Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Why confusion reigns in Seattle gun ban ruling

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Had Warden attended that meeting at Dino's last fall he would have been informed as well.........


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    Blah blah blah.

    I'm not confused.

    I support Bob.

    It will all work out well in the end.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    That was sure disrespectful... I don't understand where that is coming from.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    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.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    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.
    Bob, first I support your rights to carry and to litigate. I am not so sure that your arguments have been as clear as SAF et al.

    I think that after McDonald that your case will be remanded, but the real questions lie with which 'scrutiny' tests the court establishes.

    Best of luck!
    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    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.
    Bob, first I support your rights to carry and to litigate.* I am not so sure that your arguments have been as clear as SAF et al.

    I think that after McDonald that your case will be remanded, but the real questions lie with which 'scrutiny' tests the court establishes.

    Best of luck!
    Agreed; strict scrutiny and I win, rational basis and I lose. Mid level will be interesting!
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  8. #8
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    That was sure disrespectful... I don't understand where that is coming from.
    I don't understand? What which one was disrespectful, Dave Workman's article, M1Gunr's post, or deanf's comment? And why?

    Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to get the "disrespectful" thing. I better try to get more in touch with my feminine side.



  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    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.
    Bob, first I support your rights to carry and to litigate. I am not so sure that your arguments have been as clear as SAF et al.

    I think that after McDonald that your case will be remanded, but the real questions lie with which 'scrutiny' tests the court establishes.

    Best of luck!
    Agreed; strict scrutiny and I win, rational basis and I lose. Mid level will be interesting!
    Well the Supreme's are always very creative. I look forward to where they come out on this.
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    That was sure disrespectful...*** I don't understand where that is coming from.*
    I don't understand?* What which one was disrespectful, Dave Workman's article, M1Gunr's post, or deanf's comment?* And why?

    Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough to get the "disrespectful" thing.* I better try to get more in touch with my feminine side.

    Workman's article took a number of gratuitous pot shots at me that served no productive purpose, maybe that's what was seen as disrespectful?
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  11. #11
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Hmmm... I'll go back and read it again. Maybe I missed it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    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.
    Bob, first I support your rights to carry and to litigate.* I am not so sure that your arguments have been as clear as SAF et al.

    I think that after McDonald that your case will be remanded, but the real questions lie with which 'scrutiny' tests the court establishes.

    Best of luck!
    Agreed; strict scrutiny and I win, rational basis and I lose. Mid level will be interesting!
    I think the fed judges would allow it pass strict scrutiny as well if you take some of the wording from Heller into play. A park where children frequent is not much different than a school, which heller has said is reasonable restriction.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Nope, just finished it for the second time. Seemed pretty factual to me. I didn't see any pot shots.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    Nope, just finished it for the second time.* Seemed pretty factual to me.* I didn't see any pot shots.
    Same here.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    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.
    Bob, first I support your rights to carry and to litigate.* I am not so sure that your arguments have been as clear as SAF et al.

    I think that after McDonald that your case will be remanded, but the real questions lie with which 'scrutiny' tests the court establishes.

    Best of luck!
    Agreed; strict scrutiny and I win, rational basis and I lose. Mid level will be interesting!
    I think the fed judges would allow it pass strict scrutiny as well if you take some of the wording from Heller into play. A park where children frequent is not much different than a school, which heller has said is reasonable restriction.
    We better all hope that SCOTUS is smart enough to realize that parks and park facilities that are generally open to everyone are a whole lot different than schools!
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Code:
    Even the city recognizes this, which may explain why they will appeal Shaffer’s ruling on constitutional grounds, which were never claimed by the plaintiffs in that case.


    A party on appeal is permitted to raise new issues of “manifest error affecting a constitutional right.”

    As a general rule, courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a). However, a claim of error may be raised for the first time on appeal if it is a "manifest error affecting a constitutional right". RAP 2.5(a)(3); 110 Wn.2d 682, 686-87, 757 P.2d 492 (1988); 67 Wn. App. 339, 342, 835 P.2d 251 (1992). As we recognized in Scott, constitutional errors are treated specially under RAP 2.5(a) because they often result in serious injustice to the accused and may adversely affect public perceptions of the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 686-87. On the other hand, "permitting every possible constitutional error to be raised for the first time on appeal undermines the trial process, generates unnecessary appeals, creates undesirable retrials and is wasteful of the limited resources of prosecutors, public defenders and courts". Lynn, 67 Wn. App. at 344.

    What Constitutional Right is the city claiming? This is the first time I have heard of a city in WA claiming a state, or federal constitutional right..... :shock::what:

    I believe the Court of Appeals will either not hear, or will certify this case to the WA SC directly.

    XD

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Ajetpilot wrote:
    Nope, just finished it for the second time.* Seemed pretty factual to me.* I didn't see any pot shots.
    Same here.
    "Because Warden also brought the park ban’s legality into question under the state constitution, Pechman allowed herself to rule on the ban’s constitutionality under Article 1, Section 24. This is an area where some attorneys have privately suggested she should never have been tempted to go, but that the Warden lawsuit opened that door. She slammed it shut, thus giving Seattle a new ground on which to base its appeal of the SAF/NRA case."

    False; a federal district judge ruling on state law has no precedential value of any kind on state courts.

    "Warden has appealed Pechman’s ruling. His case may not move beyond that notice of appeal before the Second Amendment ruling on the Chicago gun ban case is decided by SCOTUS. At that point, it is likely his complaint becomes moot."

    False; my complaint cannot be rendered moot - remember, I suffered actual harm.

    "Warden was funding this out of his own pocket, and when he appealed to a gun rights forum last month for financial support, he got a rather chilly reception from several people. That is an irony in its own right, since on the same forum, for Open Carry activists, more than a few of them originally regarded Warden as the guy with the stronger case."

    Gratuitously smug; a chilly reception from five people who would rather throw eggs from the sideline than risk anything themselves is to be expected.

    "A week before Pechman issued her ruling Warden actually visited the SAF office and met privately with SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. Perhaps it is a shame that meeting didn’t happen last fall, before Warden launched his federal lawsuit. There might have been a different outcome, or at least one that limited Pechman’s opinion to federal constitutional issues, where it belonged."

    Alan invited me to visit to thank me for my help and cooperation in Chan! "where it belonged" is not factual reporting, either.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Ajetpilot wrote:
    Nope, just finished it for the second time. Seemed pretty factual to me. I didn't see any pot shots.
    Same here.
    Me Too!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Bob, that's why I am bringing up what I wrote in the post above yours.

    Also, per state courts

    Findings of fact must support conclusions of law.

    Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal.



    XD

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    Bob, that's why I am bringing up what I wrote in the post above yours.

    Also, per state courts

    Findings of fact must support conclusions of law.

    Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal.

    *

    XD
    The only facts at issue in my case, and in Chan, are not in dispute: We went to parks facilities and got turned away for carrying.

    Everything else in both case opinions was nothing but legal conclusions. The only issue in Chan is and will forever be the state preemption statute.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Bob Warden wrote:
    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.
    Bob, first I support your rights to carry and to litigate.* I am not so sure that your arguments have been as clear as SAF et al.

    I think that after McDonald that your case will be remanded, but the real questions lie with which 'scrutiny' tests the court establishes.

    Best of luck!
    Agreed; strict scrutiny and I win, rational basis and I lose. Mid level will be interesting!
    I think the fed judges would allow it pass strict scrutiny as well if you take some of the wording from Heller into play. A park where children frequent is not much different than a school, which heller has said is reasonable restriction.
    We better all hope that SCOTUS is smart enough to realize that parks and park facilities that are generally open to everyone are a whole lot different than schools!
    The issue on each is public safety, which I do not agree with, and I think they will determine that gun regulation in parks is a states issue. Also since we are dealing with a fundamental right you are all but guaranteed a strict scrutiny analysis. I believe it may very well pass strict scrutiny but we will have to wait and see for sure to see how McDonald incorporates the 2nd.

    I would like to see guns allowed by CPL holders in the school buildings at a minimum but we all know that won't happen. I would also like to see Nickels personally liable for violating the law, but we also know that will not happen.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Bob Warden wrote:
    XD45PlusP wrote:
    Bob, that's why I am bringing up what I wrote in the post above yours.

    Also, per state courts

    Findings of fact must support conclusions of law.

    Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal.



    XD
    The only issue in Chan is and will forever be the state preemption statute.
    Exactly. I think the city is full of crap and Dave might have misspoken, or quoted direct BS....

    XD

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    joeroket,

    "The issue on each is public safety, which I do not agree with, and I think they will determine that gun regulation in parks is a states issue."

    And that is up to the state legislature, which has not said that it is against any state law. I think that you might have it the opposite of what you might be trying to say.

    (As an example) It can't be for public safety, as the state is not suing itself to get the legislature to overturn a law that it doesn't like, ie guns in parks, saying it's bound to make a law saying its unlawful to possess a gun on park property. Just think about it...... They can just create a newlaw. They don't have to sue to overturn ANYTHING. Citizens of the state would have to sue to prove the Unconstitutionality of the law....

    Bob is right in that, WA State Courts/Appeals and SCare not bound by a federal judges ruling for state issues that don't abridge a Federal Constitutional Right.

    XD

  24. #24
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    What I was talking about was the "Blah blah blah" that Dean was saying. It sounds very condescending to M1Gunr.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    XD45PlusP wrote:
    joeroket,

    "The issue on each is public safety, which I do not agree with, and I think they will determine that gun regulation in parks is a states issue."

    And that is up to the state legislature, which has not said that it is against any state law. I think that you might have it the opposite of what you might be trying to say.

    (As an example) *It can't be for public safety, as the state is not suing itself to get the legislature to overturn a law that it doesn't like, ie guns in parks, saying it's bound to make a law saying its unlawful to possess a gun on park property. Just think about it...... They can just create a newlaw. They don't have to sue to overturn ANYTHING. Citizens of the state would have to sue to prove the Unconstitutionality of the law....

    Bob is right in that, WA State Courts/Appeals and SC*are not bound by a federal judges ruling for state issues that don't abridge a Federal Constitutional Right.

    XD
    I think you have some confusion going on. I have nothing backwards.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

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
  •