-
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.
-
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.
Seattle gun ban is illegal, Appeals Court rules Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/
- Thread starter deanf
- Start date
golddigger14s
Activist Member
I know that when I went to the City of Lacey about their signs in the parks, they almost immediately complied. One look at the RCW by the city attorney, and he was like duh "your right!" Their signs have not been changed yet due to budget issues, but they immediately told the local police dept. to leave us alone. They said they will put up new signs when money and time allow. I know the Parks Dept. director pretty well, so I consider Lacey a done deal.
MadHatter66
Regular Member
I am a working with Kitsap County parks to get their signs up to date... Was just about to post a thread on it with all the info and emails I have compiled with the parks director...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
I would recommend that you seek out a Commissioner as the Parks Director works for them and this may just avoid repeating yourself later if you do not get resolve with the Parks Department.
Good luck.
John Hardin
Regular Member
Print up some round stickers with a 1911 not in a circle-slash (perhaps in a green circle) with the words "Perfectly okay - RCW 9.41.290" to stick over the blank sticker. We should do that to all the preempted signs we see.
MadHatter66
Regular Member
Actually the ordinance was already repealed here back in 2009... There are some links below to threads from back then... I am just working with parks to change the signs that have been left alone and still say that firearms are not allowed in the parks. Seems as though they want people to keep thinking that firearms are not allowed, even though there is no teeth to the signs claim. Doesn't help that the parks director is from NJ...
http://bit.ly/t9tYp7
http://bit.ly/tclpru
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Yes, I was aware they had been repealed and it still stands the Commissioners are still on top of their Food Chain.
j2l3
Regular Member
Lammo
Regular Member
The rules on appeal provide for costs to be awarded to the prevailing party. See RAP 14.1 through 14.6 here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=app&set=RAP
The cost bill will be a publicly available document in the court's file.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Apparently the NRA won this all by themselves. SAF and CCRKBA are merely "and others".
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7162
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7162
911Boss
Member
I didn't find anything in that article that was incorrect. Kind of a stretch to suggest the NRA is trying to take all the credit.
The article linked to opens with "...several area gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation..."
The announcement on the SAF site says "The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association and five local residents..." pretty much the same thing, so I guess by your way of reading the SAF "Apparently won this all by themselves" huh?
Heck, the NRA article didn't even give themselves top billing like the SAF post did. Maybe folks should just enjoy the victory instead of trying to use it to support petty squabbles between competing (complimenting?) pro-gun organizations...
KBCraig
Regular Member
"In October 2009, NRA, and others, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Washington State against the City of Seattle, asking the court to enjoin and declare invalid the then-recently enacted ban."
amlevin
Regular Member
What's the issue? It got handled so let anyone that wants take credit. Results remain the same no matter who beats their chest.
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
I think it's word savings on the second reference for others. When I first read it I only saw the second one, but then I saw the first one and I'm like "Oh, ok".
If anyone would be offended by the idea of NRA not sharing credit, it would be me as one of the individual gun owner plaintiffs. I'm not because they did not do that in this particular case. I guess they learned their lessons from the Katrina debacle to actually share credit, but they backslid with McDonald.
We got the win. I don't care who says what as long as they don't claim the credit 100 percent their own.
If anyone would be offended by the idea of NRA not sharing credit, it would be me as one of the individual gun owner plaintiffs. I'm not because they did not do that in this particular case. I guess they learned their lessons from the Katrina debacle to actually share credit, but they backslid with McDonald.
We got the win. I don't care who says what as long as they don't claim the credit 100 percent their own.
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Thanks Gray for putting yourself out their. Any word on whether Seattle will pursue their last line of appeal?