Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Update on Seattle Ban suit

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    It sounds that Warden is challenging the ban on a 2nd amendment standpoint and not a preemption standpoint. He may be headed for disappointment if that is the case. While the 2nd amendment is protected from the federal gov't it certainly is not protected at the state level at the time being. He should have filed in a Wa court and challenged it on preemption and the Wa. Constitution, not in a US court.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    This lawsuit in federal court is proof in what I said before in the other thread about Mr. Warden's warped perceptions.

    As of this moment, the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states, and it will not apply until the McDonald case is decided. Going to federal court should ALWAYS be the last resort, where there is no RKBA provision (California), a weak/ineffective RKBA Provision (Hawaii), or where the RKBA provision of the state does not protect the possession of firearms by non-citizen resident aliens (Washington State, which was fixed by the Legislature after a federal court order, Oregon's prohibition on CHL's to non-residents of Oregon who are non-citizens).

    The state case is not encumbered by the lack of applicability of the 2A to the states. The state case will proceed faster due to this fact.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    This lawsuit in federal court is proof in what I said before in the other thread about Mr. Warden's warped perceptions.

    As of this moment, the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states, and it will not apply until the McDonald case is decided. Going to federal court should ALWAYS be the last resort, where there is no RKBA provision (California), a weak/ineffective RKBA Provision (Hawaii), or where the RKBA provision of the state does not protect the possession of firearms by non-citizen resident aliens (Washington State, which was fixed by the Legislature after a federal court order, Oregon's prohibition on CHL's to non-residents of Oregon who are non-citizens).

    The state case is not encumbered by the lack of applicability of the 2A to the states. The state case will proceed faster due to this fact.
    There you go again, Gray. I allege the same preemption case as you but add the 2nd amendment. I think the Supremes are almost a lock to find application against states in McDonald, BTW. Also, the 2nd amendment DOES apply to states in the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke.

    I'm on your side Gray, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating what a complete jerk you are.

    Bob
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    There you go again, Gray. I allege the same preemption case as you but add the 2nd amendment. I think the Supremes are almost a lock to find application against states in McDonald, BTW. Also, the 2nd amendment DOES apply to states in the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke.

    I'm on your side Gray, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating what a complete jerk you are.

    Bob
    Nordyke was vacated in waiting for McDonald, so I'm not sure what you mean by "thanks to Nordyke."
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    State of Disbelief in King County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    I'll put down here what I put in another thread.

    I have watched these threads all afternoon. And it's a comedy.

    You guys are to busy attacking and sniping each other to be united for a cause.

    WA Cease Fire and the Brady group probably come here and laugh.

    Half the threads on the first 2 pages have personal attacks in them.

    Do you realize what this looks like to outsiders. It isn't a group united for anything, it is a bunch of keyboard jockeys to busy attacking and sniping at eachother then banding together.

    It's a joke. I was talking to a news reporter about a different topic (Fraud in Security companies) and he was perusing this forum, and thought it was a joke, hell even the plaintiffs in the court cases are here calling each other jerks. AND YOUR ON THE SAME SIDE.

    Doesn't matter how right you are, you are also going to be judged in the court of public opinion. And right now you look like school children squabbling on the play ground.




  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    trofwa wrote:
    I'll put down here what I put in another thread.

    I have watched these threads all afternoon. And it's a comedy.

    You guys are to busy attacking and sniping each other to be united for a cause.

    WA Cease Fire and the Brady group probably come here and laugh.

    Half the threads on the first 2 pages have personal attacks in them.

    Do you realize what this looks like to outsiders. It isn't a group united for anything, it is a bunch of keyboard jockeys to busy attacking and sniping at eachother then banding together.

    It's a joke. I was talking to a new reporter about a different topic (Fraud in Security companies) and he was perusing this forum, and thought it was a joke hell even the plaintiffs in the court cases are here calling each other jerks. AND YOUR ON THE SAME SIDE.

    Doesn't matter how right you are, you are also going to be judged in the court of public opinion. And right now you look like school children squabbling on the play ground.


    So do you 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)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    State of Disbelief in King County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    Ah yeah SVG I do,

    Open carry for 4 years,
    Concealed for 6 prior to that.



  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    trofwa wrote:
    Ah yeah SVG I do,

    Open carry for 4 years,
    Concealed for 6 prior to that.

    Right on welcome to the forum, we are having a gathering here of open carriersnext Friday here in Bellingham at 6:00 at Quarter Back Pub, bring the family if you want.
    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)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote
    Also, the 2nd amendment DOES apply to states in the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke.

    Bob
    Words fail me.....

    This statement by itself should be enough to tell anyone that you have no business arguing Second Amendment cases in front of any court. If you had done the proper research you would have known that an En Banc 11 judge panel vacated the 3 judge panel's decision which applied the 2nd amendment to the actions of states and localities back in July.

    En Banc 9th Circuit Panel vacates 3 judge ruling

    Since I happened to actually attend the original 3 judge panel hearing in back in January, and would have attended the En Banc rehearing on September 24th if it not for work, I tend to think that I have a better grasp on the research for your claim that Nordyke somehow "helps you", which it doesn't currently.

    The en-banc panel later that afternoon is now withholding the case until McDonald is completed, which essentially means that Nordyke, which is going to be the case which is most directly affecting YOUR case, could take up to a year to actually have a decision released (as the en banc 9th Circuit Panel has to analyze McDonald and apply it's decision to the facts of Nordyke). Any judge worth his salt is going to stay your case for at least a year until they get guidance from the Nordyke en banc panel.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states. Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense. The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.

    I wish Chan et al the best of luck with their case because we are fighting for the same outcome.

    Over and Out,
    Bob
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states.* Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense.* The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.

    I wish Chan et al the best of luck with their case because we are fighting for the same outcome.

    Over and Out,
    Bob
    Bob,

    I saw nothing in Heller that would indicate that they would incorporate the 2nd. Incorporation was not even broached during Heller because that case dealt with federal property. There was no doubt that the 2nd applied.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states. Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense. The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.

    I wish Chan et al the best of luck with their case because we are fighting for the same outcome.

    Over and Out,
    Bob
    I want to support you, I really do... You're talking nonsense.
    "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

  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

    joeroket wrote:
    Bob,

    I saw nothing in Heller that would indicate that they would incorporate the 2nd. Incorporation was not even broached during Heller because that case dealt with federal property. There was no doubt that the 2nd applied.
    “With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
    From Footnote 23 of District of Columbia v. Heller.

    Remember, even today, the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states and localities, in a specific sense. All liberties that flow from incorporation against state action comes from the 14th amendment, whether it be through the P&I clause or the Due Process Clause.

    We will win in McDonald, the only questions are by what method, and what scrutiny level....

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states. Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense. The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.
    So you're brushing aside the fact that you screwed up on the research with an "In any event"? "Do not look behind the curtain, nothing to see there". You filed a federal case using the 2nd and 14th amendment after the Nordyke case was vacated, claiming that Nordyke still applied. You filed a case in the federal courts without doing proper research, nor apparently understanding the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedures respectively.

    At least the cases that were filed in California against a sheriff for refusing to issue permits to carry handguns, and against California's "safe handgun roster" where filed after Nordyke was handed down, but before the call of the en-banc vote. So what's your excuse?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    It has been sometime since I studied Constitutional law (mid 90s), however after reading Mr. Warden's suit and doing a little research, it took me all of 5 min. to find that Nordyke was vacated! I was very interested when I thought another citizen was challenging the foolish mayor. Now I say to myself that this looks like a train wreck.

    I have also read the SAF et al suit and am very impressed with the plaintiffs that were choosen and the detail that was taken in choosing what would be challenged and what wouldn't be challenged. Bob, it is as important to consider unintended consequences of a lawsuit so as not to have negative decisions effect the outcome. While I believe your heart is in the right place your suit does appear to be flawed.

    Gray, while we have never met I applaud your long time efforts as I am just a regular guy. I agree McDonald looks like a strong case and am excited to wait for the result.



    NDawg (the regular guy who carries....)
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    between the ******* matches, I can see why the judge will rule in favor of the anti's.

    he has his suit you have yours, who gives a **** if you don't agree with either one. **** and stop bringing down each other.

    if all you can do is hate, go to alaska find a seal and grab a club.

    just meet up , whip it out and just do your ******* match . write your name in the snow or something

Posting Permissions

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