Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Federal judge upholds Seattle's ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban13m.html



    Care to defend your actions now that you've lost, possibly setting up an appeal to where the SAF won?
    "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

  2. #2
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I don't see an issue here. WSSC has already ruled that the second applies in state courts. This Federal Judge is just taking the easy way out and saying the second doesn't apply to the state, at least until McDonald is ruled on.


    Really is no issue andonce McDonald is ruled on, this will not have precedent value.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    People who think that a case is over and the implications set in stone after a ruling at the district court level are fools.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban13m.html



    Care to defend your actions now that you've lost, possibly setting up an appeal to where the SAF won?
    Like I said before, why even takehalf a chance to give the 9th Circus a shot at this?
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    This Federal Judge is another Liberal of the Far-West 'California/San Fransisco' District.

    Her decision will soon be moot when The Supreme Court rules on McDonald.

    Furthermore, what business does Federal Courts have on State Legislation, when no Federal Question is being asked?

    My basis for the previous question is simple..., as I believe The Federal Courts need not mess around in State afairs.

    I am pretty sure Washington State can decide for itself where Firearms are to be allowed, and under what pre-text.

    Washington State Law should govern this, not Federal Liberal Judicial Activism.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    I don't see how a federal judge ruling against his 2nd Amendment claim is legally incorrect when the question was asked and the 2nd has yet to be incorporated.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    'We' won in state court, based on our State constitution and State laws. That seems very appropriate.

    'We' lost in Federal court, based on the Federal Constitution and State laws. Unfortunatly, that seems very appropriate because if CA, MA and NJ can implement the bans they have, then the Feds surely don't care about a ban in WA.

    If the Federal judge was supposed to take the State Constitution and laws into consideration for this case... then she must have been smoking from the liberal crack pipe. But at a guess, that wasn't within her scope of authority, or the case.

    INAL, and haven't reserached this at all just tossing out a WAG.


    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    This Federal Judge is another Liberal of the Far-West 'California/San Fransisco' District.

    Her decision will soon be moot when The Supreme Court rules on McDonald.

    Furthermore, what business does Federal Courts have on State Legislation, when no Federal Question is being asked?

    My basis for the previous question is simple..., as I believe The Federal Courts need not mess around in State afairs.

    I am pretty sure Washington State can decide for itself where Firearms are to be allowed, and under what pre-text.

    Washington State Law should govern this, not Federal Liberal Judicial Activism.

    This suit was filed arguing a Federal 2nd amendment violation, so it belonged in federal court, and from reading the judges ruling, was correctly decided in terms of current 9th circuit court and Supreme court rulings.

    It did not address the State pre-emption issue, which was the basis of the previous ruling that overturned the ban, and actually acknowledged that decision.

    All she said was that it was constitutional, not that it was legal under state preemption.

    The judge also acknowledges that "only the state supreme court may bind this Court on distinct issues of state law", so yes, Washington can still decide for itself where Firearms are to be allowed, and under what pre-text, and Washington State Law still doesgovern this, not Federal Liberal Judicial Activism.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote:
    aadvark wrote:
    This Federal Judge is another Liberal of the Far-West 'California/San Fransisco' District.

    Her decision will soon be moot when The Supreme Court rules on McDonald.

    Furthermore, what business does Federal Courts have on State Legislation, when no Federal Question is being asked?

    My basis for the previous question is simple..., as I believe The Federal Courts need not mess around in State afairs.

    I am pretty sure Washington State can decide for itself where Firearms are to be allowed, and under what pre-text.

    Washington State Law should govern this, not Federal Liberal Judicial Activism.

    This suit was filed arguing a Federal 2nd amendment violation, so it belonged in federal court, and from reading the judges ruling, was correctly decided in terms of current 9th circuit court and Supreme court rulings.

    It did not address the State pre-emption issue, which was the basis of the previous ruling that overturned the ban, and actually acknowledged that decision.

    All she said was that it was constitutional, not that it was legal under state preemption.

    The judge also acknowledges that "only the state supreme court may bind this Court on distinct issues of state law", so yes, Washington can still decide for itself where Firearms are to be allowed, and under what pre-text, and Washington State Law still doesgovern this, not Federal Liberal Judicial Activism.
    Don't you wish the MSM actually reported the 'pesky nuances' of a story? You know, what it really means, rather than just shouting "Park BAN upheld in court!"
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Wait a minute now... MSM... that is not called for.

    I know, although my article did not mention it, what the Judge ruled on.

    Did Seattle bring this Case, or someone else?

    Regardless, though if every other Amendment to The United States Constitution is incorporated against the States under the 14th Amendment, how then, can one say, the Second Amendment is not.

    A Federal Judge should atleast acknowledge that the 14th Amendment should atleast have some bearing on this issue.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    Wait a minute now... MSM... that is not called for.
    I think we misscommunicated.

    I meant that you, "Some dude on a internet forum," explained the issue 100% better than whoever wrote that article for the Seattle Times (which is part of the MSM).

    The Times article, imho, gave the missleading impression that Nickles' positionwas 'vindicated' by this ruling, when in fact it was not.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    ak56 wrote
    from reading the judges ruling, was correctly decided in terms of current 9th circuit court and Supreme court rulings.
    didn't the ninth circuit rule that the second amendment applied to the states in April of 2009? Correct answer: yes.

    So actually she is going against her own circuit court ruling on this.

    It still was a silly lawsuit given that the petitioner knew that courts have repeatedly upheld the ability of states to regulate the possession of firearms in the state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    ak56 wrote
    from reading the judges ruling, was correctly decided in terms of current 9th circuit court and Supreme court rulings.
    didn't the ninth circuit rule that the second amendment applied to the states in April of 2009? Correct answer: yes.

    So actually she is going against her own circuit court ruling on this.

    It still was a silly lawsuit given that the petitioner knew that courts have repeatedly upheld the ability of states to regulate the possession of firearms in the state.
    That's what I remembered as well. The case was Nordyke v. King and dealt with Alameda County's ban on guns on county property, intended to shut down gun shows at the county fairgrounds. The 9th Circus actually upheld the ordinance as a reasonable regulation but did hold that the 2A applied to the states. Here's one article on the case -there are many others, just Google Nordyke v. King: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...e_v_king_2.php
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  14. #14
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    nordyke was upheld, but then set aside untill mcdonald is ruled on, i dont understand why, but i think thats the gist of it!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    539

    Post imported post

    The real question is why is this judge still allowed to sit on a bench and why is she not being charged with treason and hung?????? The Consitution was not written to be dismissed so easly......

  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

    heresolong wrote:
    ak56 wrote
    from reading the judges ruling, was correctly decided in terms of current 9th circuit court and Supreme court rulings.
    didn't the ninth circuit rule that the second amendment applied to the states in April of 2009? Correct answer: yes.

    So actually she is going against her own circuit court ruling on this.

    It still was a silly lawsuit given that the petitioner knew that courts have repeatedly upheld the ability of states to regulate the possession of firearms in the state.


    Actually no, she didn't go against the Court of Appeals. Nordyke v. King was vacated on July 26th, 2009 by the en banc panel, and Nordyke is being held for McDonald.

    Warden v. Nickels



  17. #17
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Perhaps I am out of touch on this. If I recall correctly, the SAF case challenged the ban on the basis of the State Preemption Statute as well as the State Constitution. The Judge upheld this challenge. Today's ruling was in regard to the challenge that the ban violated the 2A itself. How can the Federal Court decision have any bearing on the Superior Court ruling which was based on State Law and the State Constitutionalone?

    Different Laws, different jurisdictions.
    "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?"

  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

    amlevin wrote:
    Perhaps I am out of touch on this. If I recall correctly, the SAF case challenged the ban on the basis of the State Preemption Statute as well as the State Constitution. The Judge upheld this challenge. Today's ruling was in regard to the challenge that the ban violated the 2A itself. How can the Federal Court decision have any bearing on the Superior Court ruling which was based on State Law and the State Constitutionalone?

    Different Laws, different jurisdictions.
    Order on Motion to dismiss

    I urge everyone to read this fully before commenting further, and also for educative purposes reading the amended complaint, the motions to dismiss, and the replies. The docket link I give in my last post on this thread should explain his entire case.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kelso, Washington, USA
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    Interesting, the judge finds the Washington State Constitution Argument Moot? Really? So basically she went over the heads of the 10th Amendment there by stating that the City has the RIGHT to ban firearms, even though it clearly violates the State Constitution? From the looks of things, she completely decided to ignore the whole Washington State Constitution altogether, and instead have him argue in the case of the Second and 14th Amendment(s). Clearly there is something wrong there, of course I could be mistaken and then this whole comment becomes moot.

  20. #20
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    Perhaps I am out of touch on this. If I recall correctly, the SAF case challenged the ban on the basis of the State Preemption Statute as well as the State Constitution. The Judge upheld this challenge. Today's ruling was in regard to the challenge that the ban violated the 2A itself. How can the Federal Court decision have any bearing on the Superior Court ruling which was based on State Law and the State Constitutionalone?

    Different Laws, different jurisdictions.
    Order on Motion to dismiss

    I urge everyone to read this fully before commenting further, and also for educative purposes reading the amended complaint, the motions to dismiss, and the replies. The docket link I give in my last post on this thread should explain his entire case.
    Interesting read. Thanks Gray.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    jarhead1055 wrote:
    The real question is why is this judge still allowed to sit on a bench and why is she not being charged with treason and hung?????? The Consitution was not written to be dismissed so easly......
    Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

    Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    I used to think the same thing, that those who violated the Constitution became traitors, but unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, impeachment is the only recourse given in the Constitution for public official(s) or others who subvert the laws and rights of their citizens.

  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Ok, so as I undestand this after reading the motion, the State Constitution was not at issue here. The only issue was whether the 2A in the Bill of Rights is a restriction on State and Local Governments as well as the Federal Government. I guess untill McDonald is settled, or the Superior Court decision is appealed, there is no final word on whether the Seattle ban is legal or not. As I understand, unless it its appealed then the Judge's word is final (the KC Superior Court Judge that is). What is the time limit for an appeal??? I am only referring to the SAF suit, not the separate suit filed in Federal Court.
    "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?"

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Case basically dismissed because the 2A doesn't (yet) incorporate to the states.

    Mayor McGinn said today they would abide by the previous Washington State ruling. Ban is invalid.
    Live Free or Die!

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Case basically dismissed because the 2A doesn't (yet) incorporate to the states.

    Mayor McGinn said today they would abide by the previous Washington State ruling. Ban is invalid.
    Did he indicate whether the City would appeal the Superior Court ruling?
    "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?"

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Yes, Seattle is appealing. Funny how they stated that they would be appealing after the 3/2 hearing rather than before.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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