Man will bring gun to Southwest Community Center tomorrow in protest

[Gunner3456]

If it's explicitly legal to carry in that public place whether by State law or 2A, then the public employee asking him to leave didn't have standing to do that. He wouldn't be trespassing because it's not that employee's property and the attorney isn't really breaking a law.

It might be that the employee broke the law by asking him to leave, and I believe that's what he's suing to prove.

I just can't understand why he's not filing in District Court for 2A, and also filing in State court for state law. Shotguns work pretty well some times. Hit one, miss one.

He seems determined to make it 2A which is more of a long shot imho.

 

[therifleman]

As lawyer this man should have enough sense to protest in court where he has been trained, not in streets where he is lost. His actions will bring down the wrath of the law on himself and those of us who use firearms as a daily way of life. I hope he wakes up and sees what harm he is about to do in a time of strife for all law enforcement agencies due to the grief for 4 fallen police officers whos lives were taken by another man who couldnt deal with the laws he is required to follow. The reason for making it illegal to have firearms in a park is to help keep our children safe from the gun fire that is sure to come when armed people try to help out law officers by shooting at others doing the same thing. Imagine how safe we all would be in a cross fire at the local park when a bunch of gang members start fireing at the citizens enjoying a day out with the kids!

 

[CharlesAFerg]

It seems as if when somebody protests something having to do with other political issues, which have a basis on one particular side of the political spectrum, they are ignored. Even if what they are doing is illegal, their point is made. Weapons-rights activists have been playing defensive for far too long, because WE have always been the ones to respect the law, while these guerrilla tactics have beaten our weapons rights to nothing.

It's time for a tactic change, to match their tactics. They may seem foolish, but public opinion is an even bigger ally these days, and sometimes these outlandish tactics are necessary, and help one's cause in the process.

Sorry to be vague, but it's what I see happening.

The only problem with the above statement, is who has the money to pay for a fight like that? It is a fight that shouldn't have to be fought by a common man. How much would that cost? Where is the NRA?

 

[Gunner3456]

As lawyer this man should have enough sense to protest in court where he has been trained, not in streets where he is lost. His actions will bring down the wrath of the law on himself and those of us who use firearms as a daily way of life. I hope he wakes up and sees what harm he is about to do in a time of strife for all law enforcement agencies due to the grief for 4 fallen police officers whos lives were taken by another man who couldnt deal with the laws he is required to follow. The reason for making it illegal to have firearms in a park is to help keep our children safe from the gun fire that is sure to come when armed people try to help out law officers by shooting at others doing the same thing. Imagine how safe we all would be in a cross fire at the local park when a bunch of gang members start fireing at the citizens enjoying a day out with the kids!

I get it. The gang members would obey the law and there would be no guns there? Are you nuts?

If gang members start shooting up a local park, you'd better hope there are armed citizens there to stop them.

Are you saying that if gang members "start firing at the citizens enjoying a day out with the kids" you want no one there to stop them? The police won't get there fast enough to stop them.

You already admitted that the man who took out the 4 officers "couldn't deal with the laws he is required to follow." Criminals by definition don't obey laws, and he was a bad criminal.

I only wish there had been a couple of armed citizens there, sitting off to the side, to try to stop the BG who took out the 4 officers. The rest of the police sure couldn't get there fast enough to do anything.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

 

[Trlsmn]

This case is one in million. I doubt he'll ever end up suing.

But why did he leave when asked to? Is that how brave patriots behave? Make a big statement in the press, how you are going to show up and exercise your rights, threaten a big lawsuit to take down the liberal establishment? Then some senior citizen says please leave, and you do? And this guy is a hero? Heck, he didn't even have the guts to inconvenience himself by getting kicked out? Let alone arrested to set up a real legal showdown on the issue?

He's a pansy. Even California college students have more guts. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/20/california.tuition.protests/

I'm unimpressed.

I'm sure he's not as big a rebel as a guy that keeps conservative newspaper stands off college campuses but hey at least he is doing something to help keep our rights as apposed to helping take them away!

 

[Joe Link]

Original article here: <broken link removed>

SEATTLE -- The Kent man who took the city of Seattle and its mayor to court over the city's gun ban has upped the ante.

Robert C. Warden filed a motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to stop enforcing the ban until a final decision is made in his civil suit.

Last month Warden <broken link removed> against the Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and the city itself in U.S. District Court, alleging the city's gun ban defies his constitutional right to bear arms.

The complaint cited an executive order Nickels issued in June, directing all departments to review then-present rules "to determine the extent to which departments could prohibit firearms on city property."

Nickels last month banned guns on city facilities where children are likely to frequent. The places on the ban list include parks, playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, swimming beaches, pools, water play areas, skate parks and golf courses.

"The purported interested, to protect children from gun violence, has no substance and no objective facts behind it," Warden writes in his motion.

Warden mentions a study cited by the defendants in support of the gun ban. The study by the University of Pennsylvania found "people with a gun were 4.5 more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing guns," the motion said.

However, Warden argues "their sample of persons shot by a gun while carrying a gun was composed mostly of drug dealers, others with criminal records, cab drivers, and women being stalked ... Is anyone enlightened by the stunningly obvious claim that armed drug dealers are more likely to be shot by guns than your average person?"

Warden, 44, protested the city's new gun ban by walking into the Southwest Community Center in West Seattle while carrying his gun at high noon on a Saturday last month.

He had forewarned parks officials of his intent and, as a result, was asked to leave immediately after entering the center. Warden complied.

In requesting the injunction, Warden wrote, "If Plaintiff went to the Southwest Community Center with his pistol tomorrow, there is no reason to suspect that the rule would be enforced."

Warden added that such deprivation of constitutional rights is "inherently irreparable" since "damages cannot be compensable in money."

Warden's complaint defines the gun ban as a "substantial and comprehensive infringement of Second Amendment rights" -- an opinion the state Attorney General Rob McKenna shares, according to Warden. In a formal written opinion, McKenna said cities in Washington state do not have the power to regulate the possession of firearms on or in city property generally open to the public.

The previously filed complaint seeks an order permanently prohibiting the city and Nickels from enforcing any law that "in any way regulates any aspect of firearms unless specifically authorized by Washington Sate statutory law.

Warden, an attorney licensed to practice in Washington, said the incident gives him legal standing to file a lawsuit over the ban, which he believes is illegal.

"They know full well it's illegal, but they went ahead and did it anyway," Warden said during an earlier interview, adding that he is not a member of the National Rifle Association.

Warden questioned the mayor's motives in announcing the ban.

"How is it for public safety?" he said. "Are you promoting public safety if you forbid responsible, trained, intelligent people who know how to shoot a firearm from possessing one?"

 

[Sete]

It is good to see this moving forward, excellent for an individual to take action on his own behalf ...

Thanks for posting the update!

 

[pistolero57]

Check this website: http://opencarry.com/ I have looked into joining these people and exercising our Washington open carry right in Vancouver. But, the people in it have already licked their master's boot by getting a concealed carry permit (which is nothing less than an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms and de facto gun owner registration to boot.) So, if anybody who hasn't gotten a concealed carry permit would like to meet and openly carry pistols in holsters, this might be a place to meet up. Owning and carrying a pistol out in the open is not a crime in Washington.

 

[pistolero57]

As lawyer this man should have enough sense to protest in court where he has been trained, not in streets where he is lost. His actions will bring down the wrath of the law on himself and those of us who use firearms as a daily way of life. I hope he wakes up and sees what harm he is about to do in a time of strife for all law enforcement agencies due to the grief for 4 fallen police officers whos lives were taken by another man who couldnt deal with the laws he is required to follow. The reason for making it illegal to have firearms in a park is to help keep our children safe from the gun fire that is sure to come when armed people try to help out law officers by shooting at others doing the same thing. Imagine how safe we all would be in a cross fire at the local park when a bunch of gang members start fireing at the citizens enjoying a day out with the kids!

More mindless drivel. The whole "we're safer without guns" and "think of the children" argument is worn out. It's time to act up. It's time to do what we are legally entitled to do. Break no laws and exercise our rights! If people are uncomfortable with letting their children play in a park where people openly carry pistols, then those same people need to tell their children not to play in the park. The park is public property and people who openly carry pistols have every bit as much right to use it as the children of the people who don't like guns. Nothing will ever get better until non-violent protest (if you can even call exercising one's legal rights a protest) occurs. Nothing. No amount of legal finagling will do it. The courts are not honest. The cops are not honest. Mayor Nickels obviously isn't honest. This has to become a big-enough issue that it goes to court and Nickels gets his butt kicked legally.

 

[pistolero57]

It seems as if when somebody protests something having to do with other political issues, which have a basis on one particular side of the political spectrum, they are ignored. Even if what they are doing is illegal, their point is made. Weapons-rights activists have been playing defensive for far too long, because WE have always been the ones to respect the law, while these guerrilla tactics have beaten our weapons rights to nothing.

It's time for a tactic change, to match their tactics. They may seem foolish, but public opinion is an even bigger ally these days, and sometimes these outlandish tactics are necessary, and help one's cause in the process.

Sorry to be vague, but it's what I see happening.

The only problem with the above statement, is who has the money to pay for a fight like that? It is a fight that shouldn't have to be fought by a common man. How much would that cost? Where is the NRA?

The NRA, Gun Owners of America, and I believe theree other gun rights organizations have already jumped on this. It's going to court and the best lawyers these ogs cann afford are going to kick Mayor Nickels' butt. It's long overdue.

 

[pistolero57]

There are several points made here. None of them are valid and they don't matter. If anybody would like to make them matter then change the laws effecting when, where, and why a person can carry. The law says that nobody can legislate where guns are legal or illegal except for the state legislature. That is very plain english that anyone reading the law should be able to understand. And all this common sence aproach is bunk. Common sence says "read the stinkin law and obey!" End of story.

If we can change the behavior of our neighbors based on what we think might happen, might get caught in a crossfire along with all the other "might happens" out there we're gonna have a serious problem. This is a very short sighted way of doing things. They teach better manners to 5 year olds. It's called keep your hands to yourself!

Naive! Case law is where these matters are decided. The statutes are only a beginning. There is no statute on the books in Washington prohibiting the open carry of a loaded pistol (in its holster.) I have looked high and low for it. It doesn't exist. Furthermore, Washington laws preempts all county, city, and town laws. That means any law passed by a lower government entity that's contrary to Washington state law is null and void. But, to prove the point, it has to be taken to court. Thousands of dollars have to be spent, and a legal precedent (case law) has to be established. Only after all of that happens will cities and towns around the state "get the message loud and clear." That's how the real world works.