Gun ban at Seattle parks facilities goes into effect

[Manu]

imported post

Let me know the final count we will set up a meeting area in restaurant.

 

[Bobarino]

imported post

sunday the 25th works for me. i think it would be a good thing to craft a carefully worded letter to the major media outlets and invite them to the event, as long as we remind everyone to be good kids and put on their best sunday church airs and what to expect regarding police reaction ie: arrest, weapons confiscation etc. perhaps doing sterile carry - no id, CPL etc.

Bobby

 

[heresolong]

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

We are discussing a planning meeting at Manus resturant Dino's in Normandy park.On sunday the 25th.Does that work for you? I think we need a week to put ideas togaether to bring to the table from all groups.If we act to hastely the media will portray us as a bunch radical gun nuts.Any contacts in the LE community we could garner support from would be awesome. JIm

Since there is a gun show at Puyallup that day which I am planning on attending, I might even make it to the meeting although Blaine is a little far to travel for protests. Let us know what time you are meeting and I will try to be there.

 

[DEROS72]

imported post

Dino's resturant in Normandy park .Oct 25th Sunday 5:00 PM

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

I have 2 tables at the gunshow in Puyallup, so will not make it. Sorry I would like to.

 

[DEROS72]

imported post

Please guys we need as mush support as we can .So we can get unified so to speak on this.

 

[steble01]

imported post

ahhh bust, working second shift on that sunday.

 

[Bill Starks]

imported post

edit - helps to read page 3 before replying to a comment on page 2

 

[trevorthebusdriver]

imported post

Have you read the entire text of the new "rule"?
What a pile of horse doo.

 

[Superlite27]

imported post

Reading the text of the ordinance, Nickels is claiming parks are private property because....get this:

The City of Seattle might be a public entity, but the parks are owned by the city, therefore, since they are owned by the city, they are the city's private property.

That's what you call reaching beyond your grasp.

They're definately grasping at straws.

BTW: I would make hundreds of copies of Washington State preemption law and have anyone participating in any carry event have a copy on their person. I would also suggest carrying a recorder, and any law enforcement officer, park personnel, or any other official that approaches an OC'ing protester should be read the State Law while being recorded.

This will (hopefully) meet some legal requirement of REMOVING their qualified immunity. This way, when they are sued, they can't testify that they were unaware of State Law regarding the matter. You have proof that they were notified of the statute's unconstitutionality. I would inform any officer of the fact that their qualified immunity (possibly) has been removed due to the fact that they've been notified, and that they will be formally named in any lawsuit resulting from unlawfull arrest or illegal detention.

Put the onus back on them. Many times, laws are enforced because the arresting officer knows he has the power and authority of the system on his side. Let's see how willing they are to enforce this unenforceable law when thesystem backing themmight not be a factorand they might have their individual a&&es hanging out on a limb.

 

[Superlite27]

imported post

As another tactic:

If parks are indeed private property as Nickels claims, couldn't the city be sued because of city empoloyees (payed with public funds) are maintaining it?

Isn't it against the law to usepublicly funded workers to maintain private property?

Just something else to research. Hopefully, every little angle can help. It might be a shot in the dark, but I'll throw it out there for discussion.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Are they going to have the signs up by the 25th? We need to make sure they have no firearm signs up or its not going to have the effect we want.

I think we should contact not just those on this forum but others who are interested in freedoms and rights to join us this goes beyond our right to bear arms, this is Seattle overreaching the powers granted to it by its citizens and the state in wich we live in.

 

[Gray Peterson]

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

Reading the text of the ordinance, Nickels is claiming parks are private property because....get this:

The City of Seattle might be a public entity, but the parks are owned by the city, therefore, since they are owned by the city, they are the city's private property.

That's what you call reaching beyond your grasp.

They're definately grasping at straws.

This would be no different than the City of Seattle telling persons who wear Pagan symbols they were not welcome on Park property. Both RKBA and the right of religious expression is both as fundamental as each other.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:

This would be no different than the City of Seattle telling persons who wear Pagan symbols they were not welcome on Park property. Both RKBA and the right of religious expression is both as fundamental as each other.

I've made a similar argument to people who don't understand why I consider laws such as this unjust imposition on civil rights. Both symbols are choices being made about exercising fundamental rights. Best way to give Nickels and co an aneurysm - wear Obama "Hope" shirts. Leaves a great case to be made for "how can they kick me out for one but not the other" if and when this goes to court.

 

[knight_308]

imported post

I just saw this case from the fifth circuit. I don't think it bodes well for overturning the Seattle ban.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-31197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CLARENCE PAUL DOROSAN,
Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 08-CR-42-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Clarence Paul Dorosan appeals his conviction of violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) for bringing a handgun onto property belonging to the United States Postal Service. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

Dorosan raises one argument on appeal: The regulation under which he was convicted violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 555 U.S. ----, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2822 (2008). Assuming Dorosan's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying a handgun in his car, Dorosan's challenge nonetheless fails.

First, the Postal Service owned the parking lot where Dorosan's handgun was found, and its restrictions on guns stemmed from its constitutional authority as the property owner. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3 cl. 2; United States v. Gliatta, 580 F.2d 156, 160 (5th Cir. 1978). This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power that was the source of the ban addressed in Heller. See
128 S. Ct. at 2787-88 (noting the laws in question "generally prohibit[ed] the possession of handguns" anywhere in the city).

Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the "sensitive places" exception recognized by Heller. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (holding that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .").

Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site.

Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.

In conclusion, the above-stated facts do not compel us to hold that § 232.1(l) as applied to Dorosan is unconstitutional under any applicable level of scrutiny.

AFFIRMED.

******

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

knight_308 wrote:

I just saw this case from the fifth circuit. I don't think it bodes well for overturning the Seattle ban.

Different case, different circumstances. That case is much closer to Sequim than this one.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

knight_308 wrote:

I just saw this case from the fifth circuit. I don't think it bodes well for overturning the Seattle ban.

Different case, different circumstances. That case is much closer to Sequim than this one.

This is also a case of employer and employee not to be confused with a law abiding citizen walking down the street.

 

[44Brent]

imported post

Dino's resturant in Normandy park .Oct 25th Sunday 5:00 PM

For those of us who are not familiar with Dino's, can you please provide a full street address with city and zip code?

Thanks

 

[Bill Starks]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

Dino's resturant in Normandy park .Oct 25th Sunday 5:00 PM

For those of us who are not familiar with Dino's, can you please provide a full street address with city and zip code?

Thanks

Dino's
17642 1st Ave
Burien, WA 98148-1729
(206) 246-1332

 

[3/325]

imported post

What disturbs me the most is not the fact that McCheese enacted this ban; it's the fact that all these people are carrying out the order. This, THIS, is how bad things happen: not from the orders of those in power, but from those who carry them out believing they are absolved of any responsibility.

From the city workers who posted the signs to any cop who violates a citizen's civil rights over this, "I was just following orders" isn't going to cut it.