| Author | Post |
|---|
maclean
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:07 am |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: joeroket wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
Who's looking for legal advise. not me. I have a lawyer better than these political hack available to me. I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less. Shouldn't they be interested in that?
If you are reporting a crime, report it to the Sheriff, who is the Chief convservator of the peace in King County, within which Seattle resides.
Ah, but the AG is the head law enforcement guy in the state. I've found going to the top always works best.
The title "head law enforcement officer" is misused and misunderstood.
What the AG really is - same as for the Feds - is the "head lawyer."
The "head law enforcement officer" everywhere in the State is the Sheriff of a county.
Says so right there in them law thingies.
But hey, whatever floats yer boat.
|
Bear 45/70
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:14 am |
|
maclean wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: joeroket wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
Who's looking for legal advise. not me. I have a lawyer better than these political hack available to me. I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less. Shouldn't they be interested in that?
If you are reporting a crime, report it to the Sheriff, who is the Chief convservator of the peace in King County, within which Seattle resides.
Ah, but the AG is the head law enforcement guy in the state. I've found going to the top always works best.
The title "head law enforcement officer" is misused and misunderstood.
What the AG really is - same as for the Feds - is the "head lawyer."
The "head law enforcement officer" everywhere in the State is the Sheriff of a county.
Says so right there in them law thingies.
But hey, whatever floats yer boat.
I can hear it now, "Hello Sheriff? I want to report a crime committed by the mayor of Seattle. Oh, you won't do anything because he is one of you political cronies? Bye" Yeah like that will be productive and a waste of my time and money for the long distance. FYI I know who the sheriff as head law enforcement officer works, or maybe I should say suppose to work. But once the sheriff started running for office by party, in most places he has become a politician and not a cop.
|
Gene Beasley
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:17 am |
|
Right Wing Wacko wrote: The last time the Democrats...
This issue transcends Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative. I work with some of the biggest liberals you could imagine. I was pleasantly surprised to find many gun owners among those liberals. They may not carry, but they understand infringement. All politicians, Mr. Nickels in particular, would do well to remember November 1997.
I-676 Ballot Title
Shall the transfer of handguns without trigger-locking devices be prohibited and persons possessing or acquiring a handgun be required to obtain a handgun safety license?
Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would make it unlawful to transfer a handgun without an operable trigger-locking device. A handgun safety license would be required to acquire or possess a handgun. A license would be issued only to persons who have completed instruction in safe operation, handling and storage of handguns. A person transferring a handgun would be required to verify that the recipient holds a handgun safety license. Certain exemptions exist for law enforcement and other purposes.
Status: A total of 239,805 signatures were submitted. The measure was found to have sufficient valid signatures, and was subsequently certified to the Nov. 4 (1997) General Election Ballot.
It was rejected by the following vote: YES - 496,690 NO - 1,194,004
Demographics change, but they haven't changed that much.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:20 am by Gene Beasley
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:32 am |
|
just_a_car wrote: Did anyone catch this 'condition' stated in the actual document found here:
WHEREAS, Seattle's local laws and ordinances relating to firearms are specifically authorized by state law and are consistent with state law;
Is it just me, or does that 'condition' that the Mayor has placed on this order already negate this order? The fact that the city parks has a ban on firearms already violates "consistent with state law" and thus, violates this as a legal order.
Someone with more legal knowledge than I will have to confirm this, but it seems like he may have borked this royally.
IANAL.
I saw it. He is basing this off of case law as found in the Sequim ruling.
|
just_a_car
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
joeroket wrote: just_a_car wrote: Did anyone catch this 'condition' stated in the actual document found here:
WHEREAS, Seattle's local laws and ordinances relating to firearms are specifically authorized by state law and are consistent with state law;
Is it just me, or does that 'condition' that the Mayor has placed on this order already negate this order? The fact that the city parks has a ban on firearms already violates "consistent with state law" and thus, violates this as a legal order.
Someone with more legal knowledge than I will have to confirm this, but it seems like he may have borked this royally.
IANAL.
I saw it. He is basing this off of case law as found in the Sequim ruling.
That may be the case, but the fact that his 'condition' is part of the basis of making this Order completely invalidates this Order without regard to the Sequim ruling. Because the city firearms laws are not "consistent with state law", any Order based on that condition is invalid and unenforceable.
IANAL.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:43 am by just_a_car
|
maclean
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:43 am |
|
Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: joeroket wrote: Bear 45/70 wrote: maclean wrote: The phone number for the AG is 360-753-6200.
They will tell you they can't help you as they represent the State.
Ask to be placed into the comment line and leave your clear and cohesive thoughts.
So now the state is saying we are no long citizens that the AG is suppose to represent. Have they all lost sight of reality and what they swore to do when they were sworn into their job?
The AG's office has always been run like this. They do not provide any legal advice except when directed to by law, which is to judges, legislatures, congress, chiefs and sheriff, and heads of govt's.
Who's looking for legal advise. not me. I have a lawyer better than these political hack available to me. I'm reporting a crime, you know a violation of state law by a government official no less. Shouldn't they be interested in that?
If you are reporting a crime, report it to the Sheriff, who is the Chief convservator of the peace in King County, within which Seattle resides.
Ah, but the AG is the head law enforcement guy in the state. I've found going to the top always works best.
The title "head law enforcement officer" is misused and misunderstood.
What the AG really is - same as for the Feds - is the "head lawyer."
The "head law enforcement officer" everywhere in the State is the Sheriff of a county.
Says so right there in them law thingies.
But hey, whatever floats yer boat.
I can hear it now, "Hello Sheriff? I want to report a crime committed by the mayor of Seattle. Oh, you won't do anything because he is one of you political cronies? Bye" Yeah like that will be productive and a waste of my time and money for the long distance. FYI I know who the sheriff as head law enforcement officer works, or maybe I should say suppose to work. But once the sheriff started running for office by party, in most places he has become a politician and not a cop.
The Sheriff of King County is non-partisan, and is certainly not a crony of Mayor Twinkie! LOL!
|
bobmagoo
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:48 am |
|
I'm trying to find places to communicate with the Mayor about this recent ban. So far I've found the "Ask The Mayor" online question submission at http://www.seattlechannel.org/AsktheMayor/ . By the way, the show is on Wednesday night at 7 on channel 21, the number is (206) 684-8821 CALL HIM!
I also found the contact the mayor page on his site: http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/citizen_response.htm
Looking for any other way of sending him a message. I'll be working on a response that I'll try to upload here later.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:48 am by bobmagoo
|
maclean
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:50 am |
|
bobmagoo wrote: I'm trying to find places to communicate with the Mayor about this recent ban. So far I've found the "Ask The Mayor" online question submission at http://www.seattlechannel.org/AsktheMayor/ . By the way, the show is on Wednesday night at 7 on channel 21, the number is (206) 684-8821 CALL HIM!
I also found the contact the mayor page on his site: http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/citizen_response.htm
Looking for any other way of sending him a message. I'll be working on a response that I'll try to upload here later.
Interested to see how he replies. I predict he says more of what he said in his press conference.
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:34 am |
|
just_a_car wrote: joeroket wrote: just_a_car wrote: Did anyone catch this 'condition' stated in the actual document found here:
WHEREAS, Seattle's local laws and ordinances relating to firearms are specifically authorized by state law and are consistent with state law;
Is it just me, or does that 'condition' that the Mayor has placed on this order already negate this order? The fact that the city parks has a ban on firearms already violates "consistent with state law" and thus, violates this as a legal order.
Someone with more legal knowledge than I will have to confirm this, but it seems like he may have borked this royally.
IANAL.
I saw it. He is basing this off of case law as found in the Sequim ruling.
That may be the case, but the fact that his 'condition' is part of the basis of making this Order completely invalidates this Order without regard to the Sequim ruling. Because the city firearms laws are not "consistent with state law", any Order based on that condition is invalid and unenforceable.
IANAL.
Yes but did you read the case ruling? All the wording is consistent with the basis of the case law but he ignores the fact that this EO does affect the general public and also the city is not acting in a manner that is consistent with private parties. He ignores the part of the ruling that says because of the contract entered into between Sequim and the shooting association that they can create contractual rules for use of the cities property because Sequim was acting as a private party would but only because the rules did not affect the general public.
You have to take both things into account when reading his EO to see why he is making the statements in the EO he is making, even though he is grossly incorrect.
Also take a look at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/543547MAJ&invol=4
and you will see that the courts have ruled the an EO is assumed valid. They can only be invalidated, in court, due to pre-emption. I think that this case was a huge error by the courts basically giving them the false authority to execute an order even though it is pre-empted and can only be invalidated by a court.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:40 am by joeroket
|
gsx1138
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Bremerton, Wa |
| Posts: | 143 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:35 am |
|
phiche92 wrote: Maybe we should all E-Mail the governor, oh wait I just had another brain fart she lost the election twice but still has the office. I guess this won't work either
Gee, thanks for the painful reminder. The problem is that the liberals have positioned themselves be damn near undefeatable in the larger populated areas. And if they lose they just rig the election. Sadly, the pathetic state of the Republicans country wide isn't helping their case any either.
|
Agent 47
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 06:10 am |
|
JoeRocket.
Does this mean that If one of us challenges this by walking into city hall open carrying and were charged with trespassing the courts would uphold the trespassing charge as they have not yet invalidated the EO?
|
Lonnie Wilson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 10:26 am |
|
Ok, now that the actual executive order has been released, now we know what is actually planned.
This is rumor control, here are the facts:
1) Despite some reports from the news media, the city's gun bans are NOT in effect yet. If you read the language carefully, you will see that he is directing the City Departments to come up with a PLAN. PLAN, not actual regulations. In fact, it states flat out that the regulations must be done per the city's administrative procedures act, which means public comment periods, and so on. It'll be at least THIRTY days before any regulations will take effect, unless all city departments respond before then (given the nature of the city's bureaucracy, this is unlikely).
2) I know that some people have PM me with the comments that they wanted to open carry at Seattle Center or one of the Seattle Parks in the next few days in order to trigger an incident under this EO which would create standing for a lawsuit. This is entirely premature, as you won't be arrested or even asked to leave, so it'll pretty much do nothing to trigger standing, other than making yourself look like a fool. If you're going to carry in a Seattle Park or Seattle Center, or other places where this plan may encompass, just continue doing so in the meantime, however due consider the possibility that there may be increased 911 calls and harassment in this circumstances due to the FUD that's being spread by Nickels and his crew.
3) There's also a possibility that this is entirely a PR stunt by Nickels. This would not surprise me in the slightest. Granted, this is not the most likely scenario, it's one that's in the back of my head that he's trying to play people. Right now, the FUD is being spread about that there's already a gun ban in place, which gives him a way of discouraging gun carrying at festivals from here on out. There's still a significant amount of CPL holders who are not members of opencarry.org, or members of wa-ccw or any other mailing list, who now think it's illegal to carry in Seattle city property and just won't.
4) I know there are folks here who are antsy and want to do something, anything about the situation right this moment. Well, here's what you can do for the moment:
A) Contact the AG's office, and voice your displeasure at Mayor Nickels suggesting state preemption can be gotten around via trespass laws. Though not directly effective, it'll show the AG's office that this is a really serious situation that cannot be ignored and may cause them to start making some phone calls to Seattle and tell them to stand down (if they decide to listen).
B) Make pro-gun comments at the Seattle PI and other blogs, but stay away from political slurs. I've noticed an alarming amount of posts generally using the term "liberal", "moonbat" and other similar slurs. Folks, the gun ownership spectrum is just as wide as the political spectrum. I myself would be considered a "liberal". Every time you use such statements, such as "you stupid liberals are always attacking guns" or "you liberals are always @#$^ing on the constitution", you diminish the image of gun owners to the people who may be riding on the fence. Be non-partisan on this issue. Best terms to use is anti-rights, anti-gunners, and similar wording. We need all of the allies we can get in this fight, from all political spectrums.
C) Contact your state legislators, and tell them that you don't appreciate Seattle violating state preemption, and because of this, you will be watching them like a hawk if they try to attack your Article 1, Section 24 rights. For Nickels to do this during an election year screws up things pretty hardcore for the current majority party in the Legislature, and I'm sure with the exception of what I call the "Seattle crowd" there, I'm sure there's a huge bout of heartburn and anxiety over this situation.
D) Use the words "Second Amendment" as sparingly as possible: Using "The Second Amendment" makes great shorthand statement of Seattle violating our rights. However, we also have way too many of the "other side" who say "Well Second Amendment is a collective right according to the courts" blah blah blah. We have a much more powerful RKBA clause in our state constitution, which makes absolutely no mention of the militia. This issue will also allow us to bring to the forefront Article 1, Section 24 of our state constitution, which states:
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired....."
The great thing about our state's declaration of rights is how the wording is more protective of civil liberties than the federal constitution. See for example the Eisburg case where A1 S7's privacy provisions make almost all warrant-less searches without consent unconstitutional. Any time you have someone saying "There's no right to own a gun", all you have to is hit them with the wording of A1 S24, and you completely shut down their entire argument. I've seen anti-gunners go into total meltdown mode when I inject A1 S24's wording into the debate. It totally preempts the entire "collective rights" argument.
5) This entire issue will be resolved almost entirely on state law and the state constitution. The federal courts will not take a case like this because it's a city violating a state law, which means the state courts will be the playground for both sides to fight in.
|
44Brent
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 01:33 pm |
|
Lonnie:
Can you please upload the executive order or provide a link to it?
Thanks
|
uncoolperson
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Bellingham |
| Posts: | 377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 01:53 pm |
|
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/executive_orders/E0708-GunSafetyAtCityFacilities.pdf
http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=8532&dept=40
the news release
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:35 pm |
|
uncoolperson wrote:
http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=8532&dept=40
the news release
Good grief - the Mayor says "a recent Washington Supreme Court case recognized that cities could adopt rules that regulate guns on city property: Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn. 2nd 342 (2006)."
Huh?? Good grief!
Here is what the case stands for, according to the syllabus in the opinion: "Gun show at city convention center for the purchase and sale of firearms was not a 'showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms,' and thus did not qualify as an exception to city's authority to regulate possession and sale of firearms by imposing permit conditions on the use of its convention center, which were not laws or regulations of application to the general public."
This result follows from the text of RCW 9.41.300:
". . . Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:. . .
(b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:
(i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060 . . ."
I don't know where the mayor thinks he can go with this at all. I hope Washington gun owners are ready to challenge this police by civil obedience to the law (carrying where allowed by law) and civil suits if necessary.
I also do not believe that tresspass scheme effected by mere shell game legal fictions thru operating contracts with private management companies can lawfully defeat RCW 9.41.300 and thus erect "laws or regulations of application to the general public." Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Ass'n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wash.2d 342, 144 P.3d 276, 284 (Wash. 2006) (citing Cherry v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 116 Wash.2d 794, 802, 808 P.2d 746 (1991) to stand merely for the proposition that RCW 9.41.300 does not preclude localities from establishing rules governing gun carry by locality employees under theory that such employer power is properly implied as inherent to all employers, public and private, unless the statute explicitly says otherwise).
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:37 pm by Mike
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:38 pm |
|
Agent 47 wrote: JoeRocket.
Does this mean that If one of us challenges this by walking into city hall open carrying and were charged with trespassing the courts would uphold the trespassing charge as they have not yet invalidated the EO?
If this were to happen, if and when the order becomes effective, you would be fighting that the arrest was the result of an invalidated EO. It would then be up to the courts at that time to make a ruling on it.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: Agent 47 wrote: JoeRocket.
Does this mean that If one of us challenges this by walking into city hall open carrying and were charged with trespassing the courts would uphold the trespassing charge as they have not yet invalidated the EO?
If this were to happen, if and when the order becomes effective, you would be fighting that the arrest was the result of an invalidated EO. It would then be up to the courts at that time to make a ruling on it.
Somebody find and paste the full WASH trespass statute. I bet it contains a defense for reasonably believeing you are authorized to be there, as well as actual authority to be there, and then cases exist to back this up when police take away protesters from parks, etc.
|
joeroket
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:49 pm |
|
Mike wrote: joeroket wrote: Agent 47 wrote: JoeRocket.
Does this mean that If one of us challenges this by walking into city hall open carrying and were charged with trespassing the courts would uphold the trespassing charge as they have not yet invalidated the EO?
If this were to happen, if and when the order becomes effective, you would be fighting that the arrest was the result of an invalidated EO. It would then be up to the courts at that time to make a ruling on it.
Somebody find and paste the full WASH trespass statute. I bet it contains a defense for reasonably believeing you are authorized to be there, as well as actual authority to be there, and then cases exist to back this up when police take away protesters from parks, etc. Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
1st degree requires that it be a building that you entered.
Here are the defenses to a trespass charge.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.
I think section 2 is what you are looking for Mike. He cannot lawful preclude firearms from the premise so the trespass charge is invalid. At least that's the way I see it.
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 02:51 pm by joeroket
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 03:03 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: Criminal Trespass 2nd Degree:
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.
1st degree requires that it be a building that you entered.
Here are the defenses to a trespass charge.
In any prosecution under RCW 9A.52.070 and 9A.52.080, it is a defense that:
(1) A building involved in an offense under RCW 9A.52.070 was abandoned; or
(2) The premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) The actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain; or
(4) The actor was attempting to serve legal process which includes any document required or allowed to be served upon persons or property, by any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, or court order, excluding delivery by the mails of the United States. This defense applies only if the actor did not enter into a private residence or other building not open to the public and the entry onto the premises was reasonable and necessary for service of the legal process.
I think section 2 is what you are looking for Mike. He cannot lawful preclude firearms from the premise so the trespass charge is invalid. At least that's the way I see it.
OK, well, I think the statute is not going to work for the Seattle strongman the way he wants - but before you even get to the defense, go to the basic crime: "A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another ..."
Later - need to do some work!
|
Richard6218
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:22 pm |
|
compmanio365 wrote: As soon as I find out when/where the actual hearing that supposedly is going to take place actually happens, I'll be there with a copy of state law showing state preemption and how this is completely illegal, null and void before it ever gets signed.......
I can't believe you don't know Nickels knew that all along. He just thinks he is the Lord High Master and can just ride roughshod over state law. He thinks he can get away with it and claims he has some sort of legal precedence to back him up.
I think the solution is going to be a lawsuit brought by the NRA legal staff. So let's just wait and watch it unfold...
|
Current time is 09:06 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...   |
|
|
|
