| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Workman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 726 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 08:41 pm |
|
SAF, NRA sue Seattle Mayor over gun ban
Here it is, the long-awaited legal action to stop Mayor Greg Nickels' gun ban in city parks.
Our own Gray Peterson is one of the individual plaintiffs.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d28-SAF-NRA-file-lawsuit-to-overturn-Seattle-parks-gun-ban
Or try this:
http://tinyurl.com/ykgltve
|
Boo Boo
Banned
| Joined: | Sun Jun 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 615 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 09:03 pm |
|
http://www.king5.com/news/local/FIRST-ON-KING5com-Gun-advocates-take-aim-at-city-hall-66986292.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/67002177.html
|
Dave Workman
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 726 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:12 pm |
|
Now, the best advice I can give for all of you folks who either attended, or missed, Jim's soire down in Normandy Park the other evening is to FOLLOW HIS COUNSEL on any matters relating to what may or may not be a good idea.
The lawsuit is filed. Let the legal action run its course.
DEROS has been wisely guiding events from the OCDO perspective, at least in South King County.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:19 pm |
|
Dave Workman wrote: Now, the best advice I can give for all of you folks who either attended, or missed, Jim's soire down in Normandy Park the other evening is to FOLLOW HIS COUNSEL on any matters relating to what may or may not be a good idea.
The lawsuit is filed. Let the legal action run its course.
DEROS has been wisely guiding events from the OCDO perspective, at least in South King County.
Also, despite how much we'd all like to see Nickels be sued in a private capacity, as he is definitely the motivating factor behind this illegal action, it's not in the best interest for us or the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners.
Go about your business as normal, but don't go out of your way to get arrested or otherwise cause trouble in Seattle. If you have business there and would normally OC, I can't in good faith say "you shouldn't because it would cause problems," but at this time I don't think showing up in a group, with t-shirts, et cetera will do anything to help our cause. The best you can do is donate and/or volunteer to be Dave's bitch... er, to help at the SAF  .
And if you called them, try not to stutter like I did when they pick up the phone before it rings  . I was a bit surprised at the fast, responsive service, despite what must be a very very crazy day over there.
|
steble01
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 31st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 54 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 10:27 pm |
|
|
fetch
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Spokane, Wa. |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 12:31 am |
|
Nickels is a lame duck. Give him a going away party (tar an' feathers would be ok). Rather then going through a law suit task your new mayor with repealing the ordnance. That would send a message. Just my two cents worth.
|
DEROS72
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 01:26 am |
|
KOMO just ran the story saying a Seattle law firm has agreed to defend the city at no cost.They always use the excuse for the children.If they get away with this then they will say well there are childrn in stores ,resturants,the city itself.These antis use that to spread this slowly through out, well everywhere.
Personally I have every confidence however in SAF and what they are doing .Also Carrying a side arm for personal protection is a basic right I don't feel we need anyones permission to exersise.BUt we will be patient ! I don't see how the antis can when this when up against state law. So I will wait!
|
DEROS72
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:06 am |
|
Also another side note.....
My daughter and guns...
Also one more little side not on this concept they use "it's for the children"
When Last year my oldest daughter found out she was pregnant with her first child I asked her is there anything special she wanted for the baby.She said Dad its time I learn to protect myself and my child.I want a handgun for the house.I got her a Bersa .380 and over the last year we have been to the range to the point where she is now quite proficient with it.Now she is not just mydaughter but a new mother with the means and will to protect her new son and her family.Her confidence in that ability has grown a thousand fold with her proficiency.
She is also a bank manager that works late and ends up closing by herself.So now she is in the process of getting her concealed carry.
It isn't the first time she has been around weapons.I taught all 3 of my daughters at around 12 with the mini 14 I had at the time.They couldn't hit much in those days but they sure had a blast and from an early age understood firearms safety and responsibility.Cost me a bundle in .223 ammo back then too.
These days I have every confidence in my little girls ability to protect my new grandson and herself.How dare they say it's for the children?.How dare they say my daughter can't protect her little son when they go to the play ground?. I think not!Attached Image (viewed 361 times):
|
Lemmiwinks
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:54 am |
|
The City Attorney has secured the services of the Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe. In order to avoid expense to the City, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe has agreed to defend the policy on a pro bono basis.
Time to add Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to the "Do Not Patronize" list?
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:59 am by Lemmiwinks
|
Boo Boo
Banned
| Joined: | Sun Jun 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 615 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:15 am |
|
| thats a big firm, i wonder what they get out of it
|
DonovanM
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:20 am |
|
Boo Boo wrote: thats a big firm, i wonder what they get out of it
Publicity.
Not to mention huge props from 8% of the population of the greater Seattle area 
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:22 am by DonovanM
|
fetch
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Spokane, Wa. |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:16 am |
|
I still think you all got side tracked, its costing the city, your money. Nickles could not care one bit. Maybe you could get him for being a jerk, but your next mayor should be the target. Have him repeal the ordinance.
|
Boo Boo
Banned
| Joined: | Sun Jun 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 615 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:19 am |
|
| well id stop all state funds to the city but gregwhore probably give him a blank check
|
George Washington
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 05:33 am |
|
Mr. Workman, can you please post a scanned copy of the lawsuit in Adobe PDF format at the SAF web site? I would like to post a link to the PDF from my web site.
All I can find on the SAF web site is a news release.
Thanks,
George
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 06:01 am |
|
George Washington wrote: Mr. Workman, can you please post a scanned copy of the lawsuit in Adobe PDF format at the SAF web site? I would like to post a link to the PDF from my web site.
All I can find on the SAF web site is a news release.
Thanks,
George
It's up here:
http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalaction#seattle-parks-lawsuit
|
5jeffro7
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:26 am |
|
or, more specifically, here:
http://saf.org/legal.action/seattle.parks.lawsuit/seattle_parks_complaint_09.pdf
|
George Washington
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:55 am |
|
Thank you for posting a link to the complaint -- I read it in its entirety and see a great big gaping hole in the complaint that I think deserves to remedied with an amended complaint.
The relief that is sought relates specifically to Parks, but the scope of the problem is not limited to Parks. Right here you can see that the Seattle Public Library has a "gun ban", which is not covered in the complaint: http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/96/34/
If the court grants the plaintiffs the remedies that are requested, they will not apply to the Seattle Public Library, as the relief sought is so narrow, that it ONLY covers the Parks. Furthermore, the remedy that is sought orders signs to be removed, but the Seattle Public Library doesn't issues its notices through signs, it issues them through brochures.
So, even if Seattle loses this case, they will be free to continue enforcing their "gun bans" at places other than Parks. It is possible that the city would voluntarily agree to toss out their gun ban in the library after losing the case, but what is SAF going to do if the city doesn't stop enforcing the "gun ban" in the library?
It seems to me that it would be much less expensive to file an amended complaint that seeks broader relief that puts an end to the entire "gun ban" scheme once and for all, rather than to fight it piece meal, one city department at a time.
|
Gray Peterson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:12 am |
|
George Washington wrote: Thank you for posting a link to the complaint -- I read it in its entirety and see a great big gaping hole in the complaint that I think deserves to remedied with an amended complaint.
The relief that is sought relates specifically to Parks, but the scope of the problem is not limited to Parks. Right here you can see that the Seattle Public Library has a "gun ban", which is not covered in the complaint: http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/96/34/
If the court grants the plaintiffs the remedies that are requested, they will not apply to the Seattle Public Library, as the relief sought is so narrow, that it ONLY covers the Parks. Furthermore, the remedy that is sought orders signs to be removed, but the Seattle Public Library doesn't issues its notices through signs, it issues them through brochures.
So, even if Seattle loses this case, they will be free to continue enforcing their "gun bans" at places other than Parks. It is possible that the city would voluntarily agree to toss out their gun ban in the library after losing the case, but what is SAF going to do if the city doesn't stop enforcing the "gun ban" in the library?
It seems to me that it would be much less expensive to file an amended complaint that seeks broader relief that puts an end to the entire "gun ban" scheme once and for all, rather than to fight it piece meal, one city department at a time.
Don't really need to. If the court determines that Seattle is in violation of state law in regards to parks, and the appeal holds up, it'll be binding case law which will apply equally to Seattle Public Library, since they are a city agency too just like the Parks Department. It should not need to be re-litigated.
|
George Washington
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:32 am |
|
It should not need to be re-litigated.
The key word is "should". I think you are giving administrators in Seattle too much credit for being responsible caretakers of public resources. If you are an irresponsible city administrator and are getting free legal services, you might just decide to force SAF to waste their money in a second go-around.Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:34 am by George Washington
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:56 am |
|
George Washington wrote: It should not need to be re-litigated.
The key word is "should". I think you are giving administrators in Seattle too much credit for being responsible caretakers of public resources. If you are an irresponsible city administrator and are getting free legal services, you might just decide to force SAF to waste their money in a second go-around.
And again, and again, as we've seen with D.C.
|
Current time is 06:21 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
