knob2040
Regular Member
imported post
How many fellon's or "future felons" have a handgun in a holster that's visible?
How many fellon's or "future felons" have a handgun in a holster that's visible?
-
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.
Anyone hear the Jeff Wagner show today on am 620?
- Thread starter Glockface
- Start date
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
SCOTUS will change everything in March. That is what guys like Wagner, Chisholm and Flynn are afraid of. That is why they are so eager for a CCW Bill now. Screw them!
Stand strong and after SCOTUS we will have that no compromise non-permitted Right to Carry that we all have been hoping for.
SCOTUS will change everything in March. That is what guys like Wagner, Chisholm and Flynn are afraid of. That is why they are so eager for a CCW Bill now. Screw them!
Stand strong and after SCOTUS we will have that no compromise non-permitted Right to Carry that we all have been hoping for.
imported post
When Jeff Wagner was an asst. US attorney, he prosecuted a violent black drug gang called B.O.S.- "Brothers of the Struggle."
He applied for and became a "Special" Deputy US marshal, this allowed him to carry concealed anytime, anywhere. I didn't begrudge him being able to carry the pistol. Knowing those thugs, I'm sure his life was threatened.
But is his life more valuable than say a taxi driver or an HVAC person that has to work in dangerous areas?
Meanwhile, the sheeple bleat (like the old lady at the carry protest) and the nanny state supporters are afraid we're going to turn into the "old west." They should be more worried about a long, hot summer.
When Jeff Wagner was an asst. US attorney, he prosecuted a violent black drug gang called B.O.S.- "Brothers of the Struggle."
He applied for and became a "Special" Deputy US marshal, this allowed him to carry concealed anytime, anywhere. I didn't begrudge him being able to carry the pistol. Knowing those thugs, I'm sure his life was threatened.
But is his life more valuable than say a taxi driver or an HVAC person that has to work in dangerous areas?
Meanwhile, the sheeple bleat (like the old lady at the carry protest) and the nanny state supporters are afraid we're going to turn into the "old west." They should be more worried about a long, hot summer.
imported post
jwayne972 wrote:
Its “ois” not “ais” but an excellent guess most people don’t even come that close.
Your welcome, they put me on so quick I did not have time to get what I wanted to say straight.
In most south western states O.C. is as common as C.C.W. and when I lived in Vegas I did both all of the time. It’s no big deal when you see it every day! No one ran or called the cops when I walked my dog’s with my .357 hanging off my hip. I actually made a few friends that way.
In my mind you cannot have one without the other period. We need a shall issue C.C.W law no doubt, and we need to be left alone when we choose to O.C.
Great job to those who are fighting the good fight, as I said the only reason this is even an issue is because of YOU who choose to O.C. and are making people uncomfortable.
jwayne972 wrote:
Its “ois” not “ais” but an excellent guess most people don’t even come that close.
Your welcome, they put me on so quick I did not have time to get what I wanted to say straight.
In most south western states O.C. is as common as C.C.W. and when I lived in Vegas I did both all of the time. It’s no big deal when you see it every day! No one ran or called the cops when I walked my dog’s with my .357 hanging off my hip. I actually made a few friends that way.
In my mind you cannot have one without the other period. We need a shall issue C.C.W law no doubt, and we need to be left alone when we choose to O.C.
Great job to those who are fighting the good fight, as I said the only reason this is even an issue is because of YOU who choose to O.C. and are making people uncomfortable.
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
6 oz. each from Wianapanapa beach (black) and the summit of Haleakala (red). PM your street address. I'm going to eat the coconut.yes, doug, i remember watts.say, now that your back, where's my palm tree?:lol:
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
knob2040 wrote:
knob2040 wrote:
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we can all be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to mandating weapons be concealed.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Here is a response to the latest NRA news letter that I thought was right on. This guy understands perfectly what is going on with Chisholm, Flynn and the NRA. In fact who knows, the NRA may be in kahootz with Chisholm and Flynn.
The Reality is... Literally THOUSANDS of people are open carrying for personal protection across the state of Wisconsin (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter).
Wisconsin has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (Since 1998).
The NRA stood against a Seattle, WI city bark gun ban but not a Green Bay city bark gun ban.
With exception of five places ( cars , bars, government buildings, state parks, school zones) Wisconsin citizens can " open carry " everywhere else.
Few if any businesses in Wisconsin restrict lawful "open carry."
Laws and don't "give rights," laws by their very nature RESTRICT rights.
Requiring a permit to carry, reduces a right to a privilege.
That once the McDonald v. Chicago case is decided, there may very well not be a need for " concealed carry " laws. The NRA doesn't want anybody to know about "open carry" because then they loose there hold on the public. The NRA wants to push for these PERMISSION laws so they don't loose revenue.
IT'S all about the money . Until the NRA ADMITS that Wisconsin is one of the most liberal when it comes to gun laws (only five places we cannot carry) no one should fall for their propaganda.
Gun rights are ALIVE and well in Wisconsin, and you/me/we need to be skeptical of those tying to convince you otherwise.
Here is a response to the latest NRA news letter that I thought was right on. This guy understands perfectly what is going on with Chisholm, Flynn and the NRA. In fact who knows, the NRA may be in kahootz with Chisholm and Flynn.
The Reality is... Literally THOUSANDS of people are open carrying for personal protection across the state of Wisconsin (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter).Wisconsin has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (Since 1998).
The NRA stood against a Seattle, WI city bark gun ban but not a Green Bay city bark gun ban.
With exception of five places ( cars , bars, government buildings, state parks, school zones) Wisconsin citizens can " open carry " everywhere else.
Few if any businesses in Wisconsin restrict lawful "open carry."
Laws and don't "give rights," laws by their very nature RESTRICT rights.
Requiring a permit to carry, reduces a right to a privilege.
That once the McDonald v. Chicago case is decided, there may very well not be a need for " concealed carry " laws. The NRA doesn't want anybody to know about "open carry" because then they loose there hold on the public. The NRA wants to push for these PERMISSION laws so they don't loose revenue.
IT'S all about the money . Until the NRA ADMITS that Wisconsin is one of the most liberal when it comes to gun laws (only five places we cannot carry) no one should fall for their propaganda.
Gun rights are ALIVE and well in Wisconsin, and you/me/we need to be skeptical of those tying to convince you otherwise.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Tell me things aren't changing........
Judge in Seattle case: ‘Plaintiffs have right to carry under federal, state constitutions’ February 12, 8:35 PM
Seattle Gun Rights Examiner
Dave Workman Previous Next
23 comments
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Subscribe
Get alerts when there is a new article from the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use. Email Address
A King County, WA superior court judge threw some haymakers into a ruling that strikes down the City of Seattle’s illegal ban on guns in city parks, granting not only a summary judgment request from the plaintiffs, but also issuing a permanent injunction against the city, which has 30 days to remove signs from some 500 different facilities. The injunction takes effect Wednesday, Feb. 17.
The lawsuit was filed last fall by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, plus the National Rifle Association, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.
Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.
“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.
The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”
To everyone’s surprise, she also mentioned the landmark Heller ruling against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that found the Second Amendment to be protective of an individual civil right, an issue that was never brought up in the SAF/NRA legal argument. She also dissected and individually demolished the city’s legal arguments. According to a West Seattle blog, the city is weighing its options and has 30 days to appeal.
Judge Shaffer’s ruling ends 18 months of legal wrangling, most of it in the court of public opinion before the lawsuit was actually filed last autumn. A second lawsuit, this one filed in federal district court by a man named Robert Warden, is still pending. Incredibly, one of the city’s major news agencies initially reported incorrectlythat Warden’s lawsuit had been won. Warden’s lawsuit has nothing to do with the Friday ruling. Later Friday, that information was corrected.
There was one surprise in the judge’s ruling, however. She found that SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and WAC all lacked standing as organizations, but that the individual plaintiffs had standing. She dismissed the organizational claims “with prejudice.”
SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb accepted that part of the ruling, noting in a telephone conversation that the important thing is “we won.” He issued a statement to the press following Judge Shaffer's ruling.
This is a critical victory for gun rights advocates for a several reasons.
First, it solidifies the state’s model preemption act, adopted more than 25 years ago, and strengthened two years later. Had Washington’s preemption law essentially been gutted by this case, it could have had implications for preemption statutes in other states.
Third, the ruling is one more slap to the face of former Mayor Greg Nickels, who arrogantly pushed the gun ban, insisting that the city had the right to regulate guns on park property as though it were private property. A vehement anti-gunner, Nickels is now spreading his view of government to the fertile minds of students at Harvard.
Nickels’ arrogance and inability to deal with last winter’s snow crisis cost him the mayor’s race during the August primary. That was a political rout, as Nickels came in third behind two political newcomers, signaling that even in far left liberal Seattle, people can eventually get their fill of his kind of demagoguery.
The ruling puts others of Nickels’ ilk on notice that they will fare poorly when they defy state statute.
Perhaps what is disturbing about this case is that SAF and NRA, and specifically Gottlieb, gave the city numerous chances to back out of the effort gracefully even before a lawsuit was filed. Multiple warnings came from both organizations, and CCRKBA, that if Nickels pushed for and adopted a ban that he would get slapped with a lawsuit. If anyone thought SAF, CCRKBA and NRA were bluffing, Friday’s court ruling provided ample proof that those organizations don’t bluff.
Lastly, this case was also a big loser for Washington CeaseFire, the extremist gun prohibitionist group that had thrown its waning influence behind the ban. CeaseFire also supported the recently-debated, and defeated, ban on so-called “assault weapons.” CeaseFire’s relevancy has been slipping for a couple of years. CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli had a hard time in Olympia recently with open carry activists. This court ruling probably gives him heartburn, while the open carry crowd has been cheering.
For what it’s worth, the crack SAF legal team in Seattle consisting of attorneys Steve Fogg and Molly Malouf with Corr Cronin did a smashing job. Their legal briefs were rock solid.
The pity is that if Nickels and the city had not been so arrogant and stubborn, this case would not have been necessary.
Seems to me that the NRA is simply trying to claim the Glory for what the American Citizens are accomplishing on their own. We can get this done without the NRA.
No compromise non permitted "Right to Carry!" No fees, no training, no permit. It is not a Privilege it is a RIGHT!
Tell me things aren't changing........
Judge in Seattle case: ‘Plaintiffs have right to carry under federal, state constitutions’ February 12, 8:35 PM
23 comments
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Subscribe Get alerts when there is a new article from the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use. Email Address
A King County, WA superior court judge threw some haymakers into a ruling that strikes down the City of Seattle’s illegal ban on guns in city parks, granting not only a summary judgment request from the plaintiffs, but also issuing a permanent injunction against the city, which has 30 days to remove signs from some 500 different facilities. The injunction takes effect Wednesday, Feb. 17.
The lawsuit was filed last fall by the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, plus the National Rifle Association, Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.
Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.
“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.
The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”
To everyone’s surprise, she also mentioned the landmark Heller ruling against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban that found the Second Amendment to be protective of an individual civil right, an issue that was never brought up in the SAF/NRA legal argument. She also dissected and individually demolished the city’s legal arguments. According to a West Seattle blog, the city is weighing its options and has 30 days to appeal.
Judge Shaffer’s ruling ends 18 months of legal wrangling, most of it in the court of public opinion before the lawsuit was actually filed last autumn. A second lawsuit, this one filed in federal district court by a man named Robert Warden, is still pending. Incredibly, one of the city’s major news agencies initially reported incorrectlythat Warden’s lawsuit had been won. Warden’s lawsuit has nothing to do with the Friday ruling. Later Friday, that information was corrected.
There was one surprise in the judge’s ruling, however. She found that SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and WAC all lacked standing as organizations, but that the individual plaintiffs had standing. She dismissed the organizational claims “with prejudice.”
SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb accepted that part of the ruling, noting in a telephone conversation that the important thing is “we won.” He issued a statement to the press following Judge Shaffer's ruling.
This is a critical victory for gun rights advocates for a several reasons.
First, it solidifies the state’s model preemption act, adopted more than 25 years ago, and strengthened two years later. Had Washington’s preemption law essentially been gutted by this case, it could have had implications for preemption statutes in other states.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.-RCW 9.41.290
Second, the ruling puts other local government entities on notice — specifically Snohomish County, where the Democrat-dominated county council last month brushed aside an opportunity to repeal a 30-year-old ordinance banning guns in county parks — that they must comply with state law. Democrats on the council cavalierly ignored the state preemption statute, instead choosing to “wait and see” what happened with the Seattle case. Now they know.
Third, the ruling is one more slap to the face of former Mayor Greg Nickels, who arrogantly pushed the gun ban, insisting that the city had the right to regulate guns on park property as though it were private property. A vehement anti-gunner, Nickels is now spreading his view of government to the fertile minds of students at Harvard.
Nickels’ arrogance and inability to deal with last winter’s snow crisis cost him the mayor’s race during the August primary. That was a political rout, as Nickels came in third behind two political newcomers, signaling that even in far left liberal Seattle, people can eventually get their fill of his kind of demagoguery.
The ruling puts others of Nickels’ ilk on notice that they will fare poorly when they defy state statute.
Perhaps what is disturbing about this case is that SAF and NRA, and specifically Gottlieb, gave the city numerous chances to back out of the effort gracefully even before a lawsuit was filed. Multiple warnings came from both organizations, and CCRKBA, that if Nickels pushed for and adopted a ban that he would get slapped with a lawsuit. If anyone thought SAF, CCRKBA and NRA were bluffing, Friday’s court ruling provided ample proof that those organizations don’t bluff.
We will comply with the court order and we are weighing with our clients the options for an appeal.”-Kathy Mulady, Seattle City Attorney’s office
Nickels and the city were advised early on by State Attorney General Rob McKenna that their logic was all wet, and that any kind of ban would violate the preemption law. A SAF attorney sent a very detailed explanation to the city more than 18 months ago why it would lose in court. Seattle ignored his advice and lost big time.
Lastly, this case was also a big loser for Washington CeaseFire, the extremist gun prohibitionist group that had thrown its waning influence behind the ban. CeaseFire also supported the recently-debated, and defeated, ban on so-called “assault weapons.” CeaseFire’s relevancy has been slipping for a couple of years. CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli had a hard time in Olympia recently with open carry activists. This court ruling probably gives him heartburn, while the open carry crowd has been cheering.
For what it’s worth, the crack SAF legal team in Seattle consisting of attorneys Steve Fogg and Molly Malouf with Corr Cronin did a smashing job. Their legal briefs were rock solid.
The pity is that if Nickels and the city had not been so arrogant and stubborn, this case would not have been necessary.
Seems to me that the NRA is simply trying to claim the Glory for what the American Citizens are accomplishing on their own. We can get this done without the NRA.
No compromise non permitted "Right to Carry!" No fees, no training, no permit. It is not a Privilege it is a RIGHT!
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Thanks. Right on.
I just posted this link to SCOTUSblog and Lyle Denniston's discussion of McDonald v. Chicago 08-1521 and with the request, "Does anyone know of links to live text or audio coverage? Please post a link." in the national news forum.
Thanks. Right on.
I just posted this link to SCOTUSblog and Lyle Denniston's discussion of McDonald v. Chicago 08-1521 and with the request, "Does anyone know of links to live text or audio coverage? Please post a link." in the national news forum.
Flipper
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Concealed carry advocate Wagner apprently does not appreciate that open carry is about an individual civil right - and among the first to be taken away from former slaves after the Civil War -granted by thefederal and state constitutions. The only reason concealed carry is even being discussed is due to the few who dared toopenly exercise their right to bear arms.
The"TMJ" in WTMJ stands for The Milwaukee Journal." Wagner is just following orders from corporate.
Concealed carry advocate Wagner apprently does not appreciate that open carry is about an individual civil right - and among the first to be taken away from former slaves after the Civil War -granted by thefederal and state constitutions. The only reason concealed carry is even being discussed is due to the few who dared toopenly exercise their right to bear arms.
The"TMJ" in WTMJ stands for The Milwaukee Journal." Wagner is just following orders from corporate.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
disclaimer; for those who have ill intent in their minds, i asked doug to bring back soil from the place he visited for my rock and soil collection of the world. i never went for the cutesy tourist items offered to bring back for me, so i fell upon this idea, i own a piece of 'realestate' from all over the world: devils island, red square, wall of china, some dude's chateau in france, the washington monument, the white house (while the republicans were in), australia, and others. something to do, something to treasure as i won't get to these places. so the ounces brought back, are just dirt!
disclaimer; for those who have ill intent in their minds, i asked doug to bring back soil from the place he visited for my rock and soil collection of the world. i never went for the cutesy tourist items offered to bring back for me, so i fell upon this idea, i own a piece of 'realestate' from all over the world: devils island, red square, wall of china, some dude's chateau in france, the washington monument, the white house (while the republicans were in), australia, and others. something to do, something to treasure as i won't get to these places. so the ounces brought back, are just dirt!
springfield 1911
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
Once he completes his collection he's going to start singing, I've got the whole world in my hands.
Are we really ready for that ?
McX wrote:
Doug how could you do such a thing?
Once he completes his collection he's going to start singing, I've got the whole world in my hands.
Are we really ready for that ?
M
McX
Guest
imported post
not the whole world, just select spots. i'd like a meteor for my collection, haven't found anyone who knows someone who's going to the moon or mars?:lol:
not the whole world, just select spots. i'd like a meteor for my collection, haven't found anyone who knows someone who's going to the moon or mars?:lol:
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
imported post
springfield 1911 wrote:
springfield 1911 wrote:
YUP. Ole Crooked Chuck, was the guy that scheduled the floor votes, he was the guy that decide what got voted on when. and when he was Majority leaded, nothing CCW got voted on ever. Tommy Thompson was also not a supporter of CCW , so chances are it would have been vetoed anyways.