A Kent man who announced Friday that he intended to carry a pistol into a West Seattle community center to trigger a lawsuit challenging Seattle's ban on guns in public spaces did just that Saturday, and was promptly asked to leave.
Bob Warden, 44, announced his intentions in an e-mail Friday morning to media as well as to the city of Seattle, including the police and city attorney.
On Saturday, Warden walked into the Southwest Community Center at 2801 SW Thistle Street with a Glock-27 .40-caliber sub-compact pistol under a black jacket in a holster strap over his left shoulder. Parks Department employee Lisa Harrison asked him to leave, and he did.
What's your opinion? Is this type of protest going to help the cause? I personally don't find it very attractive. To me it seems like adolescent rebellion.
What was the idea of leaving when asked? What kind of protest is that anyway? What do you think?
"I'm not here as a Second Amendment activist," Warden said. "I'm here as a citizen who believes in the rule of law."
"As a courtesy, this is advance notice that at noon tomorrow, Saturday, November 14, I plan to exercise my legal right to bear arms in Seattle's Southwest Community Center, 2801 SW Thistle Street,"
I'm not sure I understand the difference between "a Second Amendment activist," and one who simply wants to exercise his "legal right to bear arms." Do you? Can you be the latter without being the former? Why would you want to make the distinction?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This is not someone staging a protest or being adolescent. This is about the law and the court system.
ReplyDeleteSeattle's law is blatantly against state law. However, you cannot sue just because a law exists. There has to be a victim of that law. This man went through the proper "channel", if you will, to challenge the law. And he left when asked because that was sufficient grounds for his suit. Now he can sue the city for enforcing the illegal ban.
Had the city chose not to enforce the law then the law would be meaningless and he would have had no reason to sue.
Hell yes!
ReplyDeleteI applaud that man. Seattle is breaking the law, and the only way it will fall is for it to be struck down in court. That means someone has to sue them.
In order to do so they must show that they were directly harmed (they need standing to take it to court)
If he doesn't leave when asked he can be charged with tresspassing, that's why he left.
This was most likely done in order to get standing, so he could mount a legal challenge to the local ordinance. Ohio has had people do similar things, in order to establish that statewide preemption (local firearms laws may not be stricter than state) is valid.
ReplyDeleteAfter Ohio passed preemption, several cities claimed that preemption wasn't a "general law" and therefore did not apply to them, and they were still planning to enforce their gun ordinances. It took activists to gain standing and file lawsuits to settle this, often by publicly violating the ordinance in question.
One of the problems with our legal system is standing--In many cases you have to risk arrest or conviction in order to challenge an invalid law.
This creates an interesting dilema since local jurisdictions should be able to enact their own legislation (e.g., Tennesee and Montana want to be able to regulate intrastate commerce).
ReplyDeleteYet if a local jurisdiction believes that firearms are a liability, they can't enact local legislation.
Not to mention, some people would like to see the Second Amendment "incorporated" against the States.
Which is it: Legislate locally or have someone far away dictate laws to you?
FatWhiteMan has it right. This guy was just setting the stage for a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteLaci is right with me. You pro-gun guys want it both ways if that's what gets you the least interference. The Fed cannot tell the States what to do, but the States can tell the cities? How's that work in your logical minds?
ReplyDeleteWhat a surprise. Laci and MikeB are both wrong again.
ReplyDeleteYet if a local jurisdiction believes that firearms are a liability, they can't enact local legislation.
Wrong. We're only saying that they must abide by the Constitution, the same as we would if a local jurisdiction decided that allowing women to vote was a "liability," or decided to require citizens of their state / locality to house soldiers in their homes.
I know that's a foreign concept to you since you're from the UK.
You pro-gun guys want it both ways if that's what gets you the least interference. The Fed cannot tell the States what to do, but the States can tell the cities? How's that work in your logical minds?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the state and federal constitution. The federal government is supposed to have the ultimate authority for the areas designated in the constitution. Powers that are not specifically granted by the constitution to the federal government are supposed to be reserved for the individual states or the people,
This means that if a state wants to have more restrictions on free speech than the constitution allows, the federal government should step in, but the federal government shouldn't be involved in most purely local matters.
Ohio has "home rule" The State is allowed to pass "general laws" that apply everywhere, but isn't supposed to get involved in purely local decisions. It took a court case to finally decide that firearms regulation was a matter of statewide concern. Before that passed, neither of my carry guns was legal in every city along I-75, although at least one was legal in each city.
The biggest problem in this area is abuse of the interstate commerce clause. We may be following the letter when we allow the most tenuous association with interstate commerce to be an excuse for federal intervention, but we have far exceeded what the founders intended,
"Laci is right with me. You pro-gun guys want it both ways if that's what gets you the least interference. The Fed cannot tell the States what to do, but the States can tell the cities? How's that work in your logical minds?"
ReplyDeleteLaci is right with you in not understanding the law. Washington has a state law that specifically says municipalities may not enact their own gun laws. That is what is being violated. We are not talking some "theory" that says municipalities should be able to do whatever they want and the big bad state should leave them alone. The state legislature actually went to the trouble of authoring a law and their governor signed it. Seattle is breaking the law, not some anti-freedom ideal that Laci made up.
I know little about the legal strategy being planned against Seattle, but this could have been a necessary step in order to gain standing to file suit against the ordinance.
ReplyDeleteWashington State's preemption statute is pretty unambiguous. There's just no lawful authority that Seattle can claim to pass or enforce this ordinance. But depending on WA's standing doctrine, it may have been necessary for someone to have been "harmed" by the ordinance before it can be adjudicated in court.
"Laci is right with me. You pro-gun guys want it both ways if that's what gets you the least interference. The Fed cannot tell the States what to do, but the States can tell the cities? How's that work in your logical minds?"
ReplyDeleteLaci is right with you in not understanding the law. Washington has a state law that specifically says municipalities may not enact their own gun laws. That is what is being violated. We are not talking some "theory" that says municipalities should be able to do whatever they want and the big bad state should leave them alone. The state legislature actually went to the trouble of authoring a law and their governor signed it. Seattle is breaking the law, not some anti-freedom ideal that Laci made up.
FWM - I don't think it's lack of understanding, ignorance, or even stupidity on MikeB or Laci's part. I think they're just so stuck in their irrational ideology that they must ignore what is put in front of them.
ReplyDeleteWhy else would they continually ignore the fact that Seattle is flat out breaking the law? (Hell, MikeB supports cities breaking the law as long as they're pro-gun control)
Mikeb: "You pro-gun guys want it both ways if that's what gets you the least interference."
ReplyDeleteMikeb, EVERYONE wants it both ways, ESPECIALLY gun control advocates. If I had to choose between the two totally consistent extremes (just local controls or just federal controls)I would choose federal controls as more workable.
Gun control advocates almost always want more restrictions on gun ownership to be in effect nationwide AND to allow for any local restrictions that are EVEN MORE restrictive on gunowners.
I think you're missing the big picture, mikeb.
ReplyDelete"I'm not here as a Second Amendment activist," Warden said. "I'm here as a citizen who believes in the rule of law."
To me this sounds like someone who would have done something similar if the City of Seattle had passed any other illegal law.
For example, if Seattle authorities passed a law saying it's illegal to call the governor "a big fat poopy pants."
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy bought a megaphone and screamed that the Gov was a big fat poopy pants on the steps of the state legislature.
This is about the rule of law, not guns and Seattle's law is illegal.
It's amazing how many things we all agree on.
ReplyDelete"EVERYONE wants it both ways"
"I don't think it's lack of understanding, ignorance, or even stupidity on MikeB or Laci's part."
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
Also there is nothing more ridiculous when MikeB talks about "Logic", and Laci talks about the law.
Ok, maybe when Mudrake butchers the word "Junta", but I think I ridiculed him enough on that that I killed the golden goose.
Can we all agree that gun control is not supported by knowledgeable, or mentally stable people?
Weer'd - I'm not even a lawyer yet I know more about 2nd Amendment jurisprudence than Laci could ever hope to.
ReplyDelete*yes, I'm one of those "I'm not a lawyer I just work for them" folks.
Interesting that neither Laci nor MikeB are condemning their anti-gun buddies for blatantly breaking State law.
Meanwhile Laci claims to be a lawyer, and MikeB claims to care about people other than himself.
ReplyDeletehmmmmm
Weer'd said, "Meanwhile Laci claims to be a lawyer, and MikeB claims to care about people other than himself."
ReplyDeleteYou, sir, are a liah. I've had enough of your assigning benign motives to my writing. If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times, stop mischaracterizing what I say. You have no idea what I'm doing or why I'm doing it, so why do you keep trying to describe it? Whe asked you anyway? Who asked you to describe me?
MikeB - You "describe" us all the time with flat out lies, so quit your bitching.
ReplyDelete