Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Sun195, Oct 28, 2009.
Link to article is here.
Link to article here.
Press release from Second Amendment Foundation:
So what I would like to know is what would happen if someone chose not to follow the ban and then ended up having to use their CW in self-defense and killed the attacker. Would they try and take your CPL away? Would they prosecute you for disobeying the law? I don't see how they could do either one legally. Regardless, this ban won't be around for long when WA state law pre-empts any city or county from passing this kind of law. But then again... you never know.
Probably would have their CHL away, and they might attempt to prosecute.
But I'm betting that the DA in that area already knows that it will get thrown out if it ever goes to court.
Portland had a similar situation. They tried to ban concealed carry in the airport before the check point. In the end the law was over turned because Portland did not have the authority to make that law, and from what I understand; Neither does Seattle.
I was happy to see the Seattle Pink Pistols are actively involved in opposing the ban.
It sure is nice to watch my tax dollars flushed down the drain. :angry: We have state preemption. I really, really hope that when the city loses somebody powerful sues Nickels personally for all expenses involved. When the State Attorney General (and every lawyer with a 3-digit IQ) tells you that you can't do something like this and you do it anyway I think you should be personally liable for all costs associated. I won't say what I really think or you guys would have to read the word "bubblegum" about a hundred times in a row...
It looks like the City found some free legal help on this, so it shouldn't cost the them much (beyond the signage costs):
Although, in a case like this, I'm not sure if the City loses whether they will be responsible for NRA/SAF/etc.'s legal costs. I'm also unsure whether there would be other damages awarded - I doubt it; probably just an injunction or court order to cease this program.
This is the sort of case where if the plaintiff wins against the government, it can be awarded reasonable attorney fees.
If I had to bet, I'd bet on the plaintiffs. But that firm representing the City will put forward the best possible defense of the City policy, I can guarantee you that. They're good.
I don't know about Washington, but we're fortunate that Oregon's constitution has a stronger right to keep and bear than the US constitution does. There's nothing nebulous about the wording - no arguing it.
State of Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 27:
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
I would prefer Oregon's. I don't really care for that last phrase in Washington's.
Please take a moment and join our community (it's free)