• 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

A

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
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......
Click to expand...
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.
 
amlevin

amlevin

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

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Did he indicate whether the City would appeal the Superior Court ruling?
 
Dave_pro2a

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
Yes, Seattle is appealing.
Click to expand...

Appeals are easy, when your lawyers are working pro bono. Seattle should be forced to pay the full costs of their ill thought out, illegal actions.
 
FMCDH

FMCDH

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

Dave_pro2a wrote:
Gray Peterson wrote:
Yes, Seattle is appealing.
Click to expand...

Appeals are easy, when your lawyers are working pro bono. Seattle should be forced to pay the full costs of their ill thought out, illegal actions.
Click to expand...
No, the mayor who is driving the "ill thought out, illegal actions" should be paying out of his own pocket.

Seattle needs to keep any tax payer money out of it.

Which makes me wonder, if this law firm is STILL representing them pro-bono.
 
C

Capn Camo

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
165
Location
E TN
imported post

Shawn wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the ruling is WRONG on another point- the US Constitution is IBR in the WA State Constitution as LAW OF THE STATE. The Framers of the WA C. were right wise, they saw the legal games coming.

ITs called "Activist Judge"
 
A

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
imported post

Dave Pro2A...

I am not too Internet savvy.

I am still trying to learn all of the abbreviations and acronyms.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Capn Camo wrote:
Shawn wrote:
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 and once McDonald is ruled on, this will not have precedent value.
 
Click to expand...
Yes, and the ruling is WRONG on another point- the US Constitution is IBR in the WA State Constitution as LAW OF THE STATE. The Framers of the WA C. were right wise, they saw the legal games coming.

ITs called "Activist Judge"
Click to expand...

The federal judge does not care about the state constitution. It matters not that the US Constitution is incorporated by reference to the federal courts.

The ruling in Warden is correct as per federal law at the moment.
 
Bob Warden

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

This morning I appealed the district court's dismissal of my federal civil rights claim against the city of Seattle. The appeal will be focused on the second amendment claim against the city. The portion of Judge Pechman's ruling regarding former Mayor Nickels and punitive damages was reasonable, and I accept it. Though I disagree with the portion of the ruling dismissing the state constitutional claim, it sets no precedent for future actions, and could add little to the value of my case.

The district court dismissed my second amendment claim on the sole basis that current Ninth Circuit precedent holds that the second amendment does not apply to states and municipalities. While this is technically true today in March, the Supreme Court of the United States will in June of this year rule definitively on that specific issue in McDonald v. Chicago. It is widely expected that the High Court will apply the second amendment to the states, as they previously have with virtually every other individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If (when) this happens, the dismissal of my case will be reversed.

It is important to keep in mind that the Seattle Parks gun ban is currently dead as it was previously found to violate state law, regardless of the ultimate outcome in Warden v. Seattle. The added value of my case, if successful, is that future state legislatures would be unable to change state law to enable municipalities to arbitrarily regulate firearms due to a strong recognized second amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
H

heresolong

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

Bob Warden wrote:
The district court dismissed my second amendment claim on the sole basis that current Ninth Circuit precedent holds that the second amendment does not apply to states and municipalities. While this is technically true today in March, the Supreme Court of the United States will in June of this year rule definitively on that specific issue in McDonald v. Chicago. It is widely expected that the High Court will apply the second amendment to the states, as they previously have with virtually every other individual right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If (when) this happens, the dismissal of my case will be reversed.
Click to expand...
Would it be retroactive to completed court cases or would it only be applied to future cases, necessitating a new case?

Would reversal of your dismissal mean that you won, or that it would be re-heard? I still haven't seen any indication that a win in McDonald means that all firearm bans will be overturned. I would expect the judges to maintain the "reasonable restrictions" rule, but apply the stricter standard that has to do with an overwhelming public interest. I could still see a parks ban being upheld due to some public interest argument.
 
Bob Warden

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

My case will probably take a couple of years to run its course. Assuming a win McDonald v Chicago, the 9th Circuit will either reverse and remand my case back to Judge Pechman, or the 9th could reverse and find in my favor. It's a safe bet that the case will be appealed by the losing side right up to a cert petition to the SCOTUS.

Whether or not the Parks ban is ultimately found to be Constitutional will depend on what level of "scrutiny" is applied to the rule. Google "strict scrutiny" to learn all about the 3 main levels of scrutiny. SCOTUS has not ruled what level applies to firearm regulation.

Bob
 
T

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

Feels to me like you are grandstanding and IMO you should have dropped your case when the city lost in Superior Court.

I do not support your actions.
 
Dave_pro2a

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

tai4de2 wrote:
Feels to me like you are grandstanding and IMO you should have dropped your case when the city lost in Superior Court.

I do not support your actions.
Click to expand...
Yeah I kinda of agree... Or at least see how McDonald pans out, and if he can get assistance from Gura, the NRA, et cetera.
 
Bob Warden

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

tai4de2 wrote:
Feels to me like you are grandstanding and IMO you should have dropped your case when the city lost in Superior Court.

I do not support your actions.
Click to expand...

I take it you are only concerned with the rights of fellow Washingtonians then? Whether or not you support me or approve of my methods, I am spending my own time and money fighting for the right to bear arms for everyone, not just for a state fortunate enough to have a strong state constitutional right and a preemption statute.

It's easy to whine from the sidelines...
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Bob Warden wrote:
tai4de2 wrote:
Feels to me like you are grandstanding and IMO you should have dropped your case when the city lost in Superior Court.

I do not support your actions.
Click to expand...

I take it you are only concerned with the rights of fellow Washingtonians then? Whether or not you support me or approve of my methods, I am spending my own time and money fighting for the right to bear arms for everyone, not just for a state fortunate enough to have a strong state constitutional right and a preemption statute.

It's easy to whine from the sidelines...
Click to expand...

Bob, if you win your case based on State Constitution, how does that help other states that do not have the strength in their constitution that we do? It seems like you think a win is a win is a win and can be applied to other states. I would agree if you can get a win base on the 2nd.

Or are you planning on appealing based solely on the 2nd and plan on leaving out the state constitutional challenge?
 
Bob Warden

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
tai4de2 wrote:
Feels to me like you are grandstanding and IMO you should have dropped your case when the city lost in Superior Court.

I do not support your actions.
Click to expand...

I take it you are only concerned with the rights of fellow Washingtonians then? Whether or not you support me or approve of my methods, I am spending my own time and money fighting for the right to bear arms for everyone, not just for a state fortunate enough to have a strong state constitutional right and a preemption statute.

It's easy to whine from the sidelines...
Click to expand...

Bob, if you win your case based on State Constitution, how does that help other states that do not have the strength in their constitution that we do? It seems like you think a win is a win is a win and can be applied to other states. I would agree if you can get a win base on the 2nd.

Or are you planning on appealing based solely on the 2nd and plan on leaving out the state constitutional challenge?
Click to expand...

Correct, I am appealing only the ruling on the 2nd amendment. Pechman's opinion on the state constitution has no precedential value whatsoever.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Bob Warden wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Bob Warden wrote:
tai4de2 wrote:
Feels to me like you are grandstanding and IMO you should have dropped your case when the city lost in Superior Court.

I do not support your actions.
Click to expand...

I take it you are only concerned with the rights of fellow Washingtonians then? Whether or not you support me or approve of my methods, I am spending my own time and money fighting for the right to bear arms for everyone, not just for a state fortunate enough to have a strong state constitutional right and a preemption statute.

It's easy to whine from the sidelines...
Click to expand...

Bob, if you win your case based on State Constitution, how does that help other states that do not have the strength in their constitution that we do? It seems like you think a win is a win is a win and can be applied to other states. I would agree if you can get a win base on the 2nd.

Or are you planning on appealing based solely on the 2nd and plan on leaving out the state constitutional challenge?
Click to expand...

Correct, I am appealing only the ruling on the 2nd amendment. Pechman's opinion on the state constitution has no precedential value whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification. I wish you luck.
 
Bookman

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
imported post

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

1. The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the state through the 14th Amendment.

2. This was not LEGALLY the case when Bob Warden was denied entry to the community center.

3. Nordyke had been vacated, pending the decision on McDonald v Chicago.

Legally speaking, there are no grounds for the Federal court to apply the 2nd Amendment to this case.

Or, like I said, maybe I just don't get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top