Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Seattle Times reports on parks lawsuit, notes that WA is an open carry state requiring no permit

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban28m.html

    SNIP

    The state is an "open-carry" state, and that doesn't require residents to have a concealed-weapons permit as long as the guns are in plain view.


    Article picked up on USA Today also: http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-city-parks/1

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    The Seattletimes.com article also has a link to the lawsuit:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2010155285.pdf

    It makes for some good reading.

    Oddly enough, I know two of the plaintiffs.

    Edited to add: I hate the way the NRA is the one they concentrate on when SAF and CCRKBA are actually the ones leading the way.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Why in both causes of action and the request for relief does it ask that Defendants not be able to make any more sill rules against Concealed Carry?

    Is there some strange Washington law that would allow the city to enact rules against Open Carry in a city park?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Why in both causes of action and the request for relief does it ask that Defendants not be able to make any more sill rules against Concealed Carry?

    Is there some strange Washington law that would allow the city to enact rules against Open Carry in a city park?
    That's the entire point. What Mayor Nickels did is illegal. The SAF, etc. are trying to get an injunction to void the rule until it can be decided in court. Since ALL of the laws of the state of Washington are on our side the city is almost surely going to lose this one. And the only reason I use the word "almost" is that Seattle is a liberal bastion and there's no telling how the judge might go. If he/she follows the law, though, we've already won.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Why in both causes of action and the request for relief does it ask that Defendants not be able to make any more sill rules against Concealed Carry?

    Is there some strange Washington law that would allow the city to enact rules against Open Carry in a city park?
    Because SAF isn't necessarilly pro-open carry.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Does that mean Seattle is going to refuse any state money from now on? If they want to have this attitude they can start paying all their own bills and quit being subsidized by the rest of the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Does that mean Seattle is going to refuse any state money from now on? If they want to have this attitude they can start paying all their own bills and quit being subsidized by the rest of the state.
    I can't wait for that day. They love turning up their nose at the rest of us 'heathens' but we're footing plenty of their bills.

    Just imagine how their precious piousness is going to go into the sh!tter when Boeing moves the rest of it's facilities to South Carolina. I think the dark blue line from Seattle to Olympia needs a serious reality check.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    "That's the entire point. What Mayor Nickels did is illegal. The SAF, etc. are trying to get an injunction to void the rule until it can be decided in court."

    It CANT be decided in Court, its already decided in the Legislature. The second word after "preempted" is "repealed." A valid defense to criminal trespass is that the individual is in a public place and not there otherwise illegally.

    " Is there some strange Washington law that would allow the city to enact rules against Open Carry in a city park?"

    NO, there is not. The WA Attorney General even came out at the request of the WA Legislature and EXPRESSLEY said so.

    The beauty of WAs preemption is that the repealed part means there is no Ordinance to worry about, repeal means repeal.

    Realize that this is a home for radical Leftist whacko activity as in"Earth Liberation Front setting fire to an SUV dealer" sort of whacko.

    I just walked into the RIchland WA City Council meeting carrying openly and rubbed their noses in it.

    AS to the Seattle Communist Center, I am curious to see what Warden is really up to, hes apparently a Federal Attorney and certainly knows all this. I dont think he's filed yet.

    As to the suit, I dont know what the Courts can say except to cite preemption.
    Im afraid they are eating a hollow 'Easter Bunny' where there are FAR more exciting charges to level against these Communist Cities.

    As to the NRA, they can kiss my white hiney, I couldnt even get the courtesy of return of multiple contacts to ILA. they lost a member forever.

  9. #9
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Vunerable and defenseless? Maybe if they were carrying they wouldn't be so vunerable and defenseless!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Because SAF isn't necessarilly pro-open carry.
    Nor NRA. Indeed, sale of indulgences from 2A infringements is the NRA way.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Because SAF isn't necessarilly pro-open carry.
    Nor NRA. Indeed, sale of indulgences from 2A infringements is the NRA way.
    This is why these orginizations don't get money from me. I am not open to any compromise of my rights. They do do some good but at the same time do exactly what you said Huffman.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    well some people give them money, you just have to wonder if they know 300K out of it they giveback tothemselves

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Is there some strange Washington law that would allow the city to enact rules against Open Carry in a city park?
    Not in general but check out the regulations for Seattle Center House (Food Circus for old-timers).
    A CPL is required for carry there.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    or NRA. Indeed, sale of indulgences from 2A infringements is the NRA way.
    EXACTLY right. Understood.... Its the democracy fraud, get a large group of screaming people together to attempt to bully the Legislatures around. excepting for a minute that they are at least keeping the appearance of 2A rights, but its an absolute topic, not relative and not one to give ANY ground on.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    This is why these organizations don't get money from me. I am not open to any compromise of my rights.
    Can you actually tell me what they actually compromised on? I'd like to see actual evidence of what you're talking about here. About the only thing you have is a comment made by Alan Gottlieb on a national cable news show in regards to he personally wouldn't open carry, or do what Chris Broughton did in Phoenix outside of the presidential event. Big whoop.

    Though open carry at the presidential events did not blow up in our faces, things we found out later about the associations of the two main "presidential event" open carriers certainly gave a lot of heartburn later on.

    Chris Broughton's TPM profile

    The 24 Hour Cable News Cycle died down, and MSBNC got a lot of egg on the face when they tried to conceal Chris' race to attack all open carriers as rabid white racists. That's about the only thing, along with time, that quieted down the rhetoric. We got lucky.

    I have a pretty long list of what CCRKBA (The Lobbying Organization) and SAF (The Legal Foundation)has done for us as leaders here in Washington (some of this may be ancient history for all of you):

    1) In 1994, during the debate of the Violence Prevention Act (which included some rewrites of the RCW 9.41), they stopped training from being required for CPL's. It was a tiebreaking vote and they managed to get one to vote against. This legislator was harshly punished by majority party caucus and the Governor, but the blowback from gun owners over the VPA on the state level and from the AWB on the federal level made it to where the Democratic Party was swept out of office.

    2) Due to changes to RCW 9.41.050, it was illegal to openly carry a pistol without a CPL when the VPA became effective. This became known as the "Case and Carry Law". Due to provisions in the new statute, 34 out of 39 counties completely exempted themselves from this law, and made it essentially effective in only 5 counties (take a huge guess which counties did NOT exempt themselves). Essentially, the only way you *could* open carry legally without fear of something bad happening to you was *with* a CPL, making Washington effectively a "Green State".

    3) In 1996, when discussions of repealing the "Case and Carry Law" was going through the legislature (bill was sponsored by Sen. James Hargrove (D-Hoquiam), a Seattle PD representative was asked how many people they arrested under "Case and Carry". Answer: Zero. The bill wouldn't pass that year because Gov. Mike "Grabass" Lowry threatened to veto it.

    4) It got passed out of the Legislature in 1997, where Gov. Gary Locke made some leanings that he would veto, but Senator Hargrove had a sit down discussion with him and explained that the law was completely ineffective, was likely unconstitutional for many different reasons (equal protection being chief among them, along with violations of A1S24), and had costed their party the majority in the Legislature. CCRKBA's lobbyist was involved in that conversation. It is because of the efforts of CCRKBA and allied organizations that got "Case and Carry" removed from the law, or else the recent history of open carry would have been based on a bit of a different footing.

    5) The worst that anyone has thrown gun owners thus far from the Legislature was SB5197 (2007), which was a "gun show loophole" bill. We packed the legislative hearing rooms and pushed it to overflow (with closed circuit TV). Our message was clear: "If you pass this law, 1994 will happen again". It passed the first committee, but Rules Committee is controlled by the Senate Majority Leader, who wanted NO part in their majority having a sudden reduction in seats in 2008. We made passing further gun control in the state legislature a rather politically toxic thing that they will not touch.

    6) Employees are SAF and CCRKBA was critical to my original research on understanding what the purpose was for RCW 9.41.270, and gave me the link I needed (the passage of case and carry) to prove that the Legislature did not de-facto ban open carry, and never had throughout the legislative history of this state. They were also critical in advice on trying to fix the open carry situation via the "Training Advisory Method" as the only effective means of ending the wholesale and continued terrorizing of OC'ers, as litigation of open carry issues at that point may have resulted in negative consequences for gun owners in general with a bad ruling on OC.

    7) SAF is currently funding 4 federal civil rights lawsuits:

    A) McDonald v. City of Chicago, which suggests overturning Slaughterhouse and applying the entire Bill of Rights to the states, the LAST legal battle of reconstruction to be waged, and would have direct effects here in Washington. This case will give gun owners the ability to challenge illegal parks gun rule in federal courts under the 14th amendment's privileges and immunities clause, should the state courts fail to do their job as required by A1S24, State Law, and the 2nd amendment. We would also have the return of grand juries as an additional check and balance against prosecutorial abuse and misconduct, and the ability to ask for juries for all criminal and civil cases, not just on felonies. Expect a decision on this by June 2010.

    B) Sykes v. McGinness, which would require that California PC12050 carry licenses be issued on a shall-issue basis for self defense rather than the current crony may-issue system. This is using Alan Gura's "surgical legal strikes" method. As Washington requires a CPL to carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle, it would essentially require the CPL to always be shall-issue. There could be no retreading back to may-issue which occurred pre-1961 in this state. Adding restrictions or otherwise requiring training would also be legally risky for Washington to do after a good ruling. It would also subject Oregon's non-resident licensing to legal jeopardy due to the existence of loaded carry restrictions in some cities. They must allow the applications, or repeal the authority of the cities to pass loaded carry bans, to comply with a good Sykes ruling. This is currently on hold due to Nordyke v King in banc hold, and the Nordyke en banc panel is currently holding for McDonald.

    C) Palmer v. District of Columbia, which challenges DC's total handgun carry ban (Despite a statute saying that one can carry if they have a license from the Chief of Police, the licensing statute was repealed). DC is claiming that the entirety of DC is a "sensitive area", despite the fact that the licensing statute existed until 2008 which allowed carry for those given the permission by DC Metro's Police Chief. A ruling at ANY level would be binding on both DC and the US government, as there's no 14th amendment holdup which is being delt with by McDonald.

    D) Hodgkins v. Holder, which challenges the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which disallows persons from being able to buy handguns in a state where they are not a resident. The method of challenge is via US Citizens who are currently not residing in any state in the United States (two US citizens living in Canada and the UK respectively). If this law is struck down, you can buy handguns in any state that allows you to buy it, and if it makes it to the Court of Appeals or SCOTUS level, it would also call into question any state laws which attempt to ban it's residents from buying guns out of state in further litigation, or vice versa. How is it that a person can vote in federal elections even if they reside exclusively overseas, and have that protected by law and constitution, but not the buying and carrying of handguns for self defense?

    So what exactly has SAF and CCRKBA compromised on?

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    This is why these organizations don't get money from me. I am not open to any compromise of my rights.
    Can you actually tell me what they actually compromised on? I'd like to see actual evidence of what you're talking about here. About the only thing you have is a comment made by Alan Gottlieb on a national cable news show in regards to he personally wouldn't open carry, or do what Chris Broughton did in Phoenix outside of the presidential event. Big whoop.
    Grey I thought you were smarter than to take words out of context. I first stated they are not necessarily pro open carry. I like how you mentioned the other thread should I link it here and show Dave's attitude? Which questions were posed that he never answered, but sure liked to make personal attacks.

    I have stated over and over again, that they have done some good, you keep ignoring this, that is not my point. They are not pro-open carry, I have had personal conversations with Dave, he advised me not to open carry which I promptly ignored, that is compromising.

    The things he said about this site and the people on here irritated me and showed what an egotistical jerk he is. I quote "never take advise from Mike", "I wish people on that site never made that pamphlet", "unlike you guys, I use my real name", "just cover up and lay low", "you failed the attitude test" (when I told him I tried not to get my fourth violated, by insisting on RAS with the officer), "are you a lawyer", "you folks running around like you know the law". And comment after comment like this Grey. Over and over again stressing to cover it up, and that I can get in trouble, for causing alarm for open carrying.

    Then he makes false comments about another poster here, at a public gathering, and basically told that poster many of the same things in a phone conversation with him.

    He also pretty much comes on here for what? To pimp his work, his books his articles, or to try to defend SAF when someone makes a comment about them, otherwise he doesn't post normally. So I am going to safely assume from personal comments and from what he has posted and from the national comments of Alan Gottlieb they are not necessarily pro open-carry. My personal opinion so what? Why do you and Dave get so butt hurt about my personal opinion?

    The funny thing was I kept it clear in the past I still liked them, I have since changed my mind due to his personal attacks and megalomania.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    What is the status of the Seattle public private propery ban?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  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

    Motion for Summary Judgment hearing is on February 12th, 2010, in King County Superior Court.

Posting Permissions

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