Planning meeting to fight gun ban

[deanf]

imported post

but overall, the war has been a loosing one,

Seriously? In what context? We've had the SCOTUS rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right, thus overturning a firmly entrenched gun ban in a liberal bastion. More states than ever are shall-issue. More people than ever, when polled, indicate that they are not in favor of gun control. We have a Democrat controlled congress and White House who are not legitimately pushing any gun control. We have people walking the streets in many states of the union (even California!) openly carrying pistols or long guns and not getting arrested or charged with anything. We have Second Amendment Incorporation pending. We have a repeal of Chicago's gun ban pending. I could go on in a state-by-state context. Washington: I-676 soundly defeated. No child access prevention laws, no closing of the so-called gun show loophole (despite major efforts by democrats on both these fronts), no major gun control of any type in Washington in . . . I don't know how long. A long time.

All of this in the last 10 years - much of it in the last 5.

How, again, has the war been a loosing one, overall?

I believe we are winning because of a strategic effort by the major gun rights organizations, buttressed by grass roots support. It's taken years, but we are winning.

 

[steble01]

imported post

5jeffro7 wrote:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/32896.html

thanks for the link jeffro, but why hide it in that thread????

so the plan/result of this meeting is that there is no plan yet??? i am confused. why make it a big secret??? how are all of us that werent able to attend attendance supposed to know what happens next or who is making what calls???

i am with everyone on the whole being patient thing, but i thought the goal of this meeting was to organize and get some kind of plan of attack

 

[5jeffro7]

imported post

steble01 wrote:

5jeffro7 wrote:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/32896.html

thanks for the link jeffro, but why hide it in that thread????

so the plan/result of this meeting is that there is no plan yet??? i am confused. why make it a big secret??? how are all of us that werent able to attend attendance supposed to know what happens next or who is making what calls???

i am with everyone on the whole being patient thing, but i thought the goal of this meeting was to organize and get some kind of plan of attack

wasn't trying to hide anything, Ijust felt that that was a good place to start my plea of temperance as there was a lot of call for "immediate action" in that particular thread.

there was some stuff that was discussed that should probably be kept low key, and I, at times, have a habit of opening my mouth when I shouldn't (for those who really know me, I know, hard to believe, huh? :what

basically what has been decided is that first and foremost, we're not going to run out and get arrested to try and further our cause :banghead:

what's been decided is more of an informational style outings with either shirts or signs stating "ask me why I'm carrying"..and the ability to hand out information to those interested enough to approach..as opposed to approaching everyone & try to hand them the information without them having asked. we've got persons checking the legalities of how close we can be to the parks when we do this & have even suggested that if not illegal, to do some of this on the sidewalks around parks.

because of the legalities of the ban as well as keeping an open mind about things, all we're asking is to just hang tight until formal announcements are made.

with respect to things already being/not being done, there was talk from those in the know that the SAF is moving forward with it's own plans, most of which can't be discussed..with the single exception (and although mentioned, it was also brought up in an article by either KOMO or KIRO) of the fact that the SAF is looking towards a court injunction against the ban. I do believe the SAF is working diligently on this behind closed doors & even if I know exactly what was being done, wouldn't disclose it because I'm of the belief that we need a certain element of surprise on our side.



Jeff

 

[steble01]

imported post

fair enough......

but please remember that if you guys are planning stuff that involves non-SAF action (the t shirt events for example) that it just cant be dropped on us at the last second.

i appreciate what the SAF is doing, but from the outsider perspective, it does seem like it is taking a while.....when the kent teachers went on strike, the district had an injunction filed and a judges grant within a week IIRC. i wonder what the big hold up is if this is such a cut and dry case??? that's more of a hypothetical question, really, but i would love to see what is going to happen.

i do think however that the timing of this ban has one advantage to nickels that he may or my not have foreseen. with the weather sneaking up on us, it will be harder to muster the troops for outdoor rallies, and there wont be as many sheeple walking around outside to deliver the message to think of it in their terms..."why do i want to waste my time talking to that guy with a gun when its cold and rainy outside???"

 

[5jeffro7]

imported post

steble01 wrote:

i do think however that the timing of this ban has one advantage to nickels that he may or my not have foreseen. with the weather sneaking up on us, it will be harder to muster the troops for outdoor rallies, and there wont be as many sheeple walking around outside to deliver the message to think of it in their terms..."why do i want to waste my time talking to that guy with a gun when its cold and rainy outside???"

another way to look at things, too, though...and this was brought up...say you, either as an individual, or with a group DO decide that you'd like to become a test case for the "rule" (I'll not even give it the glory of calling it a law)....

Most of the parents that would be using the park(s) aren't about to have their kids out in the park during crappy weather...so what you've just done is reduce the chances of getting carted to jail in front of those sympathetic to our cause & more likely to be seen by those that are apt to say, "see, if he'd just obeyed the law & not been a gun radical, this wouldn't have happened...he had it coming"...

with respect to the SAF, I can't speak for them, but I believe their appearance of either inaction or slow action is actually due to them working diligently behind the scenes to make sure all their ducks are in a row :arrow::arrow::arrow::arrow::arrow::arrow::arrow:and not wanting to divulge themselves to anyone that may do the cause harm or be able to come up with a rebuttal

 

[steble01]

imported post

whatever they have lined up, i hope it slaps the ever living piss out of nickels little plan here, that way no other moron mayors in the state even consider attempting anything like this. thanks for the info

trust me, i am all for doing things as a group, and being a martyr for the cause will most definitely not work for me as i have a job that would easily be lost due to an arrest. i am glad someone is looking to stage reisistance in a legal and orderly fashion.

speaking of that, have we come up with an official leader at the dinner??? ei.....who is going to calling the shots here??? i appreciate deros and manu for getting this thing setup

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

deanf wrote:

but overall, the war has been a loosing one,

Seriously? In what context? We've had the SCOTUS rule that the Second Amendment is an individual right, thus overturning a firmly entrenched gun ban in a liberal bastion. More states than ever are shall-issue. More people than ever, when polled, indicate that they are not in favor of gun control. We have a Democrat controlled congress and White House who are not legitimately pushing any gun control. We have people walking the streets in many states of the union (even California!) openly carrying pistols or long guns and not getting arrested or charged with anything. We have Second Amendment Incorporation pending. We have a repeal of Chicago's gun ban pending. I could go on in a state-by-state context. Washington: I-676 soundly defeated. No child access prevention laws, no closing of the so-called gun show loophole (despite major efforts by democrats on both these fronts), no major gun control of any type in Washington in . . . I don't know how long. A long time.

All of this in the last 10 years - much of it in the last 5.

How, again, has the war been a loosing one, overall?

I believe we are winning because of a strategic effort by the major gun rights organizations, buttressed by grass roots support. It's taken years, but we are winning

The simiple fact that people don't believe the 2nd A applies, and that we actually have to have these battlesis my point.

The highlighted point makes me laugh....really? They are not? Hmmm.....I guess I really wasn't harrassed and handcuffed and intimidated and berated and refused several of my rights....something that wouldn't have happened in the not distant pass. Oh but that's right in the past you have stated to fully cooperate with LEO when they are violating your rights, it's easier that way. LOL

 

[44Brent]

imported post

but I believe their appearance of either inaction or slow action is actually due to them working diligently behind the scenes to make sure all their ducks are in a rowand not wanting to divulge themselves to anyone that may do the cause harm or be able to come up with a rebuttal

1. Do you have a reliable source of information to support your statement? If so, what is that source?
2. At what point in time will SAF implement their cunning plan?
3. Has the SAF given you this information to publish?

 

[5jeffro7]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

1. Do you have a reliable source of information to support your statement? If so, what is that source?
2. At what point in time will SAF implement their cunning plan?
3. Has the SAF given you this information to publish?

1. Yes, however, the source(s) shall remain unamed until such point as they're willing to bring the information forward

2. when they feel it is best

3. the source of whom I speak relayed this information at the meeting to those in attendance

now it's my turn for questions..

1. who are you?

2. where are you located

3. if you're so interested in the cause, don't you think it would be better to show up at a meeting such as this instead of grilling someone regarding the information provided?

 

[deanf]

imported post

This is fact:

We have people walking the streets in many states of the union (even California!) openly carrying pistols or long guns and not getting arrested or charged with anything.

That doesn't mean that the opposite is not true. But even in the rare case of someone being arrested or charged with a crime for OC, they are acquitted or the charges are dropped, and sometimes a settlement is paid.

Oh but that's right in the past you have stated to fully cooperate with LEO when they are violating your rights, it's easier that way.

I've said that a street encounter is not the place to argue a violation of your rights. It's not the correct venue, and you are not petitioning the proper authority for a redress of your grievance. I've never urged anyone to "fully cooperate" with LEO. Defend your statement, sudden valley gunner. I've urged people to cooperate only to the extent required by law.

 

[Bill Starks]

imported post

From last nights meeting, someone asked about marching in a parade. Here is the RCW why we can't march armed.

RCW 38.40.120
Authorized military organizations.


No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

[steble01]

imported post

thanks for the info gunr......so i wonder what it would take to become a bona fide veterans club????

 

[kwiebe]

imported post

I think someone suggested (on the forum awhile back) - marching with empty holsters. Kind of symbolic.

 

[DEROS72]

imported post

If I am correct I believe the group decided on support for the SAF because as we were advised there are litigations in the works.Some could not be dicussed in detail.Along with that was an" ASk me Why"info campaign armed at several locations .These will be planned as expiditiously as possible.There are several of us working on these.After the meeting we had a second meeting to determine some semplance of organization.Us not being organized isseen by everyone there as our biggest weakness.We also came to an agreement to quit sniping at each other on the boards.These boards are being watched. Thats the gist of it more later..

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

M1Gunr wrote:

From last nights meeting, someone asked about marching in a parade. Here is the RCW why we can't march armed.

RCW 38.40.120
Authorized military organizations.
   

No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Wouldn't that be an abridgment of the 1st AND 2nd? Freedom of speech/assembly/protest, etc?

We can organize to protest, but not armed?

Why should the fact that we carry guns disallow our right to peaceably assemble?

 

[44Brent]

imported post

Why should the fact that we carry guns disallow our right to peaceably assemble?

1. Because we live in a police state in whichbasic civil rights are routinely abused.
   
2. Because we never thought to call ourselves "The OC Recognized Militia of Washington", which would be exempt from such a law.

 

[G20-IWB24/7]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

M1Gunr wrote:

From last nights meeting, someone asked about marching in a parade. Here is the RCW why we can't march armed.

RCW 38.40.120
Authorized military organizations.


No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Wouldn't that be an abridgment of the 1st AND 2nd? Freedom of speech/assembly/protest, etc?

We can organize to protest, but not armed?

Why should the fact that we carry guns disallow our right to peaceably assemble?

It does not. We were all carrying guns and peaceably assemblingjust last evening, as we have on numerous occasions. However, taking our assembly to the streets and traveling in the manner of a parade would be the violation. I have the right to drive, and the right to free speech, why can't I do those at the same time (without a Bluetooth)??

 

[G20-IWB24/7]

imported post

One of the other main points that came up last night that I want to make sure gets emphasized is that both the SPD and the StateAttorney General's office are on our side. If someone decides to force the hand of the SPD by making them respond to the call of a MWAG at a park, then we will likely lose some of the momentum we have gained.

This ban is not the fault of the SPD and we shouldn't make it like it is. Rather, we should be furious about a mayor taking it upon himself to put the police department in the predicament that he has done with this ban. We need to be as pro-SPD as possible. They too,knowthe ban isillegal, and want as much a part of the ban as we do. This is a problem that Mayor Nickels has caused and him alone, don't make the SPD pay for the problem that the Mayor's office has caused.

-G20

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

One of the other main points that came up last night that I want to make sure gets emphasized is that both the SPD and the StateAttorney General's office are on our side. If someone decides to force the hand of the SPD by making them respond to the call of a MWAG at a park, then we will likely lose some of the momentum we have gained.

This ban is not the fault of the SPD and we shouldn't make it like it is. Rather, we should be furious about a mayor taking it upon himself to put the police department in the predicament that he has done with this ban. We need to be as pro-SPD as possible. They too,knowthe ban isillegal, and want as much a part of the ban as we do. This is a problem that Mayor Nickels has caused and him alone, don't make the SPD pay for the problem that the Mayor's office has caused.

-G20

Then why would they enforce it, didn't we determine in the Nuremberg trial, I was just following orders was not a good enough excuse?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

If I am correct I believe the group decided on support for the SAF because as we were advised there are litigations in the works.Some could not be dicussed in detail.Along with that was an" ASk me Why"info campaign armed at several locations .These will be planned as expiditiously as possible.There are several of us working on these.After the meeting we had a second meeting to determine some semplance of organization.Us not being organized isseen by everyone there as our biggest weakness.We also came to an agreement to quit sniping at each other on the boards.These boards are being watched. Thats the gist of it more later..

Let me know about the ones we carry firearms, I will do my best to attend those ones.