Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
"Fight for my freedom while I fight to enslave you."
Yeah, going to turn out awesome.
-
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.
State Senate bans openly carried guns in public gallery
- Thread starter 44Brent
- Start date
"Fight for my freedom while I fight to enslave you."
Yeah, going to turn out awesome.
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
So, it reads like you advocate drug use while using guns?
That is what my post was about. If folks wants to get high, fine, just don't do it while handling firearms......
Does the right to get high fall under the pursuit of happiness?.........
Hows that Weed legalization in WA working out? I read in the paper that weed grows are popping up in neighborhoods and that the black market is flourishing due to lack of distribution and taxes.
Last edited:
Whitney
Regular Member
Legislative Authority
Can anyone explain where the legislature claims authority for "rule making", specifically as it applies to the ban on open carry in public meeting places. The way I read the act they have stepped out of the box with said ban.
It seems they have exempted themselves from the open public records act unless they are truly a "governing body" as proscribed in 42.30, which I believe they are.
42.30.010
Legislative declaration.
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
Notes:
42.30.020
Definitions.
As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:
(1) "Public agency" means:
(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;
(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;
(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;
(d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.
(2) "Governing body" means [I believe this covers the legislature] the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.
(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.
(4) "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken.
[1985 c 366 § 1; 1983 c 155 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 43 § 10; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 2.]
Notes:
42.30.030
Meetings declared open and public.
All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 3.]
42.30.040
Conditions to attendance not to be required.
A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.
[2012 c 117 § 124; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 4.]
42.30.050
Interruptions — Procedure.
In the event that any meeting is interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are interrupting the meeting, the members of the governing body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session or may adjourn the meeting and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a session, final disposition may be taken only on matters appearing on the agenda. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the governing body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 5.]
42.30.120
Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys' fees and costs.
(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.
(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.
[2012 c 117 § 126; 1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]
42.30.130
Violations — Mandamus or injunction.
Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 13.]
~Whitney
Can anyone explain where the legislature claims authority for "rule making", specifically as it applies to the ban on open carry in public meeting places. The way I read the act they have stepped out of the box with said ban.
It seems they have exempted themselves from the open public records act unless they are truly a "governing body" as proscribed in 42.30, which I believe they are.
42.30.010
Legislative declaration.
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
Notes:
| Reviser's note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases "this act" and "this 1971 amendatory act" have been changed to "this chapter." "This act" [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020. |
42.30.020
Definitions.
As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:
(1) "Public agency" means:
(a) Any state board, commission, committee, department, educational institution, or other state agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and the legislature;
(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;
(c) Any subagency of a public agency which is created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act, including but not limited to planning commissions, library or park boards, commissions, and agencies;
(d) Any policy group whose membership includes representatives of publicly owned utilities formed by or pursuant to the laws of this state when meeting together as or on behalf of participants who have contracted for the output of generating plants being planned or built by an operating agency.
(2) "Governing body" means [I believe this covers the legislature] the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.
(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance.
(4) "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken.
[1985 c 366 § 1; 1983 c 155 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 43 § 10; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 2.]
Notes:
| Severability -- Savings -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.52.374. |
42.30.030
Meetings declared open and public.
All meetings of the governing body of a public agency shall be open and public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the governing body of a public agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 3.]
42.30.040
Conditions to attendance not to be required.
A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.
[2012 c 117 § 124; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 4.]
42.30.050
Interruptions — Procedure.
In the event that any meeting is interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are interrupting the meeting, the members of the governing body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session or may adjourn the meeting and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a session, final disposition may be taken only on matters appearing on the agenda. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the governing body from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 5.]
42.30.120
Violations — Personal liability — Civil penalty — Attorneys' fees and costs.
(1) Each member of the governing body who attends a meeting of such governing body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter applicable to him or her, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars. The civil penalty shall be assessed by a judge of the superior court and an action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person. A violation of this chapter does not constitute a crime and assessment of the civil penalty by a judge shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.
(2) Any person who prevails against a public agency in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, any public agency who prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause.
[2012 c 117 § 126; 1985 c 69 § 1; 1973 c 66 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 12.]
42.30.130
Violations — Mandamus or injunction.
Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 13.]
~Whitney
Last edited:
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Bravo Whitney, it appears you have found the remedy, whilst others whine ad infinitum......
I especially like this part:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
So ask them, "What gives you the authority to make up rules to prohibit a legal activity for a Sovereign to Open Carry in the public gallery."
If they can't cite the authority, carry on!
I especially like this part:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
So ask them, "What gives you the authority to make up rules to prohibit a legal activity for a Sovereign to Open Carry in the public gallery."
If they can't cite the authority, carry on!
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
So, it reads like you advocate drug use while using guns?
That is what my post was about. If folks wants to get high, fine, just don't do it while handling firearms......
Does the right to get high fall under the pursuit of happiness?.........
Hows that Weed legalization in WA working out? I read in the paper that weed grows are popping up in neighborhoods and that the black market is flourishing due to lack of distribution and taxes.
Bullhockey. I listed several 'sin' activities that are illegal.
Why did you focus on drugs?
Why not fixate on prostitution? Hot damn, seeing a prostitute while shooting guns
Or hey, a combo gun range / abortion center! Women could go shooting then relax as the staff cleans their gun, and uterus.
Point is: conservative gun owners suck when it comes to fighting for freedom.
Last edited:
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Bullhockey. I listed several 'sin' activities that are illegal.
Why did you focus on drugs?
Why not fixate on prostitution? Hot damn, seeing a prostitute while shooting guns
Or hey, a combo gun range / abortion center! Women could go shooting then relax as the staff cleans their gun, and uterus.
Point is: conservative gun owners suck when it comes to fighting for freedom.
I definitely am not a liberal, so count me in your guilty column. I should not need to compromise my beliefs with "sin" in order to support and defend an enumerated Constitutional Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
I focused on drugs because the combination of drugs + guns = stupid
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
No where did I advocate shooting while under the influence of alcohol (which is a dangerous drug).
Now, if so-called neo-conservatives and statists would stop being freedom hating hypocrites then we might make some progress. We might build a 'coalition' of people where everyone supports each others Rights -- even if people don't agree such Rights are their own personal version of "the Good."
Last edited:
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Sorry, however, "abortion rights" is not on the table and never will be with those that believe in the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I doubt many would consider the labels of neo-conservative and statist to be exclusive beliefs of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
And... there ya go.
Keep telling other people how to live their life according to your personal morals.
Keep trying to have big gov enforce your personal morals on others who don't want them.
And then suffer under others doing the same to you.
utbagpiper
Banned
Citations?
Perhaps depends on how one defines "freedom" and for whom. I'm pretty sure slave owners were pretty upset at the idea that their "freedom" to own slaves might be countered by the slaves' freedom to be...well, free. Most who advocate a woman's "right" to terminate the life of her unborn child for no reason besides not wanting to be pregnant conveniently ignore the rights of the child to live. They do so by pretending the child is not really a person, just as slave owners and ante-bellum courts defined blacks as something less than fully human.
All that not withstanding, my experience is that conservative gun owners comprise the vast majority of those responsible for the improvements in laws regarding RKBA over the last 30 years. There are a few libertarian gun owners. But in 30 years here in Utah we had a total of two democrat legislators who were not overtly hostile to RKBA. One was an old union boss, blue-dog, blue-collar kind of democrat. The other was from mining country and was an old church-going democrat. Sadly, one is retired from the legislature, the other deceased. Can't find a single liberal in our legislature who will vote for good gun bills, nor against bad gun bills. And among liberal gun owners, far too many car more about special rights for homosexuals, forcing taxpayers to fund elective abortions, removing school choice from middle class and poor parents, soaking the rich, or some other liberal cause than they do about RKBA. One of our more notable local liberal gun activists recently lobbied in favor of making it easier to take guns away from those accused of dating violence because he cared more about normalizing homosexual relationships than he did about protecting RKBA.
So keep on hatin' your conservative (and religious) brothers in the RKBA family. But a man isn't blinded by his own bigotries would recognize who it was that had brought about the legal respect for your RKBA you enjoy.
(On the flip side, non-bigoted conservatives will recognize it is often the liberal members of the judiciary who are most likely to limit government police powers.)
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Really. How dare those darned Yankees presume to tell slave owners they had to live according to the personal morals of abolitionists? They should have just accepted the morality of slave owners that held blacks were just chattel property rather than human beings with natural, God-given rights.
Abortion is so easy to support when one ignores the humanity of the child that is to be killed. Abortion is so easy to outlaw entirely when on ignores the challenges of the mother.
Would that both sides could concede some simple truths.
Charles
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
More like human decency. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Where does it say anywhere that killing an unborn child adheres to any sense of human decency. It is abhorrent in my opinion and many, many others opinion.
I can suffer with human decency, thank you very much.
Who is fighting for the unborn Americans and their rights to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
I guess you believe they have no rights since they are stuck in their mother's womb.
That's fine. That is your right. As it is mine to believe otherwise.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Gun_Control.htm
Ronald Regan said:
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
George W Bush said:
Cited. Yeah, Neo-con statists, fighting for our gun Rights year after year, total bull hockey.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Where we really differ is I simply don't want the State emboldened with the power to enforce your beliefs onto other people.
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Neo-con, statists, liberals un-American, anti-Constitutionalists.
Throw all the bums out. Oh but wait, the problem remains the same. The young minds of this country being indoctrinated to believe all the lies. Don't study the Constitution, Bill of Rights, American history (in all it's glory and evils). This is how the progressives on both sides of the aisle have gutted this country.
Your labels and blaming are not going to solve the problem.
I do see a pattern here. Whine, whine, whine, with no practical solutions except eliminate government and let everyone do what they damn well please, and all will be right with the world.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Yeah, that mostly sums it up. Just add "Whatever they damn well please, except for damaging a person or private property." It won't solve all the worlds problems, but it'll be a good start.
I'm optimistic. Change always happens, someday it might even be change for the better!
And hey, if you can't rebut the content of a post (the fact Right wing, religious conservatives have pissed on the 2A) then by all means attack the poster.
Last edited:
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Sorry if you felt attacked, that was not my intent.
I can be overly opinionated and stubborn.......
And for the record, in theory, I do believe that one should be able to do what they damn well please and be left alone as long as they are not hurting someone else or their property. My issue is the line gets fuzzy when we eliminate all laws like drunk driving as an example. The drunk driver isn't hurting anyone or their property until he does. I'm not sure how to get around that and other "preventative laws" that are for our "safety" We start sliding down a slippery slope of freedoms v protecting the public at large.
The founders warned of this and now we have a nanny state.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
+1
Oh and the laughable argument by the Utah, was hilarious "Freedom for who"...seems some people need to learn what freedom and liberty means.
utbagpiper
Banned
Citations please. And make sure your citations include some comparasions between how right wing religious conservatives have treated RKBA vs how secular liberals have treated it. We can ignore how libertarians have treated it because there are not enough of them elected to congress or State legislatures to make a difference.
Citations to support the claim that anyone has attacked you rather than arguing your comments regarding "right wing religious conservatives hav[ing] pissed on the 2A"?
In my experience, it is the right wing religious conservative politicians (and their constituents) who have done the most to advance RKBA the last 4 decades while it is the secularists (who are also liberal) who most feverishly attack it.
In Utah, we've had a total of two Democrats who could be counted on to vote correctly (never to sponsor, but to vote correctly) on RKBA related bills. Both have left the legislature. Most of our legislators who support RKBA have come from Utah county, a highly conservative, 100% republican elected officials, highly religious area of our State. Our secularist, liberal, democrats in the legislature vote wrong on RKBA related bills almost every time.
Do feel free to provide a similar, high-level breakdown of how conservative religious legislators in Washington vote on RKBA vs how secular liberals vote.
Until then, you'd look like less of a bigot if you'd stop throwing out "right wing religious conservatives" as a pejorative.
Charles
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
Indeed they do.
If you want to attack religious conservatives as not supporting freedom, you better get straight on who it was that motivated abolition of slavery.
While not necessarily all that conservative, it was the REVEREND Dr. MLK and many other churchmen who lead the charge on civil rights. It was the language of the pulpit employed by such men that spoke to the soul of many white americans who were not initially supportive of the civil rights movement.
It is religious conservatives who lead the charge to recognize the humanity and provide some minimum level of protection to preborn babies.
It tends to be religious conservatives who support freedom from the requirement to pay for others' abortions, who support legal recognition of the right to own and carry firearms, and to maintain freedom of conscience and of peaceful expression thereof.
It is secular liberals who can be counted on to most often attack RKBA just as we can see in Washington as a result of the influx of such persons from Cali.
And there simply are not enough libertarians elected to legislative office to make a material difference.
Charles