What happens in this hypothetical situation?

Imagine a city has a city code on "No Firearms in city parks" -- a clear violation of state preemption. Now you address this issue numerous time with the local government, but to no avail. The council responds, telling you that they are allowed to have this law, and if you violate it, you will be cited and fined.

Now, you decide to test the waters and go to the park with your firearm. The police are called when a citizen sees your firearm. The police show up, and tell you that you cannot have your firearm on park property. You respectfully tell the officer of the state preemption, and show him the proper pamphlet. He responds by telling you that it's all irrelevant, and explains it's against city ordinance, and it's an actual misdemeanor offense, and informs you that he can arrest you. None of what you're telling him is processing. You end the discussion, and the officer issues you a summons to appear in court for violating the ordinance.

You feel you have a good chance at fighting this in court, as you have the proper documents on your side. As your day in court comes, you plead not guilty, and a trial is set. On your trial, you present your evidence to the judge, and he completely dismisses it, and follows through with the penalty, and convicts you, and fines you a hefty fine. You are now dismissed.

What action is to be taken at this point?

well,,,

you call the SAF and the CCRKBA and you file an appeal,
you cite Chan v. Seattle

So, is this non-hypothetical?

Get a better attorney.

Get a better attorney. File an appeal.

If the courts are that bad, that they convict you of a crime that you did NOT commit, and you have all the evidence for you, and you appeal it to the point that you cannot appeal it anymore, I say you 'earn' your jail time... by watering the tree of liberty.


Here's a pretty nice piece of work here....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.(..)when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Click to expand...

Such people, who serve to undermine the constitution and destroy what our country once stood for, deserve only one fate.

Similar circumstances when I addressed it in Yakima.
I was not cited but seen the signs and made an appointment with the Chief of Police and he concurred, if cited it would be thrown out in court when you first appeared.
It was also his position that the city ordinance is in violation of State Law.

Just prior to the meeting a young Officer asked what I was going to see the Chief about, he asked so I told him and he said he would cite me and I told him about State Preemption and his reply was he did not want to argue semantics :lol: and said he knew what the Chief was going to say and it would be the same, on my way out all I said, guess a again, smiled and left.

Then city council and legal the ordinances including emergency powers were removed.

I do not see a Judge once it was introduced that State Preemption was in play, would allow it to move forward and if your attorney is unable to stop it, then you need an intelligent one.

Did the hypothetical person move for a dismissal before pleading? Did he request a formal hearing?

I am not sure if the actual trial (after pleading) is the proper time to argue the legality of the offense that one was charged with. I think it would have been better to challenge it during pre-trial. But I don't Know.

This person should consult an attorney.

With the law being clear, and an AG's opinion to reaffirm it to the legal beagles (including judges) I would have to ask "Is there anything else in this hypothetical scenario that we don't know"?

If not, I seriously doubt that this would happen in a real scenario because the City would be wide open to false arrest and malicious prosecution charges. That could mean big damage awards.

If this "hypothetical" has a real life basis and actually happened, why not cite the case? I'd be interested in "The Rest of The Story".

Most likely when the charges got to the DA they would be dropped or you would be charged with a different crime just because they can.

It sounds like, in the hypothetical, the attorney DID present the proper argument, but the judge completely dismissed it. Yet everyone is blaming the attorney, who has no decision making authority in the matter whatsoever. In this hypothetical, what is needed is a better JUDGE. All an attorney can do is make the proper argument; if the judge doesn't see it that way, it's hardly the attorney's fault.

Remember, we elect judges in this state. Many appear to be just another species of politician who won't let words on paper get in the way of their own personal agendas. The best attorney in the world, who makes all the right arguments, won't be of much help when the judge you are before is dead set against your position and unwilling to be persuaded differently.

Aaron1124 said:

You feel you have a good chance at fighting this in court, as you have the proper documents on your side. As your day in court comes, you plead not guilty, and a trial is set. On your trial, you present your evidence to the judge, and he completely dismisses it, and follows through with the penalty, and convicts you, and fines you a hefty fine. You are now dismissed.

Click to expand...

Sounds like self representation. The court, generally speaking, does not respect non-bar members (imho). Even if the law is on your side, if you self represent it's a gamble.

Let's all go to the park!!

This could be a field trip. I like going to the field.

As long as I can go armed.

END_THE_FED said:

Did the hypothetical person move for a dismissal before pleading? Did he request a formal hearing?

I am not sure if the actual trial (after pleading) is the proper time to argue the legality of the offense that one was charged with. I think it would have been better to challenge it during pre-trial. But I don't Know.

This person should consult an attorney.

Click to expand...

The correct way to do this would be to move for dismissal prior to trial. That motion should be granted because there is ample authority on the side of the hypothetical defendant. If the motion is denied the next step would be to file an appeal. At that point the appeal would be discretionary, that is, the court would not have to hear it because there is no final judgment (this is known as an "interlocutory appeal"). Again, the error is clear so the appeal should be heard and granted but there is a reason why I refer to the Court of Appeals as the "Court of Intermediate Error." Failing that, proceed to trial and, if Mr. Hypo loses, then he would have the right to appeal. Acutal mileage may vary.

olypendrew said:

It sounds like, in the hypothetical, the attorney DID present the proper argument, but the judge completely dismissed it. Yet everyone is blaming the attorney, who has no decision making authority in the matter whatsoever. In this hypothetical, what is needed is a better JUDGE. All an attorney can do is make the proper argument; if the judge doesn't see it that way, it's hardly the attorney's fault.

Remember, we elect judges in this state. Many appear to be just another species of politician who won't let words on paper get in the way of their own personal agendas. The best attorney in the world, who makes all the right arguments, won't be of much help when the judge you are before is dead set against your position and unwilling to be persuaded differently.

Click to expand...

It's been my hobby lately studying our rights vs. the courts and unfortunately this goes on all the way to SCOTUS. It is a shame and in many instances a pure sham. The courts meant to be the reprieve of the people have turned into exactly what you described. And when it gets to SCOTUS it's final.