- Messages
- 210
- Reactions
- 361
It's weird. You wouldn't think a loaded gun would fire a bullet if your finger is on the trigger. Must be a manufacturer defect.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's weird. You wouldn't think a loaded gun would fire a bullet if your finger is on the trigger. Must be a manufacturer defect.
First, I don't owe a duty to "provide support" for a hypothetical Internet argument with a stranger. The burden's on you, the proponent of your challenge, to make out a valid case.
Second, I have provided support by citing actual Washington Supreme Court precedent. What you've cited is a Seattle Times article that misstates what actually happened. It equates the supreme court's decision not to review the lower court as "upholding" the lower court, which is not correct. In fact, I remember emailing this reporter back when this story came out to educate her that the supreme court's decision not to review something is not legally considered as "upholding" the previous decision. A decision not to review is a decision not to review, that's it. The lower court decision stands, but a decision not to review is not a stamp of approval on the lower court decision. That would not happen unless the supreme court accepted review and then published an opinion agreeing with the lower court's reasoning. It's no surprise, then, that the KUOW article also erroneously refers to the supreme court's decision not to review the lower court as "upholding" that decision.
The case the article references is Chan v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn. App. 549 (2011). Take a look at the emphasis the court puts on the fact that Seattle tried to regulate firearms in a space "open to the general public." I think the City/Zoo would probably counter by saying that the Zoo is not open to the general public. Only those with a ticket may enter. This is distinctly different from simply being able to walk into a public city park or the public library.
Still, the fact that Seattle pays Woodland an operational payment is an interesting distinction from the traditional relationship between a municipality and a stadium. I would read the contract in full, though, to make sure that the city doesn't later make a profit in some other way, like through a percentage share of total revenue/ticket sales or something else. That contract is really long and I am definitely not reading all of it.
These situations are the only reason I own an LCP.
Thank you Pat!Mel
We have the year pass to the woodland zoon i pocket carry my Smith 642 everywhere I go including the zoo.
No metal detectors.
Pay your admisson and go enjoy yourself.