• 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.

I voluntarily dismissed my federal appeal of Seattle Park's defunct gun ban

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Hot off the press below. I think this is best for the movement:



"In their June 28, 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment right of individual citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense was binding on states and municipalities. McDonald effectively reversed Judge Marsha Pechman’s March 11 federal district court ruling in Warden v. Nickels. It is now a settled fact that the Second Amendment fully applies to the actions of City of Seattle officials.

Still to be resolved over the coming years is what constitutes “sensitive places” where the right to carry a handgun can legally be limited. Thanks in large part to the ongoing efforts of the Second Amendment Foundation, there are other cases in the pipeline around the country that are at least as well-positioned as mine to resolve this question. After careful consideration, and in support of a coordinated approach to protecting this fundamental civil right, I asked the Ninth Circuit this week to dismiss my pending appeal. My motion was granted, and the appeal was voluntarily dismissed today.


The Seattle Parks gun ban was previously found to be an illegal violation of Washington's firearm state preemption statute. My voluntary dismissal of the federal case has no impact whatsoever on the state court ruling."
 

joejoejoe

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
319
Location
Vancouver, WA
So you dropped your case because the supreme court ruled that you can have guns in parks? If I read that correctly, then yeah... way to go ! It saves you the time and money because the supreme court already did it for ya! I also love the SAF :)

Joe~
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Give the man a break! He's been ostracized here a lot and now that he's cleaning up some loose ends... he gets it again.

By dropping the suit it frees up the court to do something other than agree with the US Supreme Court.

I say well done.
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
Sounds like the proper move, Bob.

What you were directly after was in great part handled by 'McDonald' and the lose ends are already being pursued elsewhere by others, so dropping the appeal makes perfect sense.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Nice job Bob!

As you know I supported your efforts and agree that with the recent decision this is a good move.

I also wanted to call you that you got something else right. You listed "sensitive places" which is CORRECT! I would like to add that the court did a cursory definition of "sensitive places" (pg 39-40 Alito opinion) which listed "schools and government buildings". It is still a fairly wide open berth for regulation, however, as we know not all government buildings are "sensitive". Not all states restrict "schools".

(not "reasonable regulations" which is NOT in the courts decision)

Hot off the press below. I think this is best for the movement:



"In their June 28, 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment right of individual citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense was binding on states and municipalities. McDonald effectively reversed Judge Marsha Pechman’s March 11 federal district court ruling in Warden v. Nickels. It is now a settled fact that the Second Amendment fully applies to the actions of City of Seattle officials.

Still to be resolved over the coming years is what constitutes “sensitive places” where the right to carry a handgun can legally be limited. Thanks in large part to the ongoing efforts of the Second Amendment Foundation, there are other cases in the pipeline around the country that are at least as well-positioned as mine to resolve this question. After careful consideration, and in support of a coordinated approach to protecting this fundamental civil right, I asked the Ninth Circuit this week to dismiss my pending appeal. My motion was granted, and the appeal was voluntarily dismissed today.


The Seattle Parks gun ban was previously found to be an illegal violation of Washington's firearm state preemption statute. My voluntary dismissal of the federal case has no impact whatsoever on the state court ruling."
 

Gray Peterson

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

You and I traded a lot of barbs over your filing in federal court and the assumptions that were made. When I met you in person two or three months ago, we spoke eloquently and when I heard that you were limiting your appeal to the 9th Circuit in terms of "asking for a vacate and remand", it was then that I realized that you were playing for the right team.

Baker v. Biaggi (which was filed by Mountain States Legal Foundation, not SAF, in Nevada) is the likely federal case that will end up in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to parks.

Thank you for being the better man and doing this.
 
Top