Kent Attorney to Join Fight Against Seattle Gun Ban

imported post

http://westseattle.komonews.com/node/146741

Man will bring gun to Southwest Community Center tomorrow in protest

Submitted by Rose Egge on Friday, November 13th, 09:14am

A Kent man, Bob Warden,has written to the Seattle Parks Department, informing them that he plans to "exercise his right to bear arms" by carrying a holstered Glock pistol to the Southwest Community Center tomorrow at noon.
His actions are in protest to the City of Seattle's recent decision to ban firearms from certain community centers and parks where children are typically present.
Warden says he has a current valid State of Washington License to Carry a Concealed Weapon.
He also writes that he is anattorney, licensed to practice in Washington, and that when he took his Oath of Attorney he promised to support the constitution.
"Put bluntly, Seattle Parks and Recreation Rule P 060 – 8.14 was promulgated in knowing andblatant violation of state and federal law,"Warden wrote.
While Warden's plan may sound radical he says that he is not looking for"any kind of uncivil confrontation" and that hewill comply with any instruction given to himby law enforcement personnel or any City of Seattle official.
Seattle Parks has not yet responded to our request for comment.

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

more power to him. i'm curious to see what the response from the city will be. if i had tomorrow off, i'd drive up and meet him. i know we're waiting to see what happens with the SAF's complaint/suit but i'm getting somewhat itchy to take action. it's hard to sit around and do nothing.


Bobby

imported post

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412168_gun14.html?source=rss

Kent man to challenge Seattle gun ban By SCOTT SUNDE
SEATTLEPI.COM
A Kent man has announced that he intends to carry a pistol into a West Seattle community center on Saturday to trigger a lawsuit challenging Seattle's ban on guns in public spaces.
Bob Warden, 44, announced his intentions in an e-mail Friday morning to media as well as to the City of Seattle, including the police and city attorney.
"As a courtesy, this is advance notice that at noon tomorrow, Saturday, November 14, I plan to exercise my legal right to bear arms in Seattle's Southwest Community Center, 2801 SW Thistle Street," Warden said in his e-mail. "I will be safely and securely carrying my holstered Glock pistol. I have a current valid State of Washington License to Carry Concealed."
He also described the Tacoma Rainiers baseball cap he will be wearing so that he can be spotted.
Seattle parks officials have not yet responded to a request for comment.
"I'm not looking for any trouble," Warden said in an interview. He said he will comply with whatever instructions police or parks officials give him.
But whether he is turned away or cited for trespassing, Warden said the incident should give him standing to sue to challenge the ban.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said on Oct. 14 that guns would be banned on such city facilities as parks and community centers where children gather. Signs banning guns have been posted at city parks.
Late last month, gun-rights advocates sued, saying the ban violates state law.
But Warden, a licensed attorney in the state, says he worries that the earlier lawsuit may be thrown out because those who filed it lack legal standing.
Warden said he does not actively practice law. He said he works in labor relations for the federal government but would not describe his job further.
He said he is taking the action because he believes the ban is illegal. He noted that the state Attorney General's Office has said so.
"They know full well it's illegal, but they went ahead and did it anyway," Warden said.
Warden described himself as a political independent, but a man who has probably voted for only two Republicans in his life.
He said he is not a member of the National Rifle Association, but was certified by that organization as a pistol instructor. He said he uses the certification in his volunteer work with the Boy Scouts.

imported post

Manu wrote:

He also described the Tacoma Rainiers baseball cap he will be wearing so that he can be spotted.

Click to expand...

Since he gave his description, he probable plans on CC. Does his letter stating his intentions provide probable cause to search him for the weapon? Actually, since he is not breaking any laws (just a rule), no crime is afoot. If there is no crime, there is no probable cause to conduct a search.

I don't think this will amount to anything unless he open carries. Then wemight have a test case.

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

Manu wrote:

He also described the Tacoma Rainiers baseball cap he will be wearing so that he can be spotted.

Click to expand...

Since he gave his description, he probable plans on CC. Does his letter stating his intentions provide probable cause to search him for the weapon? Actually, since he is not breaking any laws (just a rule), no crime is afoot. If there is no crime, there is no probable cause to conduct a search.

I don't think this will amount to anything unless he open carries. Then wemight have a test case.

Click to expand...

How many other people will be showing up in tacoma raniers hats, just to mess with...everyone?

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

How many other people will be showing up in tacoma raniers hats, just to mess with...everyone?

Click to expand...

Great idea, Tawnos. That would be a beautiful sight: fifty guys wearing Tacoma Rainiers hats. If I had one, I would consider joining in the fun.

imported post

where are the dont call the police I'm going out fans? or the don't do it you give us a bad rep group?

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

http://westseattle.komonews.com/node/146741

imported post

I say good for him.

imported post

This is exactly what this group was talking about to begin with until a few talked everyone out of it, and quite easily at that.

He does not have to be Open Carrying to make this happen, he can calmly make it known he is legally carrying and acting in a responsible manner.

I feel his statement of having a current CPL is to emphasize he is a legal law abiding citizen for those who will auto translate him as being a gun nut. Granted one should not have to have something to help promotes one legal actions but you know our society and a large part of Seattle Liberalism.

I am unable to attend tomorrow but for those who support him it would be good to show up be it armed or open holster appearance but showing support would be a positive move in a responsible and respectful manner.

imported post

Someone needs to be nearby with a video camera.

Bruce

imported post

Am I the only one to notice in the guy's quote that he doesn't think the SAF lawsuit has any legal ground to stand on, then later says that the Attorney General says that this ban is illegal? Does this sound a little weird?



"But Warden, a licensed attorney in the state, says he worries that the earlier lawsuit may be thrown out because those who filed it lack legal standing."



"Put bluntly, Seattle Parks and Recreation Rule P 060 – 8.14 was promulgated in knowing andblatant violation of state and federal law,"Warden wrote.



So how does the SAF/NRA lawsuit not have any legal standing? Same standing this guy has... What's the difference? Kinda' strange.

imported post

This is not what was agreed on at the last meeting.Igt will do us no good what so ever.I recieved a call from Dave Workman to advise that this individual will get no support from SAF or anyone else.We are to let the law suit proceed.As Dave said after it was filed they had 20 days to respond .We will wait it out.We will also not support anyone in these actions.In fact If this turns negative since KIRO and KOMO know me and have asked me to keep them informed I will contact them and advise the the group from the meeting on the 25th do not support his actions.

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

This is not what was agreed on at the last meeting.Igt will do us no good what so ever.I recieved a call from Dave Workman to advise that this individual will get no support from SAF or anyone else.We are to let the law suit proceed.As Dave said after it was filed they had 20 days to respond .We will wait it out.We will also not support anyone in these actions.

Click to expand...

This is not any of us, so what we agreed not to do doesn't matter. This is a lawyer acting on his own behest.

imported post

SpyderTattoo wrote:

So how does the SAF/NRA lawsuit not have any legal standing? Same standing this guy has... What's the difference? Kinda' strange.

Click to expand...

I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe you need to show some kind of injury due to the illegal action to have standing.

much like the heller case with the other plaintiffs that were removed from the scotus lawsuit.

imported post

i think he has a point with regards to the SAF's plaintiffs not having standing. they were never kicked out off of a Seattle property for carrying. Much like in Heller. first it was Parker et aal, but Heller was the only one that was found to have standing in the case since he had applied to register his handgun and was denied. i think the SAF should have done the same thing with one or more of their plaintiffs that this guy is doing. i get the feeling that the SAF's current plaintiffs may be found to not have standing and they may even end up representing this guy.

Bobby

edit: beat me by two minutes

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

It would be really interesting if he open carried and conveniently left his ID and CPL in his vehicle .

Click to expand...

I accidentally leave my wallet in the car all the time which contains my license and CPL, it doesn't fit in my pants pocket while driving too well.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

How many other people will be showing up in tacoma raniers hats, just to mess with...everyone?

Click to expand...

"No... I'm Bob Warden!"

imported post

Bobarino wrote:

i think he has a point with regards to the SAF's plaintiffs not having standing. they were never kicked out off of a Seattle property for carrying. Much like in Heller. first it was Parker et aal, but Heller was the only one that was found to have standing in the case since he had applied to register his handgun and was denied. i think the SAF should have done the same thing with one or more of their plaintiffs that this guy is doing. i get the feeling that the SAF's current plaintiffs may be found to not have standing and they may even end up representing this guy.

Bobby

edit: beat me by two minutes

Click to expand...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.070

Unlike Heller, the people represented by SAF can claim that they are being materially impacted and are being induced to "abstain from conduct which [they have] legal right to engage in" and are thus under coercion of law.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Bobarino wrote:

i think he has a point with regards to the SAF's plaintiffs not having standing. they were never kicked out off of a Seattle property for carrying. Much like in Heller. first it was Parker et aal, but Heller was the only one that was found to have standing in the case since he had applied to register his handgun and was denied. i think the SAF should have done the same thing with one or more of their plaintiffs that this guy is doing. i get the feeling that the SAF's current plaintiffs may be found to not have standing and they may even end up representing this guy.

Bobby

edit: beat me by two minutes

Click to expand...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.070

Unlike Heller, the people represented by SAF can claim that they are being materially impacted and are being induced to "abstain from conduct which [they have] legal right to engage in" and are thus under coercion of law.

Click to expand...

go Washington with a good law.

imported post

bcp wrote:

Someone needs to be nearby with a video camera.

Bruce

Click to expand...

KIRO and KOMO both know that there is a story here. I'm betting that they will be there with cameras rolling.

imported post

AS I said I got a call from Dave Workman and he said this guy is on his own. They absolutley will not .I don't think at this time it is the right course of action.Not just yet. If I seeThe TVcoverage I will call them and tell themThe Open Carry does not stand with him in this and is not affiliated with us..As we agreed on the 25th meeting when wehadthose thatwanted to do the same thing.We decided that we would wait.Their may be a time for it ,but not yet.
This is one guy trying to make a name for himself and get some face time on TV.It will backfire bigtime.If this guy is an attorney he can't be that smart.

Besides if we do it it will be huge.