in my previous email, the King County Superior Court mae a decision regarding the City of Seattle's gun ban on public property. The decision, issued 2/12/10, found that the prohibition was illegal and struck it down.

Although you stated in your reply that the Seattle Public Library was aware of the decision and your policy was under review, the judge issued an injunction against the ban effective 2/17/10 and instructed all signs to come down within 30 days.

Can you please let me know what your current enforcement policy is regarding Category E, item 1 of the Rules of Conduct? Also, if you have intentions, at this point, of changing the signage within the libraries?



Response:

Hello from The Seattle Public Library.

Thank you for your follow up question regarding the long-held Library rule prohibiting guns in libraries except by law enforcement officers.

The Library continues to maintain and enforce this rule (Category E, item 1).

Thank you for your question.

Sincerely,

Andra Addison
Communications Director
The Seattle Public Library
Click to expand...

It appears Seattle Public Library doesn't think that the ruling on the parks ban affects thier ability to restrict guns in libraries. Does it REALLY have to go through a whole other round of legal proceedings?
 
K

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

I long for the day when people like Andra Addison, and her superiors, have to actually answer for their illegal conduct.

In other words, 9.41.290 needs to be amended to specify actual sanctions against public officials who abuse their authority by attempting to promulgate rules and ordinances "inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law".
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Thought I would send an email to add to the pressure, here is the response:
Dear ****,

Thank you for your comment regarding our longstanding rule prohibiting firearms on Library property except by law enforcement officers.

The Library maintains this rule. Under state law, the Library Board is required to enact such reasonable rules and regulations as the trustees find necessary to assure the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Because the Library is a sensitive place, like a school or government building, dedicated principally to reading and education, the Library has long had a policy that possession of firearms is incompatible with the Library's purpose.

Sincerely,

Andra Addison
Communications Director


-----------------------
Please take a moment to fill out a survey at: < http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MFSDT3Y]http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MFSDT3Y[/url] >


-----------------------

Question History:

Patron: I wanted to inform you that you are in violation of state law regarding one of your 'Rules of Conduct.' Rule Category E of the "possesion, except by law enforcemnt officers, of a firearm on Library property," is a direct violation of RCW 9.41.290 which in summary grants the restriction of the possesion of firearms soley at the discretion of our state legislature. This was further decided in King County Superior Court by Judge Catherine Shaffer on Feb. 12th. It is now time to amend your rule to comply with state law. Please let me know when this will be completed.

Librarian 2: Dear ****,

Thank you for your comment regarding our longstanding rule prohibiting firearms on Library property except by law enforcement officers.

The Library maintains this rule. Under state law, the Library Board is required to enact such reasonable rules and regulations as the trustees find necessary to assure the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Because the Library is a sensitive place, like a school or government building, dedicated principally to reading and education, the Library has long had a policy that possession of firearms is incompatible with the Library's purpose.

Sincerely,

Andra Addison
Communications Director






Join us at these community meetings for input on the future of The Seattle Public Library:
http://www.spl.org/default.asp?pageID=about_strategicplanning_calendar]http://www.spl.org/default.asp?pageID=about_strategicplanning_calendar[/url]

Check out what the library is blogging!
http://shelftalk.spl.org/]http://shelftalk.spl.org/[/url]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top