Post by: Ray on June 09, 2008, 06:35:54 AM
Now if they pass such a bill then everyone in the parks becomes free game for the crooks because they know their victims will be unarmed.
http://q13.trb.com/news/kcpq-060708-gun,0,7618781.story
Nickels To Announce New Gun Ban
Folklife Festival Shooting Led To Ban
June 7, 2008
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels will announce tough new gun laws Monday that will include a ban on guns at outdoor festivals.
On May 25 two people were wounded by stray gunfire at the Folklife Festival at the Seattle Center and a third person suffered powder burns.
A 22-year old Snohomish man has been charged with second-degree assault. Prosecutors say he has a history of drug addiction and mental illness but had a permit to carry a concealed weapon - something in violation of federal and state law.
Mayor Greg Nickels criticized the state legislature, saying it won't let the city adopt a gun law stronger than state law, and won't pass a law making it illegal for someone who has been committed to a state mental institutionto get a gun permit.
Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is scheduled to join the mayor Monday for announcement of new gun regulations.
Copyright © 2008, KCPQ
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 09, 2008, 06:44:57 AM
Post by: sisu on June 09, 2008, 07:48:41 PM
Post by: saylean on June 09, 2008, 07:54:25 PM
F'in genious....lets start flooding the mayors office with emails/calls.
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/contact.htm
Post by: Ray on June 09, 2008, 08:24:56 PM
Dear Mayor Nickels,
I am writing you to inform you that I believe your new proposed gun ban on city parks is wrong. I believe it will miss the real mark in the war on crime. In addition to that I believe it will also leave no room for personal protection for people who have decided to defend themselves and their families.
The facts as a common citizen are this. The police have never amounted to anything more than a reactionary force to crime and violence of any kind. They are simply incapable of protecting each and every individual within the boundaries of any district at any given moment. Gun bans have been proven ineffective at preventing crime time and again. In England now that they have a gun ban crime rates with guns are at an all time high. Only the crooks have guns and they are fully aware they their prey is unarmed since the government has taken it upon themselves to tell the society that they are not at risk and are generally safe.
Firt of all... anyone who has the mal intent to conduct a shooting or other gross violent crime is not going to think twice about a less than enforceable gun ban. They will carry out any of their crimes any time they want. Human beings are not robotic drones capable of being controlled at any person's whim. Therefore I believe a gun ban would not be an effective or accurate response to fighting crime in Seattle City parks.
As a responsible and good citizen I have to inform you that this sort of knee jerk response to the media in a moment of passion comes across as a clever ploy to gain media attention while smoke screening the real problem. Someone from the FBI should not have issued the gentleman in this situation a permit to carry. Nevertheless... even if he did not have a permit he was obviously a crook anyway and probably should have been behind bars.
The real problems I see on everyday television are always littered with people who should never been let out to begin with. The judicial system in this state and in the United States is a true joke. The criminals play the system like a fiddle and serve little time while the bureacracies attempt to label them reformed in whatever manner they can. There are entire industries devoted to letting crooks get off easy and they are usually sponsored or otherwise recognized by the state or federal government. It's all a scam to me.
At any rate the best action a Mayor could take is to let the citizens know that they may sometimes need to defend themselves and be openly clear that sometimes police cannot be there at the exact moment they are needed the most. Don't forget how the gun bans in Washington D.C. has proven that their city is one of the most crime riddled cities in the world. If it was working they would not have citizens jumping up and down about their 2nd Amendment rights which have been revoked and which is under scrutiny by our US Supreme Court.
In the end if you are successful banning guns in your city parks I will feel less safe and not go to those places. I also do not feel that your cameras make anyone safe either. They just capture the crimes on tape.
Don't lose touch with reality and make the wrong decisions. There is a real reason why there is a 2nd Amendment and there is a real reason for concealed carry laws. It's not just so a bunch of gun nuts can feel like they are macho.
Post by: GOcougsHunter on June 09, 2008, 08:48:21 PM
A well crafted, intelligent letter would only confuse him.
You'd only get a crazier answer from Ron Sims...
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2008, 07:12:11 AM
Update
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008136296_gunfree25m.html
Seattle holds off on gun restrictions
By Sharon Pian Chan
Seattle Times staff reporter
As summer began, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said he was taking steps to prohibit guns on all city-owned property after three people were injured in a shooting at Seattle Center's Northwest Folklife festival.
But as the Center's summer festival season concludes with Bumbershoot this weekend, no prohibition has taken effect.
"It's very complex. The city owns numerous properties citywide and in some areas outside of the city," said Regina LaBelle, legal counsel for the mayor. "We are going through all of those properties and developing a legally defensible rule."
In the state Legislature, representatives and senators have asked state Attorney General Rob McKenna to issue an informal legal opinion on whether state law pre-empts Nickels' executive order. That opinion may be ready by the end of September.
McKenna's office says such nonbinding opinions have historically been given great weight by the courts.
Also, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, both based in Bellevue, have notified Nickels they intend to mount a legal challenge to the executive order.
On Memorial Day weekend, Clinton Chad Grainger, a Snohomish man with a history of drug addiction and schizophrenia, fired a gun during a fight at the music festival, wounding three other people. Grainger, who this month pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree assault, had a concealed-weapon permit.
Two weeks after the shooting, Nickels signed an executive order directing city departments to report back within 30 days with a plan on how to make city facilities — parks, Seattle Center, community centers, buildings — gun free. They have reported back, and the mayor's office is now drafting an administrative rule.
The mayor said the city eventually would post signs prohibiting guns, which has yet to happen. The city wouldn't be able to arrest people for violating the policy, but it could charge violators with trespassing. Law-enforcement officials would be exempt.
Many immediately questioned whether the city could pre-empt state law governing firearms. In Washington state, cities cannot go beyond state law restricting firearms.
Nickels believes the door for exceptions was opened by a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling case involving the city of Sequim. The court ruled that Sequim could regulate gun sales at a show held at a city-owned miniconvention center.
State Rep. Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim, is one of the legislators requesting the opinion from the attorney general.
"It's not like we're picking at Seattle, but I think we would have numerous jurisdictions having numerous different rules and it would create great confusion," he said.
In his district, Van De Wege said, the city of Montesano in Grays Harbor County tried to pass a local law restricting firearms, which was vetoed by the mayor there.
LaBelle said the city plans to hold a public hearing on the issue, but no date has been set.
"We're trying to ensure the safety of the residents of the city and visitors to the city," she said. "We're taking what we believe are common-sense steps to do that."
Post by: skynyr on August 29, 2008, 07:40:26 AM
I just read this. He acts like pro gun people issued the concealed weapons permit...when in fact it was the FBI and ATF...:yeah: That communist got an email from me a couple days ago. :stup:
F'in genious....lets start flooding the mayors office with emails/calls.
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/contact.htm
Post by: skynyr on August 29, 2008, 07:51:06 AM
Post by: Ray on August 29, 2008, 08:09:25 AM
Post by: skynyr on September 03, 2008, 10:45:53 PM
Now the guys out of jail already.
Post by: skynyr on September 03, 2008, 10:48:51 PM
He says they smell bad.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/377149_dumpsters30.html
Post by: Ray on September 03, 2008, 11:25:24 PM
Post by: skynyr on September 03, 2008, 11:29:33 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on September 03, 2008, 11:35:42 PM
Quote
Mayor Nickels is trying to get rid of dumpsters in Seattle now. Dunno Does this moron ever quit?Huh??? Bash Bash Bash
He says they smell bad.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/377149_dumpsters30.html
2 days a week my security route takes me through many of Seattle's stinkiest alleys, wondering what's behind the next dumpster....But the Cleanscape practice of bagging everything?? guess what gets riped open and scattered everywhere? The rats,herds of'em,crows and coons spread it everywhere...
I don't think his Gun Ban will come to be. To many challenges. Just a knee jerk reaction to try and look good. this jerk wants nothing more than to be famous...
Post by: rasbo on September 26, 2008, 02:36:53 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on September 27, 2008, 01:20:09 PM
Quote
they are going to spend 10 million on self cleaning dumpsters.The *censored*ters worked so well
Yeah, He wants to replace smelly dumpsters with bags. Bags that are already in use in many alleys, you can easily see where. They're the alleys where the rats and the bums have torn them open and thrown garbage everywhere.
Post by: Ray on November 10, 2008, 12:20:37 PM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/386966_guns08.html
Quote
Mayor moves forward on gun ban plan
McKenna says state law applies
By LEVI PULKKINEN
P-I REPORTER
An unequivocal "no" from the state Attorney General's Office is often enough to shoot down a city proposal.
Not so with a move by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to ban legally permitted handguns from city-owned parks and buildings, an effort that, if successful, could shatter a 47-year-old state prohibition against cities' regulation of firearms.
The Mayor's Office continues to build a case for the ban despite an Oct. 14 opinion issued by Attorney General Rob McKenna's office arguing that the city cannot pre-empt state gun law. The mayor hopes to introduce an administrative order next month.
"The cities are the ones on the front lines of this issue," said Regina LaBelle, legal counsel to the mayor. "We always have to keep in mind not just state law but also federal laws. But our bottom line is that we want to have common-sense gun laws."
Gun-control supporters have long targeted so-called "pre-emption" laws that keep gun regulation out of the hands of city lawmakers, who often are more inclined to create restrictions than their state and federal counterparts. Nickels' push represents a bright spot for gun-control advocates who've largely been stymied for more than a decade and watched this year as a string of high-profile shootings failed to elevate the issue in the national political campaigns or state races.
Nickels' move was widely criticized by supporters of gun rights, who saw it as both wrongheaded and outside the mayor's mandate. That view is shared by Rep. Kevin Van De Wege, a Sequim Democrat who asked the attorney general to review Nickels' proposed ban.
"We quickly realized that he can't do that, that it would be illegal," Van De Wege said. "Even people who don't like guns can see the point here that we can't have every municipality having different gun regulations."
The past eight years have been marked by stagnation or backward movement for gun-control advocates, said Ladd Everitt, communications director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
President Bush allowed limits on assault weapons and other firearms to expire. In response to a scathing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report, Congress severely curtailed the agency's ability to share information on guns used in crime. And, though it received mixed reviews on both sides of the gun question, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a constitutional right to individual gun ownership.
A Democratic majority in the House of Representatives offered no relief for gun-control proponents.
"Anyone who thought this Democratic Congress was going to be strong on gun issues was sadly mistaken," Everitt said. "That said, I think that Barack Obama gets this, understands the balancing act" between the views of rural and urban Americans on the issue.
Some gun owners fear what Obama and a stronger Democratic Congress might do. Gun stores across the nation report a surge in business since Tuesday's election, attributing it to buyers worried that their ability to obtain firearms might be curtailed.
The Virginia Tech massacre did prompt Congress to improve the flawed national database used to perform background checks on gun buyers. If funded, the improvement package should ensure that more states submit mental health information to the system, said Eric Nelson, an assistant attorney general representing the Department of Social and Health Services.
As the system currently stands, most states fail to identify mentally ill individuals who've been confined against their will in the federal system. As a practical matter, Nelson said, that means someone institutionalized in Oregon or another state would pass a background check in Washington.
"It certainly is the case that not every state is submitting mental health records," Nelson said. "If FedEx can track a package around the world, how is it that the state and federal authorities can't track these prohibitive records?"
Washington began submitting records to the system in 2004, Nelson said. But the state background-check system remains fragmented, with each of the state's 291 police agencies charged with conducting state background checks for concealed pistol licenses.
Arriving at the Northwest Folklife Festival on May 24, 22-year-old Clinton Chad Grainger carried both his pistol and a concealed-weapons permit issued to him despite a history of mental illness. Hours later, he shot and wounded two people during an altercation.
The accidental shooting prompted Nickels to propose a ban on all guns from city-owned parks and buildings. That effort, LaBelle said, is still under way despite the attorney general's opinion.
LaBelle said the city needs greater "clarity" on state law, either from the Legislature or through the courts. She said the Mayor's Office has found 39 other Washington cities that already have restrictions on the books, which shows the issue is far from settled.
The opinion followed the line thought to be enshrined in a 1961 law stating that local gun rules "inconsistent" with state law are "pre-empted and repealed." Expressing a view backed by the attorney general's finding, Van De Wege said state law bans local governments from regulating guns.
Speaking more broadly, Van De Wege said he doesn't see a need for tighter restrictions on guns. The decline in crime rates around the state, he said, shows additional rules aren't needed.
"My concern, and I think a lot of my constituents' concern, is that we're going to end up punishing a lot of law-abiding citizens," he said. "They feel most comfortable carrying a gun, and they want to be able to do that."
LaBelle said the city is looking at only a single change. But she said city officials deserve the authority to protect citizens.
"The mayor has asked repeatedly for the Legislature to allow local representatives to create laws they think are right for their cities," she said. "It's obvious that it's a local concern."
The Mayor's Office plans to release an administrative order later this month in line with the earlier proposal. A public hearing would then take place in early December.
Post by: saylean on November 10, 2008, 12:27:51 PM
Post by: Ray on November 10, 2008, 12:30:44 PM
Post by: croix on November 25, 2008, 09:28:14 AM
Mayor Nickels,
I am writing to express to you that your proposed gun ban on city parks is completely wrong. Clearly your intentions are noble, but your methods are misguided. The only thing such a ban will do is punish law abiding citizens who wish to protect their families and exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.
Of course, you would also be able to add an additional charge to a criminal that has already committed some heinous crime, but it makes more sense to me to make them actually bear the punishment for the original crime. Clinton Grainger was released after just 78 days served. I fail to understand how the crime which has been used as fuel for your gun ban fire can only result in 78 days of jail time. This is a problem worth spending energy on… NOT trying to violate the rights of legal gun carrying citizens.
I am asking you to please stop wasting time and taxpayer’s money on what appears to many as a shameless attempt to use the actions of few, to needlessly restrict the law abiding majority. You should listen to State Representative Kevin Van De Wage, state Attorney General Rob McKenna, the Supreme Court… and you should listen me – just your average gun owner.
Respectfully,
Rick Creger
Post by: croix on December 01, 2008, 10:08:33 AM
Dear Mr. Creger:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding a "gun free" policy for city property.
The gun regulations in our state are some of the weakest in the country. While we have severe penalties for those who commit crimes with guns, state laws do very little to prevent convicted felons, children and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. For many years the legislature has failed to pass common sense legislation that would protect our citizens by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. For example, our state allows mentally ill persons who have been involuntarily committed for fewer than 90 days to purchase and possess firearms. This year, the City of Seattle and the State Attorney General supported legislation that would have closed this mental health loophole, but the legislature failed to act on it.
The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that cities may impose conditions related to firearms use on city property. The court held that certain types of firearms regulations related to city-owned property do not violate the State's preemption statute. The United States Supreme Court recently affirmed the ability of state and local governments to prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government facilities.
I have directed city departments to adopt rules and policies related to firearms and other dangerous weapons that are permitted under the state's preemption law. These rules do not infringe on Second Amendment rights nor do they violate the state's laws and ordinances regulating firearms. While these new rules may inconvenience some gun owners who wish to bring their guns on city property, they will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city.
We are currently studying how to appropriately enforce this order, beginning with signage and other notices of the rules. No rule, policy or regulation can stop all violent acts from occurring. However, we do know that by reducing the number of guns and dangerous weapons that are brought onto city property, the less chance there will be for violence to occur.
Thank you again for contacting the City of Seattle.
Sincerely,
GREG NICKELS
Mayor of Seattle
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on December 01, 2008, 11:59:12 AM
The only thing to do is make sure that we educate as many people as possible so these types of people never get into office.
You could ask him question such as, "Name one instance in WA where your laws, that do infact contradict the Constitution no matter what some liberal judge says, would have made a difference?"
Tell him that we could name many, many instances where someone would have been able to defend themselves if they had had a gun. However, his point of view is nothing more than "irrational, leftist indoctrination built on a foundation of fear." >:(
Sadly, no matter what you tell this type of person, they will not listen. They support every evil thing imaginable based on some looney concept of tolerance, and yet when people do evil things with a gun, they blame the gun. Very strange, irrational people.
The answer is simple. Educate, educate, educate and educate some more... :twocents:
Post by: runamuk on December 01, 2008, 01:37:05 PM
Quote
While these new rules may inconvenience some gun owners who wish to bring their guns on city property, they will result in safer activities and events for all residents and visitors to our city.
Sorry Mayor it will not stop the criminals from continuing on as they please. The law abiding citizens aren't the problem. We already have laws pertaining to criminal activity so use them.
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Stalker on December 04, 2008, 09:32:03 AM
Time to get out and start making our voices heard and stop being pushed around by the vocal yet minority groups who shake in the knees at the meer mention of a gun and who are willing to give up on their rights and TAKE YOURS AWAY!!!! :bash:
Post by: jeepasaurusrex on December 04, 2008, 09:37:54 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 06, 2008, 06:23:31 AM
Should we all show up packing heat? :chuckle:
NO! At least not openly. Not this time.
There is going to be a court challenge by Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and most likely the National Rifle Association.
We don't need any goofs by our side that will muck that up in the court of public opinion before it gets into a court of law. Remember, we are the mainstream. The above-average neighbor.
This isn't a drill. It's the first round of the main event.
Post by: Stalker on December 06, 2008, 08:21:38 AM
Should pro 2A folks get there early before the antis can pack the room and make it seem like they are the majority by locking all others out??? :dunno:
Any plan on having a section where hunting WA members can congregate or show support as a large group?? :dunno:
Post by: saylean on December 14, 2008, 12:43:36 PM
WASHINGTON: Hearing to be Held on Monday, December 15 Regarding Seattle Mayor's Illegal Anti-Gun Tirade! As we have reported, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels--a member of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun gang, Mayors Against Illegal Guns--is taking a misguided approach to curbing crime in his city by violating state law. A public hearing will be held on Monday, December 15 to discuss the issue. The hearing will be held at 5:30 p.m. in the Bertha Knight Landes Room in the Seattle City Hall located at 600 4th Avenue in Seattle. Mayor Nickels is seeking the prohibition of firearms at Seattle Center, parks, community centers, and city-owned buildings. This ban, which includes Right-to-Carry permit holders, does not require review by the City Council and directs that a plan be drawn-up in 30 days to establish the prohibition. Mayor Nickels' crusade is a clear violation of Washington State's preemption statutes that dictate that only the State Legislature can enact laws pertaining to firearms. Because of preemption, the city has no arrest power or authority to fine people under Mayor Nickel's outlandish order. The city may, however, attempt to charge any violators with trespassing. It is important that NRA members, Right-to-Carry permit holders, firearm owners, and anyone interested in the rule of law to respectfully make their voice heard against this Draconian attack on our Second Amendment freedoms. Please attend Monday's hearing to voice and show your opposition to this illegal and unwarranted attack on our Second Amendment freedoms. If you are unable to attend, please contact Mayor Nickels to respectfully voice your opposition. The Mayor can be reached by phone at (206) 684-4000 or via email by clicking here
Post by: Hermit on December 14, 2008, 04:49:48 PM
Post by: Ray on December 14, 2008, 04:59:18 PM
Come on Ray......... Hempfest?
Yes. I believe that marijuana is peddled by gang members in the city. Gang members are the perpetuators of crime. Thus anything that openly allows and advocates illegal drug use but does not allow the sale then I believe that it is supporting gang violence and is undermining the laws as well is contradictory and confuses the populace into believing it is not a big deal. Thus hempfest should probably be banned before any concealed carry guns.
Post by: Diehard0123 on December 16, 2008, 07:48:29 AM
Post by: Stalker on December 16, 2008, 09:52:09 AM
Post by: Ray on December 16, 2008, 10:21:48 AM
Post by: saylean on December 16, 2008, 10:22:42 AM
Many in attendance were openly packing.
Post by: Stalker on December 16, 2008, 12:59:06 PM
Thanks guys for the info.
Post by: saylean on December 16, 2008, 01:03:47 PM
Post by: Ray on December 16, 2008, 01:54:21 PM
Change of rules or not. I'll still pack anywhere I want in seattle. If confronted i will just hire a good attorney.
Post by: sisu on December 17, 2008, 10:15:40 AM
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org
NICKELS HIDES WHILE GUN OWNERS OPPOSE SEATTLE GUN BAN SCHEME
For Immediate Release: 12/16/2008
BELLEVUE, WA – When a cross-section of firearms owners gathered at Seattle City Hall Monday night to oppose Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’ gun ban scheme, the mayor was nowhere in sight to defend his plan, and the Second Amendment Foundation wonders why.
“If ever an audience reflected the kind of diversity that elitists like Greg Nickels normally rave about, Monday night’s turnout of gun owners certainly measured up,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “There were gays, straights, men and women, including one self-described feminist Democrat party activist. I was proud of the broad spectrum represented by the firearms community.
“Under any other circumstances,” he continued, “Mayor Nickels and other Seattle establishment insiders would be drawn to such a group like moths to a flame. But these were law-abiding gun owners, outraged over the mayor’s arrogant plan to ignore state statute and advice from the state attorney general. In short, it was an audience of citizens that Nickels and his ilk claim to represent, saying that he doesn’t. The mayor wanted no part of such a public embarrassment.
“Mayor Nickels started this controversy by proposing the gun ban,” Gottlieb observed, “yet he lacked the intestinal fortitude to defend his scheme before the very people who would suffer. Elitists like Nickels are always quick to sneer about ‘cowardly gun owners,’ but when he had the chance to face them, he vanished.
“Many department heads were there to take the heat,” Gottlieb added, “except for Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. It is not clear whether he skipped the meeting because he doesn’t care for armed citizens, or because he was still out looking for his stolen pistol, which is more of a threat to public safety than anybody who testified at Monday night’s hearing.
“This proposed gun ban is nonsense,” he concluded. “It will not prevent a single crime. It will only leave citizens more vulnerable. As usual, Mayor Nickels chooses symbolism over safety, and he is clearly afraid to face the people whose rights he plans to abrogate.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Post by: Ray on December 17, 2008, 10:21:54 AM
Post by: CP on December 17, 2008, 10:30:26 AM
http://www.gregnickels.com/
Post by: 300winmag on December 17, 2008, 08:49:47 PM
Post by: Triplebrow on December 18, 2008, 11:18:17 AM
Meanwhile he thinks he deserves a pay raise while much public money is feeling the crunch during the recession. What a classy guy. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008493973_salaries11m.html
Change of rules or not. I'll still pack anywhere I want in seattle. If confronted i will just hire a good attorney.
That's the same view the people selling marijuana have...... you know the ones you just referenced in your above post about hempfest, and gangs. They know it's illegal but they just keep doing it.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint?
Post by: Triplebrow on December 18, 2008, 11:21:39 AM
Come on Ray......... Hempfest?
Yes. I believe that marijuana is peddled by gang members in the city. Gang members are the perpetuators of crime. Thus anything that openly allows and advocates illegal drug use but does not allow the sale then I believe that it is supporting gang violence and is undermining the laws as well is contradictory and confuses the populace into believing it is not a big deal. Thus hempfest should probably be banned before any concealed carry guns.
Sorry I said selling, you said "peddled by gang members".
Are you confusing the populace into believing it is not a big deal by saying you will continue to carry a weapon regardless as to whether or not it is against the law?
Post by: rougheye on December 18, 2008, 11:24:41 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 18, 2008, 11:28:06 AM
Post by: Triplebrow on December 18, 2008, 11:29:16 AM
Ray acknowledged that by saying he doesn't care, he will just carry anywhere he want's and if confronted he will just hire a good attorney.
Post by: croix on December 18, 2008, 11:32:17 AM
What's the difference from a legal standpoint?
From a legal standpoint - no difference. From a moral standpoint, I think there is a pretty big difference.
Post by: rougheye on December 18, 2008, 11:32:40 AM
Post by: Thenewguy on December 18, 2008, 11:33:39 AM
Meanwhile he thinks he deserves a pay raise while much public money is feeling the crunch during the recession. What a classy guy. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008493973_salaries11m.html
Change of rules or not. I'll still pack anywhere I want in seattle. If confronted i will just hire a good attorney.
That's the same view the people selling marijuana have...... you know the ones you just referenced in your above post about hempfest, and gangs. They know it's illegal but they just keep doing it.
What's the difference from a legal standpoint?
For starters, isn't this law illegal? whereas selling weed has always been illegal
Post by: Ray on December 18, 2008, 12:06:14 PM
If it is banned by Nichols, than it is against the law to carry where ever he bans it.
Ray acknowledged that by saying he doesn't care, he will just carry anywhere he want's and if confronted he will just hire a good attorney.
All it takes is one person to contest a constitutionally incorrect law. Which this is... It is completely contradictory of our state constitution. Therefore it is more than likely illegal to impose such a regulation in the city. This is how Heller won D.C.
If Nickels wants to regulate firearms then he will have to work with State legislators instead of trying his little game here at the local level. That is the distinction which is important. So actually what Nickels has proposed is illegal... Even the state Attorney General publicly said it was not correct for Nickels to do this...