• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Federal judge upholds Seattle's ban

Article1section23

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
489
Location
USA
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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!"
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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/2009/04/nordyke_v_king_2.php
 

jarhead1911A

New member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
539
Location
, ,
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......
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

tannerwaterbury

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
269
Location
Kelso, Washington, USA
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. :banghead:
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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.
 
Top