-
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.
-
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.
Update on Seattle Ban suit
- Thread starter Solar
- Start date
joeroket
Regular Member
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.
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.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
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.
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.
Bob Warden
Regular Member
imported post
Gray Peterson wrote:
I'm on your side Gray, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating what a complete jerk you are.
Bob
Gray Peterson 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
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
Nordyke was vacated in waiting for McDonald, so I'm not sure what you mean by "thanks to Nordyke."
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.
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
trofwa wrote:
trofwa wrote:
So do you open carry?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
trofwa wrote:
trofwa wrote:
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.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Bob Warden wrote
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.
Bob Warden wrote
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.
Bob Warden
Regular Member
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
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
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
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.
Bob Warden 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.
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
I want to support you, I really do... You're talking nonsense.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
joeroket wrote:
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....
joeroket wrote:
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....
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Bob Warden wrote:
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?
Bob Warden wrote:
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?
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
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....)
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....)
imported post
between the pissing 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. STFU 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 pissing match . write your name in the snow or something
between the pissing 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. STFU 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 pissing match . write your name in the snow or something