Judge: Seattle parks gun ban is constitutional

[n2doc]

By CASEY MCNERTHNEY
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

A federal judge has ruled Seattle's ban on carrying firearms in city parks and community centers is constitutional.

Plaintiff Robert Warden, of Kent, sued the city and Mayor Greg Nickels, challenging the constitutionality of the rule created by the Seattle Parks Department that makes it illegal to carry concealed firearms or display firearms at certain parks facilities where "children and youth are likely to be present and . . . appropriate signage has been posted to communicate to the public that firearms are not permitted at the facility."

The park rule was created after former Nickels issued an executive order on June 6, 2008, directing city departments to create rules and policies to "prohibit the possession of dangerous weapons, including firearms, on city property."

Ont Nov. 14 -- a day after Warden e-mailed reporters and city staff members saying he intended to carry a handgun into the Southwest Community Center -- he did so with his Glock-27 .40-caliber sub-compact pistol.

Parks Department employee Lisa Harrison asked him to leave, and he did.

"I'm not here as a Second Amendment activist," Warden said that day. "I'm here as a citizen who believes in the rule of law."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416554_guns12.html

[X_Digger]

1. Another case hastily decided before McDonald comes out..

In her order dated Thursday, U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman granted a motion to dismiss the suit in full, writing that Warden's "Second Amendment claim fails for the simple reason that the Second Amendment does not apply to the City of Seattle under current 9th Circuit law."

Does anyone have a link to the text for the pleadings and ruling? What I find interesting is that this judge ruled on the second amendment, but the previous judge ruled on the pre-emption law. Did Warden's counsel change their arguments?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

34. poor poor damntexan..

"giving the gunnuts what they want"

Here, let me correct that for you-

"giving the gunnuts people what they want"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx

[Euromutt]

65. Question of federal versus state law

I'm guessing Warden filed suit in both King County Superior Court, to decide on the question under state law, and the United States Court for the Western District of Washington, to decide on the question under federal law. The federal district court's ruling in no way invalidates the ruling of the King County Superior Court; the Seattle Parks & Rec gun ban is still illegal, but only under Washington state law.

I can't fault the judge, really; she stuck to established jurisprudence. And ultimately, it makes no difference: it doesn't resurrect the Seattle ban, which remains illegal under Washington state law (as it was before it was even decreed); and the ruling doesn't change the status quo regarding federal law, given that it was based on 9th Circuit jurisprudence, which will most likely be overturned by the SCOTUS' ruling in MacDonald anyway.

Basically, this ruling is barely newsworthy.

[onehandle]

2. What a liar.

"I'm not here as a Second Amendment activist," Warden said that day. "I'm here as a citizen who believes in the rule of law."



Keep it up, gun 'activists.' Please start carrying your guns into grocery stores and daycare centers from coast to coast. The backlash cometh.

Please?

[hlthe2b]

8. I try to be fair about this issue... but a question continues...

Why is it that second amendment activists can not fathom the general public being concerned or frightened at the sight of a gun--even partially concealed on a person who is clearly not a police officer--in public places like a school, a shopping mall, a restaurant or park...? It seems to me that there would be some recognition--given so many high profile mass killings-- that this would upset people who can not possibly know the person's intent. Yet, that does not seem to be an issue that is acknowledged as one gun adherents need to address in some way? :shrug:

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. I agree. This is a very good question.

[shadowrider]

14. Why isn't the public concerned about

a police officer publicly carrying? Because he's mentally stable? Hint: there are plenty of stories/articles of police officers, the vast, vast majority of which are good guys, going off the deep end.

And if they carry openly when on duty, why do you have a problem with them open carrying when off duty (and you're unaware they're a cop?)

[hlthe2b]

17. Why do you not acknowledge it is an issue that NRA and others

should address? The answer is not to tell the public to "just get over it" Pointing to red herrings like an unstable police officer is hardly the way to address it. Do they exist? Of course. But, how many incidents has the public had to deal with, in terms of an armed police officer going "postal" on the public? Get real.

How do you reassure the public so that they don't freak at the thought of people (both trustworthy and perhaps not) having concealed OR open carry weapons in a shopping mall so that mall owners don't make the purely economic decision to outlaw them on premises? I don't know. But, I don't think you do so by taking stances that do nothing in terms of reassuring the public. When you fight any system of screening and registering gun owners, this is the consequence. The public becomes concerned, even as they know that no system will be perfect in terms of ensuring criminals don't have guns. The police departments screening of applicants and monitoring of bad apples is not perfect--but at least it is in place. The attitude of gun advocates seems to be that the oneness must be on the public to "just get over it." Well, it isn't that simple.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. 40 states have shall-issue concealed carry, and it isn't a problem

I have been carrying concealed for about four years now, and have yet to meet a person with X-ray Superman type eyes and get freaked out. Concealed means CONCEALED.

The reason that I carry in a shopping mall is that I have to walk through their parking lot before and after I am in the mall.

[hlthe2b]

38. And, what do you do when you encounter a business, mall,

school, park, etc. that does not allow guns?

[GreenStormCloud]

43. In Texas? They hardly exist. However, for those rare places...

Texas has a specific signage law. To make carrying a gun on the place a felony, the sign must me EXACT requirements. Otherwise the sign doesn't really mean much. The section of Texas law is 30.06.

If they simply have a gunbusters sign, or "No Guns Allowed", then all they can do is ask me to leave if they find out that I am armed. However, concealed means CONCEALED, not gun playing peek-a-boo. If the armed person refuses to leave, then it is trespassing.

So if I see a 30.06 sign, I obey it. Otherwise, I ignore the signs. The movie theatre has one, I ignore it, nothing has happened.

[Callisto32]

71. I don't carry there, becuase it is the right of the property owner to ban whateverthehell they want.

[shadowrider]

50. To be clear

I was responding to someone else simply asking why legal CCW couldn't open carry. You and I agree, I just think you mis-read my post.

[Callisto32]

70. I think you mean "onus." And, yes, it is.

The same way bigots need to get over blacks and gays being around.

Civil rights, they're all the same.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

19. Police have been trained to react to possible problems better than

the average person and are sworn to uphold the law and yes I know they are human.

[PavePusher]

58. Since I only need to provide immediate defense of self, family and property...

I need far less training than the average patrol officer.

Why don't you harp on the training we should have to use the rest of our Civil Rights? Are you merely a single-issue individual?

[jeepnstein]

62. You might not care for the reality...

of what police training is all about as far as firearms go. Hint. It's all about the officer saving his own skin. Officer safety all the way. The only exception I can really think of is active shooter training where the goal is to confront the shooter and stop the aggression.

If you expect a police officer to go out of his or her way to save your life you are asking a bit much. Some will do it, willingly and with no regard for themselves, but they'd do it even if they weren't getting paid because that's the way some people roll. You have to pay one an awful lot of money to get them to be willing to expose themselves to extra risk.

[SteveM]

75. Police are charged with arresting and apprehending, among other things...

the average citizen is not; they are concerned with self-defense, which can include the defense of others, but not as often. In other words, the scope of police work is much broader and requires more training for foot-pursuit, identifying suspects, etc. I agree that anyone who carries concealed (or openly) should have as much training as possible in the safe use of a firearm. In many states, there is some basic training. But it is hard to define the degree of training, lest the requirement become subterfuge to severely restrict the number of people who seek to carry.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Thing is, THEY may know they are not a threat

but they are the ONLY one there who knows it.

It kind of simplifies things to know that if you see a gun you need to RUN. Not wait around until he may or may not start shooting. More simply, if only criminals have guns, when you see one you KNOW it's a criminal.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. You will know it's a criminal and be powerless to do anything about it. That's smart.

:eyes:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. Nothings stopping you from running when you see a gun now.

So if you see a gun out in public tomorrow... go haead and just RUN. :shrug:

[Callisto32]

72. Marijuana is illegal, so when you see someone with it you KNOW that is a criminal.

That is wrong too.

Making an ITEM rather than an ACTION criminal is absurd. Wanting to harm someone when s/he has not harmed anybody is just plain sick.

[Glassunion]

33. I have a question for you before I can give a try at answering your questions...

In your opinion, who would be considered "safe" to carry firearms? I.E. Law Enforcement Offices (All branches), Security Guards, Military, Private Investigators, etc... Also as far as law enforcement is concerned, are they OK to carry off duty and out of uniform?

Thanks

[hlthe2b]

40. I dont represent or pretend to represent the views of the general public

Perhaps that question should be asked in polling?

[Glassunion]

45. I get that...

I was trying to address your concerns personally. I never claim to speak for anyone else as well.

[hlthe2b]

49. As I said, I am not the issue, but I do believe that many people

are alarmed when they see someone with a gun who is not in police (or similar) uniform. The very fact that one can never know a stranger's intentions makes this an issue and one that I can understand businesses feeling like they may want to address, legal or not. States that have allowed ccw or open carry for years have probably diminished that reaction as people begin to become accustomed to seeing it or maybe the public in those states avoids in favor of those places that choose to outlaw guns on premises? I don't know. But, I do know that it was as insensitive as it could possibly have been for NRA activists to suggest to grieving Columbine parents immediately after the shooting that they should simply arm everyone in the school. That, I do know.

If you want to change a situation or attitudes one has to understand them first. Some gun advocates do seem to think that they can simply win over those fears and attitudes by ignoring them. I think that is unwise.

[Glassunion]

53. I completly agree with you.

I absolutely can fathom that the general public having concerns or fear at the mere sight of a gun. I think that these fears or concerns go directly to your point in post 8 about there being so many high profile mass killings. The issue I fear is ignorance about firearms due to media-bias. I am not implying that the media hates guns at all. They are biased towards tales of death, killing, murder, infidelity, etc… It is good for ratings. How many minutes a day of news stories do you hear about a professional golfer who is faithful to their spouse and good to their kids? How many minutes a day do you see, read and hear about the opposite?

In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.

The print media was almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.
However in the first 10 days of December there were 18 defensive gun uses. You have to drill all the way into local newspapers or police blotters to find them. Basically they are buried so deep; the average person will not read about them, and you will almost never see them on TV.

-- Little Rock, Ark: After the assailant attacked him and his son-in-law with a poker, a 64-year-old minister shot a man dead on church grounds. The attacker had engaged in a string of assaults in an apparent drug-induced frenzy.
-- Corpus Christi, Texas: A woman shot to death her ex-husband, who had broken into her house. The woman had a restraining order against the ex-husband.
-- Tampa Bay, Fla.: A 71-year-old man, Melvin Spaulding, shot 20-year-old James Moore in the arm as Moore and two friends were beating up his neighbor, 63-year-old George Lowe. Spaulding had a concealed weapons permit.
--Bellevue, Wash.: A man shot a pit bull that lunged to within a foot of him and his family. Police said the man's family had been repeatedly menaced in the past by the dog.
-- Jonesboro, Ga.: A father out walking with his 11-year-old daughter was attacked by an armed robber. The police say the father shot the attacker in self-defense and will not face charges.
-- Houston, Texas: Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her plumbing business on the afternoon of Dec. 1.
-- Philadelphia, Pa: A pharmacy manager fatally shot one robber and wounded another after the robbers threatened to kill workers at the store. The wounded robber escaped.

Just look at newsworthiness. Just simple news judgment. If an editor faces two stories, one with a dead body and one where a woman brandished a firearm and her attacker ran away, no shots fired, almost every editor would pick the story with the dead body. It’s good for ratings.

The issue I fear is that the media just simply fails to report on people who use guns to save themselves or others. The general public is exposed to only one side of the story, so from what they see on TV and on the front pages of their newspapers, they can easily form an opinion that people who carry guns are to be feared and that guns are a threat to safety. This ignorance I’m afraid is what causes the fear some people in the public have of firearms.

As GreenStormCloud stated, exposure I think would help with the general public’s fear of firearms. I’ll give you an example. I was in Jackson WY for vacation recently, we travel there a lot. My wife and I went there to just relax at a spa, do some hiking and spend lots of time in the hot tub. Jackson can be a popular vacation spot for people from Los Angeles, Sand Diego, etc… Places where people have very little exposure to firearms.

Well, one night we were on our way to dinner and as usual, I was armed. I carry concealed. We were walking up one of the main streets, when a man with a shotgun in his hand turned the corner right in front of us. Two things happened. I noticed the gun, did nothing and my wife and I continued walking right past him. However a couple walking behind us, panicked and immediately turned and ran out into the street to a police officer who was directing traffic at the intersection. The entire time sort of screeching about the guy with the gun. The police officer looked over at the man with the shotgun in his hands, looked back at the couple and said “He’s not pointing it at anyone” and then gave them a very soft berating about running out into the street. That was the last we heard as we continued on our way to dinner.

My wife and I are quite comfortable around firearms, because we understand them, what their uses are and why people have them. The shotgun was an over/under, the action was open and from my vantage point I could not see any shells. To someone who knows nothing about firearms would not even know what I just said in the last statement, and I can see them being put back at just seeing that shotgun. I saw nothing to fear, as I knew the gun was not loaded, I saw that the man was carrying it properly (barrel down), and from his outfit I could tell he was either going or coming back from hunting. Not an uncommon sight in Jackson during any of their hunting seasons.

Anyway, back to my point. What I would like to see (however, I fear I will never) is more media coverage of defensive uses of firearms. But since it would not make for good ratings, I doubt that would ever happen. There were 6 defensive uses of firearms in the first five days of this month that have been reported so far. But you won’t see them unless you dig them out yourself.

Soon-to-be Marine Fires at Intruder
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Soon-to-be-Marine-Fires-At-Intruder/qgyMErTb1UKRwd57VWaa_A.cspx
Oklahoma City police describe relative’s shooting as self defense
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-police-describe-relatives-shooting-as-self-defense/article/3443485?custom_click=lead_story_title
Knife-Wielding Attacker Shot Dead
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-man-with-knife-shot-dead,0,2103052.story
Home invasion: Suspect caught, dead youth ID’d
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100303/NEWS03/100303003/Homeowner-shoots-kills-burglar
Man holds suspected burglar at gunpoint until police arrive
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x379808909/Man-holds-suspected-burglar-at-gunpoint-until-police-arrive
Man Fires Shot At Intruder In Delhi Twp.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Man-Fires-Shot-At-Intruder-In-Delhi-Twp/DoJD_6XBbEC9s7JusGr5CA.cspx

Credit where credit is due: Quoting the media research by John R. Lott Jr.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. We are addressing it, by wearing in open carry states.

In concealed-only states, the general public doesn't know I am carrying, so it isn't an issue. In open-carry states, we are trying to get the public accustomed to the sight so they don't freak out. If the public sees it often enough, it becomes common.

[hlthe2b]

41. I credit you, GSC, with at least addressing the question...

rather than turning these discussions into an emotional "them versus us" kind of issue. So, I give you kudos for that.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Personally, I don't think I would open carry, even if it were legal in Texas.

But I would like to have the option. However, I am not infavor of anybody being able to open carry. I think it should be on a permit system, just as concealed carry is now. However, I am not firm in that opinion and could change my mind.

[PavePusher]

59. I must ask...

Why should Civil Rights need to be camoflauged?

Surely black people should wear pale make-up when sitting at lunch-counters, so as not to terrify the general population, right?

[PavePusher]

57. Observe their behavior and report suspicious activity to the police.

After all, isn't that what you all say we should do instead of carrying a gun?

[Tejas]

67. Then quit acting like OC doesn't exist in more states than you knew.

Please link to the bloodbaths occuring hourly, or try another tact.

[SteveM]

74. Good question. I'll try to answer...

The general public, over the past generation or so, has a distorted image of guns and gun-owners, an image created by militant gun-controllers/banners. As in all prohibitionist culture wars, first the thing or behavior is demonized, then the person who has the thing or "behaves" in the manner hated by the prohibitionist is morally condemned. This has happened throughout our history with regards prohibitionist politics: alcohol, drugs, abortion, GLBT lifestyles, guns and now, tobacco smoking. Taken together with T.V. drama and Hollywood, the average American thinks gun-owners are crims and thugs with machine guns, running about shooting each other.

It matters not that the violent crime rate has dropped significantly since the 1990s, it matters not that the "schoolyard spectaculars" committed by psycho punks are pretty rare, given the size of this nation. An image has been constructed.

Now the deconstruction begins.

I think what fuels the open-carry movement is a strong desire to wrench control from those who have built up so many hateful stereotypes, and to build a new image, not only of gun-owners, but for self-defense. Up to now, the "movement" has been small, but it will undoubtedly grow as it encounters opposition (yes, the best thing that will happen to "open carry" will be opposition).

There is another consideration here. As drug prohibition continues to build up the power of gangs within this country, these gangs will increasingly seek to establish geographic authority outside of some ghetto district or barrio, and reach further into the larger community in an effort to legitimize their existence and lifestyle. If this occurs, I believe that the "general public" will increasingly look upon those who carry openly as a benefit to and protection for the larger community in the face of thugs and wannabees seeking initiation and "juice" through random shootings.

Personally, I'm not sold on the advisability of open-carry (legally, I'm okay with it), but I may change my mind on this.

[shadowrider]

13. I already do

Carry into grocery stores. Perfectly legal. I don't carry into a daycare, because, well, I don't have a reason to. My kids are grown and I'm done.

[Callisto32]

69. We already do.

Newsflash:


Pretty much nobody cares.

If by "backlash" you mean "people who have no idea getting a case of the vapours" that happens, and we don't care.

[bossy22]

3. wait

Wasn't this case about pre-emption?

[X_Digger]

4. Yeah, the argument seems to have changed. n/t

[bossy22]

5. if thats true

whoever made that change is an idiot

[bossy22]

9. yep its true

this guy and his lawyers are legal f*ck ups. I mean the decision basically states that there was a legitamate arguement that it violated pre-emption, but that the plaintiff never brought it up.

[Euromutt]

29. Different questions before different courts

Evidently, the plaintiff filed two separate cases:
- one with King County Superior Court, to rule on the legality of the Seattle Parks & Rec gun ban under Washington state law;
- another with the federal district court, to rule on the constitutionality under the federal constitution.

This is the ruling in the second case. Note that it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the first; the Seattle gun ban is still illegal, and therefore null and void, but at this point only under Washington state law, not under federal law.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. N/T

[xchrom]

6. Good. Nt

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

7. But what about gang-bangers with weapons in parks? Any thoughts?

[hlthe2b]

11. Devil's advocate here...

Certainly armed criminals or gang-members are a problem that has to be addressed. We can enforce security in parks and public places with adequate law enforcement and adherence to current laws or we can encourage everyone to be armed. Neither is a perfect solution since both have incredible obstacles and down sides. Take the arming of the public visiting parks... I can't see that being any more a deterrent to a determined gang banger than most other interventions, but it certainly might make the armed individual more comfortable visiting the park, but at some risk of an OK-Corral kind of situation that might put innocents in the cross fire. Then again, why would anyone (armed or otherwise) visit a park known to be frequented by gang-bangers? More likely they will be pressuring the city and law enforcement to clean it up of that element.

I'm not anti-gun, but I really would like to have discussions where both sides look at areas of common ground in policy development, rather than the "all or nothing" approach that seems the norm, now.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

12. I agree with your position in general but innocents have been and are

in the cross fire already. Parks are for all of us, in my opinion we should have came down hard on gangs when they first started up, but didn't because they were not operating in rich areas.

[X_Digger]

24. Got a cite where a CHL / CCW licensee put someone "in the crossfire"??

"innocents have been and are in the cross fire already."

Please share with the class.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

30. I was talking about cross fire between gangs.

[slackmaster]

42. Gang members don't care whether carrying in a park is legal or not

And I doubt that many of them have valid CCW permits anyway.

[spin]

55. One of the largest causes of violent gun related homicide are gangs...

Gun-Related Homicide and Gangs

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1976, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (97 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 94 percent in 2004, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to 77 percent from 1976 to 2005.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/circumst.cfm

It obvious that if we want to reduce gun violence in the United States we need to concentrate efforts on criminal gangs.

If drug related gun violence spreads from Mexico in the the U.S. far more people will die.

Drug-related violence continued to surge in Mexico throughout 2009, with more than 7,000 people reported to have been killed.

Beheadings, attacks on police, and shootings in clubs and restaurants are a daily occurrence in some regions.

Some 45,000 troops and extra police have been deployed to crack down on the drug gangs.

***snip***

What is the scale of the violence?

If the violence is judged by the number of homicides linked to organised crime, the situation appears extremely serious and worsening. The overall number of drug-relate deaths since late 2006 when the security crackdown began stands at more than 14,000. There were approximately 6,000 such murders in 2008. That figure is similar to the number of US soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq in the same year. The rate appears to have increased in 2009, with the number of deaths up to the end of November put at some 7,300 by Mexican media. Government officials say that the statistics need to be seen in context, and suggest that nine out of 10 of all the deaths involve people connected with the drug trade, or law enforcement officials.

Where are the worst-hit areas? Is it spreading across Mexico?

Mexico's northern border towns are experiencing the worst of the violence, with Ciudad Juarez (just across the frontier from El Paso in Texas) standing out as the country's most violent city with some 2,100 murders in 2009. High levels of violence have also been seen in Michoacan and Guerrero states. However, Mexico is a large country, and there are still many areas where the serious crime rate is unexceptional.

Why is the violence seemingly increasing?

There are two main points of view on this. The Mexican government's position is that the violence, however regrettable, can be seen as a reflection of the success of its policy of taking a hard line against drug-running. It suggests that the "monster" has been wounded, and what we are witnessing is a brutal fight between leaderless cartels for fewer spoils. But others argue that the cartels have become so powerful that they effectively control some parts of the country, and the violence, which is getting worse, is evidence of their gang law.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7906284.stm

We have a choice. We can pass "feel good" laws such as the assault weapons ban which targets honest citizens who rarely misuse their weapons or we can target criminal gangs and treat them as terrorists (which they are).

The "feel good" approach does little to reduce gun violence but is cheap, merely words on paper. Targeting criminal gangs is the expensive and the more difficult approach. Police have to be dedicated to the effort, the court system has to treat gang members as serious criminals and jail space has to be found.

I would suggest that we start by making marijuana legal and releasing all convicts incarcerated for mere possession, thus freeing space in our prisons for violent gang members.

But I expect the politicians we elect will chose the "feel good" approach.

[SteveM]

76. Coming down hard on gangs is difficult with the WOD, Inc. nt

[shadowrider]

15. individual more comfortable visiting the park, but at some risk of an OK-Corral kind of situation

That already happens or haven't you noticed when rival gangs run across each other, it's OK coral time and little kids get hit. NOTE: No LEGAL CCW holder is involved in this.

[DonP]

16. The trouble with finding common ground is ...

... there usually isn't.

Not being a smart ass, but people that advocate for more gun control seem to always start the conversation with "what are you gun owners willing to give up", but never seem to be willing to offer anything up that might appeal to lawful gun owners. e.g. repeal of FOPA, or parts of the GCA, or any of the other limitations imposed over the years. All with no measurable impact on violence.

That's not compromise or finding a common ground. That's a steady erosion of our rights over an extended period of time by a bunch of liars trying to "sound" fair and reasonable but just using a slightly slower process to get what they want.

So far we've gone along with NICS checks, FOID cards, import bans, outright bans of popular and common types of rifles, all handguns in some cities, magazine limits, gun shows being closed, waiting periods, limits on how many guns you can buy per month or year and all the other "common sense" solutions that have been crammed down our throats under the guise of "compromise".

Let's start the next conversation with someone suggesting what the gun control people are willing to give up.

Opening up the national machine gun registry might be a good place to start, since legally owned automatic weapons have only been used twice in over 70 years in crimes, and then by cops. But we might be open to other ideas.

How about a national concealed carry permit good in all 50 states?

[GreenStormCloud]

51. Crime can be anywhere, anytime.

Certainly I would avoid a park if it were known to be criminal infested, even if I were armed. In the 1950s, Central Park in NYC had a national reputation as being extremely hazardous after dark, and not to safe during the day. Many people did avoid it, for that reason.

The problem with law enforcement is our criminal justice system. Most street criminals have long arrest records and crimes plea-bargined down. I don't think any of us would like living with the type of criminal justice system that Japan or Singapore have. But they have very little street crime. Since we want a criminal justice system with right for the accused, the we have to accept that the criminals will game the system. So the honest citizen must look to him/herself for their own immediate protection.

Which bring us to the Old West, since you mentioned the OK-Corral. The only people hit in that shoot-out were combatants. The Old West was actually quite tame, with much lower crime rates than modern cities. Because law enforcement was so primitive, people provided for their own defense. The James-Younger gang was stopped by townspeople shooting up the gang at Northfield, MN. The Daltons were shot to pieces in Coffeyville, KS, by the townspeople. A few nights ago, I started to re-watch Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider, and I couldn't get past the first two mintues. The basic scenario was of the peaceful mining camp being terrified by gunmen and they needed a hero to deliver them. In the real West, that standard plot NEVER happened - NEVER. The West was full of Civil War veteran who knew how to shoot and had guns and had been in combat. In fact, if outlaws used a town as a base, they behaved themselves while in that town. They didn't want the townpeople mad at them. But I digress.

The problem, is that crime is somewhat unpredictable. The only way to be ready is to be ready all the time.

Innocents in the cross-fire hasn't happened yet in any of the 40 states that have shall-issue.

BTW - I compliment you on wanting an actual discussion on the issue.

[slackmaster]

18. Criminals are exempt from the law

So they don't really give a flying fuck.

[PavePusher]

60. Since they are probably already prohibited from owning, bearing...

or even glancing sideways at a firearm, due to their likely criminal record, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to obfusicate the issue.

If they haven't commited a crime yet, I sure hope your precognition is working better than mine, or you will be up to your neck in lawsuits...

[jody]

20. Why do some who support "first amendment activism" oppose "second amendment activism"? Is it

just inherent hypocrisy or do they have other agendas?

[hlthe2b]

22. No one ever died from even the worst verbal abuse....

One certainly can not say the same from one holding a loaded gun as their form of "expression."

[jody]

23. Interesting response but doesn't answer my question. n/t

[DonP]

27. No one has ever died or been injured from someone holding a loaded gun

They have to aim it and pull the trigger last time I looked.

Or are you a believer in the Bush policy of "prior restraint"? Maybe we should arrest all those people because of what you think they might do?

[hlthe2b]

28. That is blatantly ridiculous on its face.

But, you seem to want to drag me into those visceral anti-gun arguments and I'm not game. I am not anti-gun, just an advocate of responsible and reasonable gun ownership and regulation.

[DonP]

31. Hey, it's your poor analogy in the first place.

Next time try and find something less flawed to use.

[hlthe2b]

35. No, it is based on the situation...

It is one thing for first amendment advocates to show up to picket. Quite another for a second amendment activist to knowingly and openly carry a gun into a community center where guns are not permitted. That rises to the level of intimidation. As it would, if the first amendment picketers stormed the building screaming and raising their fists.


One can be an activist for civil rights without crossing the line. This individual crossed the line.

[DonP]

46. Sorry, I don't agree

In Chicago where owning any gun is a felony you'd be right. Showing up with a gun at a meeting or in a public place will get you arrested on the spot.

But in states where open or concealed carry is allowed by law (48 of them?), and the building is not posted with the equivalent of a Texas 30.06 sign, a person carrying lawfully should be no more intimidating than someone with an angry picket sign.

If someone sees them and goes, "EEEK a gun" and starts squealing and running around in circles that's their problem. Not the law abiding gun owners.

Once upon a time ... there were some folks down South that considered people of color of being "out of place" and "intimidating" at lunch counters and in "their" high schools. The people there had to adjust to the new reality based on the actual law, not the way they wanted things.

There are more than few of us that think there already been enough compromise. Now it's their turn to adjust.

[hlthe2b]

47. I didn't see whether or not the bulding is posted with signage..

But, I would agree that those businesses and exempted public buildings ought to be carrying identifying signage. I assumed that they did.

[DonP]

48. They usually start out with it, then drop it.

Ohio is a good example. When they first passed concealed carry a lot of businesses put up signs that said "No Concealed Carry" allowed.

After a few months of being told that they had just lost a sale or getting handed printed cards by the Ohio Concealed Carry group that told them they were losing business most of the signs quietly came down.

None of the predicted shootings over parking spaces or malls running red with blood etc. have ever occurred after the laws were passed. The warnings by people like the Brady group were the same in every state, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota etc. But the "Dodge City" scenario never happens. On top of it, gun crime is at a 20 year low now.

If you think about it totally logically, why would you think that disarming only the law abiding would reduce violence in the first place?

[spin]

54. The same thing happened in Florida ...

when concealed carry passed. I walked up to the door of a store and found a "no guns" sign. I immediately turned around and went home. I called the store manager and told him that while I respected his decision, I would not be doing any further business at his establishment, but would just go down the street to his competitor.

A month later the sign came down.

I wonder why.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Signage depend upon if the property gets to make the choice.

In Texas, certain places are off-limits to guns by law. Examples would be schools and amusement parks that have rides. They don't need to have a sign as the CHL holder is expected to know the law and follow it.

But if a place just wants to be no-guns, then they need a sign.

The specific signage law sounds odd at first, but it prevents a lot of silliness in court.

Consider this gunbusters sign:


Exactly what is being banned? All guns? Handguns only banned? Autoloaders only banned, but revolvers are allowed? Or does it only ban a gun with that exact silhouette? The specific signage law prevents that kind of argument from wasting the court's time.

[Euromutt]

52. Blame it on the court-imposed requirement of "standing" to sue

Quite another for a second amendment activist to knowingly and openly carry a gun into a community center where guns are not permitted. That rises to the level of intimidation.

Look, the City of Seattle ban on privately owned firearms on Parks & Rec Dept. property was illegal; it violated Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution, and Sections 9.41.290 and 9.41.300 of the Revised Code of Washington. It was illegal prima facie, and that was confirmed by the ruling of the King Co. Superior Court. The fact that guns were not permitted was the whole crux of the matter.

But to be able to challenge a government law or rule in a civil suit, you have to have standing; you have to able to demonstrate that you have been personally negatively affected by the law. The only way for Robert Warden to achieve that was to step onto Seattle Parks & Rec property while carrying, and be asked to leave. And note that he did; when asked to leave, he turned around and left the property without hesitation. How is that intimidation?

[PavePusher]

61. Abuse of the First Amendment has certainly gotten some people killed. n/t

[paulsby]

63. no, he didn't

he called the frigging authorities before he even SHOWED UP to let them know what he would be wearing and the time and place, etc.

he went about it EXACTLY the right way

[Katya Mullethov]

56. Does suicide count ?

Some people cant handle the truth .

[proteus_lives]

64. That's one judge that needs to be thrown off the bench.

[Callisto32]

68. The rule of law.

Even when that law flies in the face of the so-called "highest law in the land."

I get sick of hearing people say rule of law when what they mean is "obeying the fiat of the legislature."

When we have one set of rules for the governed and one for the governors, we don't have rule of law, we have a strictly segregated class system enforced by color of legislation.

[Euromutt]

73. Not relevant in this instance, Callisto

The Seattle Parks & Rec gun ban wasn't "the fiat of the legislature" to begin with; it was the decree by executive fiat of now-ex-mayor Greg Nickels. Whether or not the 9th Circuit or any subordinate district federal court thinks the ban was not unconstitutional makes no difference, because it was illegal under Washington state law, and the ruling of the King Co. Superior Court to that effect stands; Nickels' ban remains illegal.

The only pity is that there's no way to nail Nickels and the head of the Seattle Parks & Rec Dept. for imposing a rule that they knew was illegal (the state A-G had already informed them it would be).