PDA

View Full Version : Seattle mayor authorizes confiscation of weapons


thayne
05-01-2012, 4:50 PM
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/media/PDF/120501PR-civilOrderConfiscation.pdf

The Original Godfather
05-01-2012, 4:55 PM
I didn't read the pdf yet, but just reading the title of this thread gives me the cold shiver.

Slim///
05-01-2012, 4:59 PM
Sounds like this has something to do with ows protests today

AragornElessar86
05-01-2012, 4:59 PM
Oh h*** no.

pwer lineman
05-01-2012, 4:59 PM
What the hell?!?! How do we stop this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SPaikmos
05-01-2012, 5:04 PM
wow. just wow.

Cactus_Tim
05-01-2012, 5:07 PM
Section 1:

D. This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises.

Slim///
05-01-2012, 5:07 PM
Ok i read it sounds like theyre taking away clubs and tire irons away from protesters. Not taking away lawfully owned weapons from businesses or residential premises

monk
05-01-2012, 5:08 PM
Relax guys, this is to remove any weapons, including bats, batons, etc, from protesters who've gotten violent. Item D states "This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises"

SID45
05-01-2012, 5:14 PM
When you give someone a little authority , they tend to abuse it.

sholling
05-01-2012, 5:18 PM
Relax guys, this is to remove any weapons, including bats, batons, etc, from protesters who've gotten violent. Item D states "This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises"
But it does seem to apply to those lawfully going about their business. Is there a state law authorizing the Hizzz Honor to suspend the constitution?

AJAX22
05-01-2012, 5:22 PM
First they came for the protesters.....


Some day you may want to take to the streets armed....

Arrest people for the actions they commit, not the inanimate objects they cary

GNE
05-01-2012, 5:24 PM
There is no exception for lawful possession of weapons outside of business or residential premises within their restricted area. So if you want to protect yourself from people (not restricted to protestors) armed with fists and feet as you go about your public business, best of luck. Now imagine this was a Hurricane Katrina type situation where people needed to leave their homes or businesses.

Connor P Price
05-01-2012, 5:29 PM
I imagine SAF will be all over them if they actually confiscate anyone's lawfully carried firearm.

pwer lineman
05-01-2012, 5:32 PM
Section 1:

D. This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises.

Not so bad to remove the sting from the impending riot, but law abiding citizens can't carry for self defense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The War Wagon
05-01-2012, 5:41 PM
Molon labe, baby! :cool:

Maltese Falcon
05-01-2012, 5:45 PM
I don't see any reference to probable cause or mention of usage in the commission of a crime or violation of an order to disperse, only blanket confiscation, wherever, whenever within the defined area excluding the residences or businesses.

Looks on it's face as overreaching...


.

BoonieGhost
05-01-2012, 5:47 PM
When you give someone a little authority , they tend to abuse it.

DING DING DING!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

OleCuss
05-01-2012, 6:14 PM
I'm not where I can check out the geographic boundaries or determine the kind of neighborhoods/districts are involved.

I also don't know the level of security being provided by the LEAs.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the order and am not at all sure it is Constitutional (I'd bet heavily against it), but I consider it just barely possible that the area could possibly be considered a "sensitive area". Especially true if there is a curfew in place such that any law-abiding non-LEO is currently confined to residential or commercial premises anyway.

Please note that I'm hedging this one six ways from Sunday because I believe it to be blatantly unconstitutional, but I'm not sure of all the facts.

I have an idea that Gray will be all over this one.

dobek
05-01-2012, 6:15 PM
My attitude would be "come and get them"

No one has authority to suspend the 2nd amendment. And I'm sure no LTC has this restriction on it

Steve

sandman21
05-01-2012, 6:16 PM
Anyone know if Seattle PD receives federal funding? It could get funny!!!!

My attitude would be "come and get them"

No one has authority to suspend the 2nd amendment. And I'm sure no LTC has this restriction on it

Steve

It's state law.

An order prohibiting the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business; (http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/toppenish/html/Toppenish02/Toppenish0295.html)

Ron-Solo
05-01-2012, 8:05 PM
Anyone know if Seattle PD receives federal funding? It could get funny!!!!



It's state law.

An order prohibiting the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business; (http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/toppenish/html/Toppenish02/Toppenish0295.html)

Not State law. It is a city municipal code.

Also, it violates federal law.

glockman19
05-01-2012, 8:08 PM
And Whom do you think is comming to confiscate them?

Law Enforcement :facepalm: :eek:

jimsu
05-01-2012, 8:13 PM
It also violates Washington State Law since he isn't the Governor

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.06.220

sholling
05-01-2012, 8:41 PM
That would be the same city government and mayor that lost their attempt to ban guns from parks?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017703405_gunban09m.html
The State Supreme Court Thursday refused to review Seattle's ban on guns in parks and community centers, upholding two lower court rulings that the ban violated state law.

Last year, the state Court of Appeals rejected the city's arguments and affirmed the lower court ruling that the city can't pre-empt state law.

Both McGinn and Holmes issued statements after Thursday's ruling saying the city would ask the 2013 Legislature to give cities the authority to restrict gun use in public places.

"A park is no place for a gun," McGinn said.

jimsu
05-01-2012, 8:44 PM
Same mayor that welcomed the OWS to Seattle

http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/update-on-occupy-seattle-oct-9/

Gray Peterson
05-01-2012, 11:47 PM
SAF is engaged in the situation, and I'm also engaged as one of the Chan plaintiffs.

alfred1222
05-01-2012, 11:54 PM
Section 1:

D. This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises.

Ok i read it sounds like theyre taking away clubs and tire irons away from protesters. Not taking away lawfully owned weapons from businesses or residential premises

At least someone noticed this.. this order was to remove the weapons of the people at the Occupy protests who were rioting and breaking into buildings. If you are defending yourself or your property, the police wouldnt come take your guns away. if youre out in the street brandishing a gun, ya i think the cops would come and take it away. For everyone saying that this interferes with LTC, the whole point of concealed carry is that its concealed...

jdberger
05-02-2012, 12:43 AM
At least someone noticed this.. this order was to remove the weapons of the people at the Occupy protests who were rioting and breaking into buildings. If you are defending yourself or your property, the police wouldnt come take your guns away. if youre out in the street brandishing a gun, ya i think the cops would come and take it away. For everyone saying that this interferes with LTC, the whole point of concealed carry is that its concealed...

Oh. As long as its "their" weapons that are being taken away.

I'm totally fine with that, Pastor Niemoller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6)....

In any case, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Gura has already litigated this one. (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/03/bateman-is-another-win-for-alan-gura.html)

sandman21
05-02-2012, 8:05 AM
Not State law. It is a city municipal code.

Also, it violates federal law.

You are correct, guess I missed the giant municipal code letters. :(

It only violates federal law if they confiscate a firearm and receive federal money. Let's hope SAF can have some fun on Seattle's dime.

SPaikmos
05-02-2012, 8:17 AM
At least someone noticed this.. this order was to remove the weapons of the people at the Occupy protests who were rioting and breaking into buildings. If you are defending yourself or your property, the police wouldnt come take your guns away. if youre out in the street brandishing a gun, ya i think the cops would come and take it away. For everyone saying that this interferes with LTC, the whole point of concealed carry is that its concealed...

Before the ordinance, it was perfectly alright to walk around outside with a bat or stick or whatever.

Before the ordinance, it was a crime to break windows, smash cars, and cause mayhem in the streets of Seattle.

If the police want to arrest people, they could have already rightfully arrested people that were being violent or causing trouble.

After the ordinance, now they can arrest you for having a "weapon" (whatever that is) even though you are participating in perfectly legal behavior.

So why exactly do we need an ordinance to disarm people for legal behavior? It hasn't changed the fact that if you commit a crime (break stuff) you can be arrested.

I guess you'd also argue it's "for the children", right? :rolleyes:

Jack L
05-02-2012, 8:18 AM
Seems so odd that you can take weapons before any incident even occurs. This could become an issue in the future with all kinds of gatherings if the city doesn’t agree with the subject matter?

vantec08
05-02-2012, 8:18 AM
You know, guyz, these anti mayors and guvners are costing their cities and states MILLIONS in stupidity.

YubaRiver
05-02-2012, 8:25 AM
Black boots? Do you suppose the Mayor is using undercover police to give him reason to ban weapons?

Happened in Canada

Check out at 2:18

"Police Provocateurs stopped by union leader at anti SPP protest "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow&feature=player_detailpage

Alan Block
05-02-2012, 8:39 AM
I am sure the mayors of all the cities are looking at this. Mariners Stadium? Lots of people brandishing bats to be confiscated there.

bluerider
05-02-2012, 8:39 AM
it was not an OWS protest it was a May Day parade/event. That may seem like a minor point but May day is a holiday whose origins are rooted in Chicago and while most of the US ignores the date it is celebrated throughout the world.

After listening to several news stories and interviews it appears that what happened is that several participants broke off from the main event and used poles that had been used to carry banners to break some windows. They may or may not have engaged police with these same sticks/poles. There was another event planned for the evening so this muni code was passed so that police could confiscate signs or anything that they thought could be used as a weapon.

Rather than a 2a issue this actually appears to be a 1a issue.

vantec08
05-02-2012, 8:40 AM
Seems so odd that you can take weapons before any incident even occurs. This could become an issue in the future with all kinds of gatherings if the city doesn’t agree with the subject matter?

It gets even more interesting:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/05/02/no-fly-zone-to-be-enforced-by-shoot-to-kill-order-during-nato-summit/


http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

sergtjim
05-02-2012, 8:41 AM
I may be missing something, but the Second Amendment doesn't apply only to guns. In that context "Arms" means weapons, collectively.

Uxi
05-02-2012, 8:45 AM
Relax guys, this is to remove any weapons, including bats, batons, etc, from protesters who've gotten violent. Item D states "This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises"

Sounds like California: keep arms but not bear them.

Uxi
05-02-2012, 8:47 AM
it was not an OWS protest it was a May Day parade/event. That may seem like a minor point but May day is a holiday whose origins are rooted in Chicago and while most of the US ignores the date it is celebrated throughout the world.


World Socialist Oligarchies always loved the day not only to parade through red square showing off their hardware, but to try and incite the proles to rise up in the Capitalist west (which is why the US and UK governments amongst others have almost always discouraged it).

Rossi357
05-02-2012, 10:13 AM
Read section 1, para b:
Anything that can be used as a weapon.

littlejake
05-02-2012, 10:22 AM
There is nothing new in that order. After the Black Panthers walked into the California Assembly Chamber on May 2, 1967 -- the Members of the assembly found they were not breaking any law. Oh gosh, they have Carbines!

So, they passed a law that prohibits arms within certain boundaries of the state capitol.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-03-2012, 5:40 AM
it was not an OWS protest it was a May Day parade/event. That may seem like a minor point but May day is a holiday whose origins are rooted in Chicago and while most of the US ignores the date it is celebrated BY COMMUNISTS throughout the world.

After listening to several news stories and interviews it appears that what happened is that several participants broke off from the main event and used poles that had been used to carry banners to break some windows. They may or may not have engaged police with these same sticks/poles. There was another event planned for the evening so this muni code was passed so that police could confiscate signs or anything that they thought could be used as a weapon.

Rather than a 2a issue this actually appears to be a 1a issue.


Fixed it for ya.


The Raisuli

SanPedroShooter
05-03-2012, 5:49 AM
Not State law. It is a city municipal code.

Also, it violates federal law.

Absolutely right. Its not state law. I have a WA permit. There is a blurb about ignoring any preempted ordinances etc... printed right on it.

Right on the damn permit form the state basically tells you not to obey, or that you are exempt from local laws concerning the carrying of firearms. I am sure there are some exceptions, but this one seems absolutely preempted. Seattle wants to go back to court again, losing so hard over carry in city parks was just a taste. The Mayor will do whatever he feels like and deal with it in court later. Similar to what I think will happen here in LA if we get shall issue. The difference is, WA has strong preemption, and they've been shall issue since the sixites.

scarville
05-03-2012, 6:30 AM
it was not an OWS protest it was a May Day parade/event. That may seem like a minor point but May day is a holiday whose origins are rooted in Chicago and while most of the US ignores the date it is celebrated throughout the world..
Actually, the Commies took it over after the Haymarket riot/massacre/affair/whatever. Before that it was a secularized version of a holiday rooted in the fertility festivals of pagan Rome and the Celtic festival Beltane. It is also the Feast day of St, Joseph the Worker -- patron saint of workers -- and, ironically given the subject of this thread, Law Day in the United States.

Given the participants I suspect the latest incarnation was the one being celebrated.

Rhythm of Life
05-03-2012, 6:43 AM
Did no one read Section 5?


aka this cannot be enforced until the following are done clause.

Cnynrat
05-03-2012, 6:49 AM
I'm not where I can check out the geographic boundaries or determine the kind of neighborhoods/districts are involved.


The area involved is basically most of downtown Seattle. For those familiar with the city, it's everything between the 5 Fwy and Puget Sound, with the southern boundary being at the baseball/football stadiums south of downtown, and the northern boundary about at the southern tip of Lake Union. I'd guess we're talking about 2-3 square miles.

Nice that they excepted weapons lawfully maintained in your home or business, but like others I'm concerned about the apparent suspension of the right to lawfully bear arms while out and about in this area of Seattle.

Rhythm of Life
05-03-2012, 6:54 AM
Nice that they excepted weapons lawfully maintained in your home or business, but like others I'm concerned about the apparent suspension of the right to lawfully bear arms while out and about in this area of Seattle.


Section 5


Section 5


Section 5



This is in no way actualized without approval. Read the document people.

ubet
05-03-2012, 7:35 AM
SAF is engaged in the situation, and I'm also engaged as one of the Chan plaintiffs.

GOOD, go unleash Hell upon them.

ElvenSoul
05-03-2012, 7:37 AM
I think they need a WaGuns up there?

SPaikmos
05-03-2012, 7:53 AM
Section 5


Section 5


Section 5



This is in no way actualized without approval. Read the document people.

Did you read section 5? It says it's subject to ratification in two days but any action taken prior to ratification, if the order is rejected, is allowed.

Sounds like the mayor just unilaterally decided this to me.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 7:55 AM
It’s nice to see that the usual “slippery slope” “black helicopter” “they are all out to get me” people are out in force here on Cal Guns.


This order allowed the police to take away weapons at a demonstration that turned violent. It sounds like it was public record; limited in scope to a specific area and time, not in any way done in secret and submitted for ratification to elected officials and it exempted lawfully kept weapons in homes and businesses. It even mentioned that officers would respect free speech, just not while swinging a 2x4 in a crowded downtown area.

Some of you people seriously need to get some perspective........There is a whole real world out there waiting for you........Step away from the keyboard, come out of the bunker and look around.

SanPedroShooter
05-03-2012, 7:58 AM
What about the lawfully kept weapon in my pocket? If I lived in Seattle, I would follow the directions on my permit, and ignore the law.

Of course, I wouldnt be at an 'anarchists for welfare' protest or whatever they hell is going on...

pbchief2
05-03-2012, 8:11 AM
First they came for the ??? ???????,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a ??? ???????.

Then they came for the ?????????,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a ?????????.

Then they came for the ??????,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a ??????.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Who's next?

dfletcher
05-03-2012, 8:28 AM
At the risk of being really thick headed, if they wanted to include legally carried or possessed firearms shouldn't they have specified legally carried or possessed firearms? It seems to me that by using the generic term weapon and not including firearms they are being vague. And since the state (I presume) issues CCWs the city doesn't want to enforce a law that may be in conflict with a state issued license. Does a WA state issued CCW carry a restriction that it may be suspended by a city or local ordinance?

It seems to me the law as written was intended to cover items that, while designed for a non-violent pupose and may have a separate usefulness, could be used as a weapon.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 8:32 AM
Who's next?




You are!!!! Thye are coming after you, your guns and your children right now!!!! Lock your doors and close the drapes and do not come out until you here the secret "all clear" signal.

Do it NOW!!!

mag360
05-03-2012, 8:36 AM
there city emergency powers act reads like a medieval proclamation. The king has spoken, everyone turn in your alcohol and guns and knock off the tom foolery or the knights shall beat you down.

pbchief2
05-03-2012, 8:41 AM
You are!!!! Thye are coming after you, your guns and your children right now!!!! Lock your doors and close the drapes and do not come out until you here the secret "all clear" signal.

Do it NOW!!!

:( I don't have drapes in my car.

I know, I'll go by a van. Be back in an hour.:p

DTatum
05-03-2012, 8:44 AM
Relax guys, this is to remove any weapons, including bats, batons, etc, from protesters who've gotten violent. Item D states "This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises"

But you gotta live how many people just started flaming before they actually had any solid knowledge of what was actually going on.

sandman21
05-03-2012, 8:44 AM
At the risk of being really thick headed, if they wanted to include legally carried or possessed firearms shouldn't they have specified legally carried or possessed firearms? It seems to me that by using the generic term weapon and not including firearms they are being vague. And since the state (I presume) issues CCWs the city doesn't want to enforce a law that may be in conflict with a state issued license. Does a WA state issued CCW carry a restriction that it may be suspended by a city or local ordinance?

It seems to me the law as written was intended to cover items that, while designed for a non-violent pupose and may have a separate usefulness, could be used as a weapon.

Any weapon means just that, both state and local law mention prohibiting firearms and any weapons in the same bullet point. If he wanted to exclude firearm he could have added it in the order just like the home and business exception. State law might preempt regarding firearms, however state allows the governor the same powers, if he/she were to invoke the state law you could not carry.

I would not want to argue that "any weapon" does not include firearms while trying to leave a riot area.

jdberger
05-03-2012, 9:07 AM
But you gotta live how many people just started flaming before they actually had any solid knowledge of what was actually going on.

Oh no. We know exactly what's going on. You realize that under ths ordinance you wouldn't be able to transport a weapon, right? You wouldn't be able to purchase one. You wouldnt be able to use one outside your home or business (hope you keep a gun at the shop because you can't take one there) to defend it?

This ordinance might be aimed at protestors, but it's effects are much more far reaching.

dobek
05-03-2012, 9:13 AM
But you gotta live how many people just started flaming before they actually had any solid knowledge of what was actually going on.

OK - so California comes out and says you can own a gun at home & work - but you can't transport it in between - - -

You OK with that?

Because that is what the order indicates.

I want to bring a gun from home to my downtown business for protection - I have violated this mandate.

If I have an LTC and carry downtown - I have violated this mandate

If I want to purchase a "weapon" downtown - Nope - violates the mandate as soon as I take possession.

Also - does Washington State Law allow a mayor to arbitrarily pass ordnances without a vote of any city council?

So remember "laws" are interpretted in court - which means in the meantime you are in the pokey with a bunch of smelly anarchists because you (gasp) transported a weapon in the mayor's special zone.

Steve

greg36f
05-03-2012, 9:38 AM
What the %$#@ is wrong with you people? Are you so paranoid and closed minded that you cannot fathom what the intent of this proclamation is?

It allows the police to take weapons away from the May Day protesters. THAT'S ALL IT IS!! Nothing more!! It's not the start of the grand master plan to disarm you!!!

If a bunch of protesters show up with bats, metal poles and 2 by 4's, they police can say "No, you cannot bring those to an already volatile situation".

Not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you!!!!!!!! You are not that important!!!!! Get over yourself.

lilro
05-03-2012, 10:01 AM
I wonder if there are any parks in the area. Looks like baseball is illegal now.

G60
05-03-2012, 10:03 AM
What the %$#@ is wrong with you people? Are you so paranoid and closed minded that you cannot fathom what the intent of this proclamation is?

It allows the police to take weapons away from the May Day protesters. THAT'S ALL IT IS!! Nothing more!! It's not the start of the grand master plan to disarm you!!!

If a bunch of protesters show up with bats, metal poles and 2 by 4's, they police can say "No, you cannot bring those to an already volatile situation".

Not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you!!!!!!!! You are not that important!!!!! Get over yourself.

What if I am an occupier?

Tempus
05-03-2012, 10:04 AM
If a bunch of protesters show up with bats, metal poles and 2 by 4's and DONT DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL then they should be allowed to stand around with their weapons. Period.

Why do you support _anyone_ losing their right to bear arms?

Hilldweller
05-03-2012, 10:05 AM
Police confiscated 70 items from "marchers".

http://img.ly/images/SeattlePD?page=1

Some pics there on SPD's twitter blog page.

if you read some of the articles online, he made the proclamation due to anticipated violence. Coincidentally , his wife had called 911 earlier in the day because people had thrown rocks through two of windows in their home.

I like the proclamation language. It specifically notes that "2x4 inch boards" could be confiscated. Thank goodness that today's "2.4's" are only 1.75x3.5 inches - so they should be good to go !

greg36f
05-03-2012, 10:25 AM
If a bunch of protesters show up with bats, metal poles and 2 by 4's and DONT DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL then they should be allowed to stand around with their weapons. Period.

Why do you support _anyone_ losing their right to bear arms?



Dang, you got me there my friend.......I don't want a bunch of anarchist May Day protesters running around with bats, poles and 2 by 4's in my downtown area immediately after the "protest" goes to sh*&.

What that really means is that I want to suspend the constitution and take your guns away....Very clever how you made that connection!!:rolleyes:

OleCuss
05-03-2012, 10:25 AM
I'm kinda curious? Since the incident has resolved, has the dictatorial violation of constitutional rights been reversed?

Somehow I don't think I should hold my breath. . .

G60
05-03-2012, 10:26 AM
Why do you support _anyone_ losing their right to bear arms?

Because "for me, but not for thee..." is not an attitude unique to the rich and well-connected.

lilro
05-03-2012, 10:49 AM
Dang, you got me there my friend.......I don't want a bunch of anarchist May Day protesters running around with bats, poles and 2 by 4's in my downtown area immediately after the "protest" goes to sh*&.

What that really means is that I want to suspend the constitution and take your guns away....Very clever how you made that connection!!:rolleyes:

What good are rights if you can only exercise one at a time? If someone gets shot at those protests, there's already law on the books for that. Broken windows? There's laws for that already too. Graffiti? That's taken care of too. Theft is already illegal as well. Simply being armed and protesting is well within our rights. The whole reason for 2A is supposed to go hand in hand with protest. That's why it's right after the free speech amendment.

PanaDP
05-03-2012, 10:49 AM
Relax guys, this is to remove any weapons, including bats, batons, etc, from protesters who've gotten violent. Item D states "This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises"

It does read that nobody can transport firearms, even legal ones, to or from those businesses or residences. A gun for home protection is nice but I take mine on dates.:D

PanaDP
05-03-2012, 11:08 AM
If I lived in Seattle, I would keep an empty holster on my belt all the time. More incidents of a citizen being subdued or arrested at gunpoint without having any weapon can only be a good thing for this type of legal posturing. Hell, I'd carry one of those switchblade combs, too, and hope they pepper sprayed me.

dustoff31
05-03-2012, 11:16 AM
Mr. Gura has already litigated this one. (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/03/bateman-is-another-win-for-alan-gura.html)

Yes he has. But not in the 9th Circut, so it doesn't matter. He would have to sue again in the 9th, and by the time he gets a court date, much less an order, the damage will have been done. It may however, prevent it from happening in the future.

jdberger
05-03-2012, 11:18 AM
What the %$#@ is wrong with you people? Are you so paranoid and closed minded that you cannot fathom what the intent of this proclamation is?

It allows the police to take weapons away from the May Day protesters. THAT'S ALL IT IS!! Nothing more!! It's not the start of the grand master plan to disarm you!!!

If a bunch of protesters show up with bats, metal poles and 2 by 4's, they police can say "No, you cannot bring those to an already volatile situation".

Not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you!!!!!!!! You are not that important!!!!! Get over yourself.

Oh. I see now. I was being obtuse earlier. Apologies.

As long as the government just takes weapons (or anything that might be used as a weapon) away from people who hold different political opinions from me, its cool. After all, those people surely aren't deserving of the same Civil Rights protections that I am. Their deals are abhorrent.

They shouldn't be allowed to even march - or vote!

General
05-03-2012, 11:42 AM
148145

vincewarde
05-03-2012, 11:57 AM
The really sad thing is that there are legal and constitutional ways the city could have dealt with this situation:

1) Brandishing a weapon is a crime in most states. Chances are that's exactly what these folks would have done - enabling the confiscation of the weapon and the arrest of the person brandishing the weapon.

2) There is a very old (1800s) SCOTUS ruling that makes it clear that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to an organized group of individuals marching in public. The case involved a private "militia" - but a group of armed protestors is not too much of a stretch.

They could have gone either of these routes and avoided an unconstitutional general confiscation order, while still addressing public safety concerns.

Meplat
05-03-2012, 11:59 AM
You know, guyz, these anti mayors and guvners are costing their TAXPAYERS MILLIONS in stupidity.

TAXPAYERS = US. It don't cost the power whores a dime.

OleCuss
05-03-2012, 12:00 PM
Yes he has. But not in the 9th Circut, so it doesn't matter. He would have to sue again in the 9th, and by the time he gets a court date, much less an order, the damage will have been done. It may however, prevent it from happening in the future.

Well, even though the most relevant case law came out of another circuit, it will still be influential and certainly should "matter" in the 9th Circuit even though it is not precedential.

There is actually a certain beauty to having this come up. I don't even begin to claim to know what Gura/Gray/SAF will do with this, but I have a feeling that even the 9th Circuit would have difficulty ignoring what another court decided on this one and we may get our rights locked in a little better. And if the 9th were to agree with Mr. Mayor we'd effectively have a very interesting circuit split which would have a good chance of attracting a cert from SCOTUS.

I'm really wondering if this incident might lead to an emergency request for a temporary injunction. If we were to get that and it held up at the circuit level we would have precedent in two circuits and given that one would be the 9th Circuit it would begin to have the feeling of settled law (it really wouldn't be settled, but it would have a little of that feeling).

Gray Peterson
05-03-2012, 12:21 PM
This is a state law matter. The Mayor has no authority under state law to ban gun carry. This is per the lawsuit myself & 5 other plaintiffs just won. Only the Governor has that authority under state law.

dustoff31
05-03-2012, 12:23 PM
This is a state law matter. The Mayor has no authority under state law to ban gun carry. This is per the lawsuit myself & 5 other plaintiffs just won. Only the Governor has that authority under state law.

Out of curiosity, has the state said anything regarding the mayor's order?

OleCuss
05-03-2012, 12:27 PM
This is a state law matter. The Mayor has no authority under state law to ban gun carry. This is per the lawsuit myself & 5 other plaintiffs just won. Only the Governor has that authority under state law.

Cool! I can't wait to see what you all do to the mayor!

hammerhead_77
05-03-2012, 1:34 PM
What the %$#@ is wrong with you people? Are you so paranoid and closed minded that you cannot fathom what the intent of this proclamation is?

It allows the police to take weapons away from the May Day protesters. THAT'S ALL IT IS!! Nothing more!! It's not the start of the grand master plan to disarm you!!!

If a bunch of protesters show up with bats, metal poles and 2 by 4's, they police can say "No, you cannot bring those to an already volatile situation".

Not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you, not everyone is out to get you!!!!!!!! You are not that important!!!!! Get over yourself.

Greg36f, you seriously don't get it...and calling everyone who disagrees with you a wacko conspiracy nut is straight off page 3 of the out maneuvered Leftist playbook.

There are already laws against inciting riots. There are laws against vandalism of both public and private property. There are laws against assault. There are laws against aggravated battery. How much more illegal do you think it needs to be to misbehave? Preemptively confiscating objects that could be used as a weapon without any demonstrated intent to actually use it as such is clearly an overreach by the Mayor.

THIS time it may have been aimed at May Day protesters...next time it may be aimed at people protesting Obamacare...next time, who knows. Depending on the innate goodness of government to only tread on other people's rights and defend us from evil is another insanely silly leftist idea. The government is not innately good - none ever has been. Ever.

Why not just avoid the problem and prohibit them from assembling in large groups in the first place? Doh! That's a fundamental constitutional right, isn't it? I forgot...as have you.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 2:13 PM
Greg36f, you seriously don't get it...and calling everyone who disagrees with you a wacko conspiracy nut is straight off page 3 of the out maneuvered Leftist playbook.

There are already laws against inciting riots. There are laws against vandalism of both public and private property. There are laws against assault. There are laws against aggravated battery. How much more illegal do you think it needs to be to misbehave? Preemptively confiscating objects that could be used as a weapon without any demonstrated intent to actually use it as such is clearly an overreach by the Mayor.

THIS time it may have been aimed at May Day protesters...next time it may be aimed at people protesting Obamacare...next time, who knows. Depending on the innate goodness of government to only tread on other people's rights and defend us from evil is another insanely silly leftist idea. The government is not innately good - none ever has been. Ever.

Why not just avoid the problem and prohibit them from assembling in large groups in the first place? Doh! That's a fundamental constitutional right, isn't it? I forgot...as have you.


No, believe it or not; I do get it. I see what people are saying, I just think that they are wrong in their interpretation. It is real easy to see the world in BLACK and WHITE,,,,,,NO GREY!!!!

The world does not work that way and most of the time this is a sign of lazy and immature thinking. In most cases, it gets you nowhere good.

I am just picturing some black clad guy holding a 5' long metal pole and standing in front of Wells Fargo plate glass window and grinning like an idiot. The manager asks the LEO standing by to do something and the LEO says that he cannot until the guy actually breaks the window and possibly starts a cascade of other vandalism.

Not allowing someone to come to a protest (a protest that is almost guaranteed to turn violent at some point) with a bunch of weapons of destruction seems reasonable to me.

Some people here just throw any sense of reason out the window and take a hard line that flat out ignores the real world. Pretty much like our politicians are doing right now....and look what that has gotten us.

There are all kinds of precedent for this type of regulation (no open fires, stay on the trail, no glass bottles, ect, ect).

I mean, even restraining orders could be seen as unconstitutional because they control conduct before a crime occurs.

As far as caling people names,,,,,,,Yeah, you got me there...not the best thing to do and not the best way to win heats and minds. Not a good choice on my part.

Meplat
05-03-2012, 2:23 PM
Please don't feed the.

:troll::troll::troll:


Greg36f, you seriously don't get it...and calling everyone who disagrees with you a wacko conspiracy nut is straight off page 3 of the out maneuvered Leftist playbook.

There are already laws against inciting riots. There are laws against vandalism of both public and private property. There are laws against assault. There are laws against aggravated battery. How much more illegal do you think it needs to be to misbehave? Preemptively confiscating objects that could be used as a weapon without any demonstrated intent to actually use it as such is clearly an overreach by the Mayor.

THIS time it may have been aimed at May Day protesters...next time it may be aimed at people protesting Obamacare...next time, who knows. Depending on the innate goodness of government to only tread on other people's rights and defend us from evil is another insanely silly leftist idea. The government is not innately good - none ever has been. Ever.

Why not just avoid the problem and prohibit them from assembling in large groups in the first place? Doh! That's a fundamental constitutional right, isn't it? I forgot...as have you.

QQQ
05-03-2012, 2:45 PM
Stuff
:ban:
I got the banhammer from OT for saying something less offensive than this. Let's spread the love.
...
Besides, should we really wait until this guy actually says something bannable before taking action? According to his own philosophy, a pre-emptive ban would be reasonable, even if he hadn't just said what he said in the quote. :)

Meplat
05-03-2012, 2:51 PM
It does read that nobody can transport firearms, even legal ones, to or from those businesses or residences. A gun for home protection is nice but I take mine on dates.:D

It’s a sorting device. The first time she puts her arm around your waist and discovers your gun her reaction tells a lot about whether or not she is a potential keeper.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 2:54 PM
:ban:
I got the banhammer from OT for saying something less offensive than this. Let's spread the love.
...
Besides, should we really wait until this guy actually says something bannable before taking action? According to his own philosophy, a pre-emptive ban would be reasonable, even if he hadn't just said what he said in the quote. :)


It's up to you to interpret it I guess...I was simply asking Meplat to give me a little love nibble......I hear he's quite to handsome guy........;)

Now, labeling someone a “troll” is probably one of the most offensive things that we can do here. It states that their opinion is beneath contempt and it is an attempt to de-value whatever their point of view is. It goes against everything that Cal Guns stands for.

THAT should fall to the ban hammer first.

Having said that, I take back the comment.....

Please insert, "Meplat, please refrain calling me a "troll" and instead point out my obviously flawed opinions. That really is more effective isn't it.

Kestryll
05-03-2012, 2:55 PM
Bite me Meplat.

You don't own this forum and you do not get to decide what opinions get attention.

Despite being a bit provocative by calling people names, my posts have been articulate, reasonable and well thought out. Just because you strongly disagree with me does not make me a troll.

Besides that, you are not well known for your middle of the road calming posts.....

I DO own the forum and I DO get to decide so I'd listen carefully.

Dump the insults, name calling and attitude or get dumped.

Is this clear?

greg36f
05-03-2012, 3:01 PM
I DO own the forum and I DO get to decide so I'd listen carefully.

Dump the insults, name calling and attitude or get dumped.

Is this clear?


Yes, it is clear.......Your house, your rules;

Having said that, can I keep just a little of the attitude...:D

Meplat
05-03-2012, 3:21 PM
:ban:
I got the banhammer from OT for saying something less offensive than this. Let's spread the love.


Thanks Q

Me too. But it would be a shame to prevent someone from farther revealing their true charicter.

Tempus
05-03-2012, 4:46 PM
I am just picturing some black clad guy holding a 5' long metal pole and standing in front of Wells Fargo plate glass window and grinning like an idiot. The manager asks the LEO standing by to do something and the LEO says that he cannot until the guy actually breaks the window and possibly starts a cascade of other vandalism.

I think this is worth talking about. I have faith that he isn't a troll and this is a real attempt at a discussion.

Lets break this down:

If someone is standing on a PUBLIC street or sidewalk outside of a business, do you feel that the manager has the legal right to ask a LEO to remove the person? (for now ignore how they are dressed or what they are carrying. Just look at the base case.)

Do you feel that a person carrying an object that could be used as a weapon or that is a weapon should have less rights that someone that is not carrying one?

Do you think its okay for a LEO to disarm a gun owner because someone phoned in a man with gun call and they want the gun owner disarmed before s/he shoots someone and started a cascade of other violence?

I think that people need to actually commit a crime before their rights should be curtailed. I don't think that we should surrender our liberty for temporary safety.

Even when its protestors I don't agree with. And even when I'm "sure" they are going to start something.

Meplat
05-03-2012, 6:42 PM
URBAN DICTIONARY: Troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 6:54 PM
Yes, it is clear.......Your house, your rules;

Having said that, can I keep just a little of the attitude...:D

wow, you just don't know when to quit :facepalm:

Meplat
05-03-2012, 7:29 PM
I think this is worth talking about. I have faith that he isn't a troll and this is a real attempt at a discussion.

Lets break this down:

If someone is standing on a PUBLIC street or sidewalk outside of a business, do you feel that the manager has the legal right to ask a LEO to remove the person? (for now ignore how they are dressed or what they are carrying. Just look at the base case.)

I suppose they have the right to ask all they want, that would come under the 1st amendment.

Do you feel that a person carrying an object that could be used as a weapon or that is a weapon should have less rights that someone that is not carrying one?

Personally, no. But the courts are still not up to speed with the constitution on the matter of carrying weapons in public.

Do you think its okay for a LEO to disarm a gun owner because someone phoned in a man with gun call and they want the gun owner disarmed before s/he shoots someone and started a cascade of other violence?

I think that people need to actually commit a crime before their rights should be curtailed.

That is called prior restraint and is not, in my view, compatible with the constitution.

I don't think that we should surrender our liberty for temporary safety.

Even when its protestors I don't agree with. And even when I'm "sure" they are going to start something.

This fool mayor has apparently no clue what he is doing. But whether it is the mayor of Seattle or the POTUS all it takes is someone to assume powers that he does not have and someone else that will enforce his decrees and you have trouble. The real problem we have is not this jerk mayor, it is that everyone is too willing to follow the people who hijack powers they do not have, and no one ever pays for their transgressions.

I don’t know about Washington, but in California that decree would not have added one bit of power that the police do not already have. In California it is illegal to carry weapons in certain places. That is probably unconstitutional, but there you have it. Other than purpose built weapons, what makes an object a weapon is intent. If an officer has reasonable cause to believe you intend to use an object as a weapon then it becomes a weapon you do not have to actually use it as such.

monk
05-03-2012, 7:40 PM
Anyway.......back on topic, I can see the issue people have that I didn't really see before. Preemptively assuming people will commit crimes is very dangerous. Following this logic I can see other actions or things being banned "to assure the public safety."

At the same time, I can see their reasoning behind it, flawed as it may seem. They figure if they can remove any and all items that can be used as weapons, it can limit the damage done by those weapons. Not saying I agree with it, but I do see their point of view. I just wish they'd of given exemptions to people legally transporting firearms, like people going to the range or visiting a friend, etc.


ETA: I just realized my last bit of argument would've disarmed the original Black Panthers...dear god wtf is wrong with me...

Springfield45
05-03-2012, 7:55 PM
If they confiscate poles and 2x4's what stops the protesters from getting another one? I am sure downtown Seattle is choked full of potential weapons just waiting for a creative mind to think of.

If someone speeds in seattle can the cops confiscate the car as a potential weapon? The problem with any kind of law that restricts weapons of any type is that people will make there own weapons if they feel they need one.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And as well intended as this proclamation may be, it should not impact someone from transporting there legally owned firearm.

People should be judged by there actions not by their potential to do harm. 97 million gun owners did not kill anyone today.

hammerhead_77
05-03-2012, 8:58 PM
Meplat, Greg, let's dial down the flamethrowers a bit, guys.

I called Greg out on a few things, he took it like a man, and the conversation returns to an even keel. There are times that I too have needed to be reminded when my views have drifted into hypocritical land... I for one hate to see the cholo's loading up on 'shotties' and ammo at the gun shows out of a concern that some of that is gonna end up coming my way. I've been called on it and eaten crow.

I don't think Greg is a troll...I think he is closer to 3rd & Pike than many of us, and in this case he thinks a little infringement is acceptable. Well, I think the same thing at the Orange County Fairgrounds from time to time. He backed off the name calling, and now we all go to the range to poke holes in things and show that we are still a big, happy family.

Meplat
05-03-2012, 9:45 PM
Meplat, Greg, let's dial down the flamethrowers a bit, guys.

I called Greg out on a few things, he took it like a man, and the conversation returns to an even keel. There are times that I too have needed to be reminded when my views have drifted into hypocritical land... I for one hate to see the cholo's loading up on 'shotties' and ammo at the gun shows out of a concern that some of that is gonna end up coming my way. I've been called on it and eaten crow.

I don't think Greg is a troll...I think he is closer to 3rd & Pike than many of us, and in this case he thinks a little infringement is acceptable. Well, I think the same thing at the Orange County Fairgrounds from time to time. He backed off the name calling, and now we all go to the range to poke holes in things and show that we are still a big, happy family.

Hammerhead:

I appreciate your attempts at peace making, I really do. I have tried reasoned arguments and gotten vicious attacks in return I have been bated and provoked with nastiness for its own sake. I no longer address those attacks personally. Pissing matches are a waist of our bandwidth. I refuse to engage. But I urge you to go to the ‘find all posts by’ feature, study some of them and see if you don’t agree that the object is to stir as much **** as possible. I may be wrong and we all go through a learning curve when new to this forum. But I sure see a lot of stuff that looks like an anti getting his jollies and disrupting useful discussion.

mag360
05-03-2012, 10:25 PM
No, believe it or not; I do get it. I see what people are saying, I just think that they are wrong in their interpretation. It is real easy to see the world in BLACK and WHITE,,,,,,NO GREY!!!!

The world does not work that way and most of the time this is a sign of lazy and immature thinking. In most cases, it gets you nowhere good.

I am just picturing some black clad guy holding a 5' long metal pole and standing in front of Wells Fargo plate glass window and grinning like an idiot. The manager asks the LEO standing by to do something and the LEO says that he cannot until the guy actually breaks the window and possibly starts a cascade of other vandalism.

Not allowing someone to come to a protest (a protest that is almost guaranteed to turn violent at some point) with a bunch of weapons of destruction seems reasonable to me.

Some people here just throw any sense of reason out the window and take a hard line that flat out ignores the real world. Pretty much like our politicians are doing right now....and look what that has gotten us.

There are all kinds of precedent for this type of regulation (no open fires, stay on the trail, no glass bottles, ect, ect).

I mean, even restraining orders could be seen as unconstitutional because they control conduct before a crime occurs.

As far as caling people names,,,,,,,Yeah, you got me there...not the best thing to do and not the best way to win heats and minds. Not a good choice on my part.

what if 10 blocks away where I live, i'd like to leave my house and go pick up some milk at the store, why should I have to leave my "arms" at home.

hammerhead_77
05-04-2012, 12:09 PM
Hammerhead:

I appreciate your attempts at peace making, I really do. I have tried reasoned arguments and gotten vicious attacks in return I have been bated and provoked with nastiness for its own sake. I no longer address those attacks personally. Pissing matches are a waist of our bandwidth. I refuse to engage. But I urge you to go to the ‘find all posts by’ feature, study some of them and see if you don’t agree that the object is to stir as much **** as possible. I may be wrong and we all go through a learning curve when new to this forum. But I sure see a lot of stuff that looks like an anti getting his jollies and disrupting useful discussion.

Roger all. I am unaware of the history and was giving full benefit of the doubt.

Hard to imagine a bigger waste of time than a non-constructive argument on this forum...

Mulay El Raisuli
05-05-2012, 3:19 AM
Actually, the Commies took it over after the Haymarket riot/massacre/affair/whatever. Before that it was a secularized version of a holiday rooted in the fertility festivals of pagan Rome and the Celtic festival Beltane. It is also the Feast day of St, Joseph the Worker -- patron saint of workers -- and, ironically given the subject of this thread, Law Day in the United States.

Given the participants I suspect the latest incarnation was the one being celebrated.


LOL!

Actually though, it isn't irony. Law Day was started as a response to the Commies taking over May Day as their holiday.


The Raisuli

OleCuss
05-05-2012, 4:23 AM
One thing I find kind of interesting is that some suggest the idea of the ordinance is at least touching on not having an armed protest or demonstration.

This, IIRC, touches on California law. IIRC, even if you have a carry license you cannot bring your pistol to a demonstration or protest. So if I'm correct in my (admittedly sometimes faulty) memory, a successful challenge to the Seattle ordinance just might improve our rights here in California.

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 6:18 AM
You know, guyz, these anti mayors and guvners are costing their cities and states MILLIONS in stupidity.

Yes, but they have billions to play with. So from their point of view, it's a pittance well-spent.

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 6:49 AM
No, believe it or not; I do get it. I see what people are saying, I just think that they are wrong in their interpretation. It is real easy to see the world in BLACK and WHITE,,,,,,NO GREY!!!!


Darned tootin' it's black and white, at least in this case, because this is a fundamental Constitutional right we're talking about here, not just some random privilege.



I am just picturing some black clad guy holding a 5' long metal pole and standing in front of Wells Fargo plate glass window and grinning like an idiot. The manager asks the LEO standing by to do something and the LEO says that he cannot until the guy actually breaks the window and possibly starts a cascade of other vandalism.


I suppose you'd be just as happy to arrest someone who is about to engage in public speech simply because it appears to you that he might say something slanderous, huh?

These are fundamental Constitutional rights we're talking about here. The burden on the government is much higher than mere suspicion when it comes to stripping someone of them.



Not allowing someone to come to a protest (a protest that is almost guaranteed to turn violent at some point) with a bunch of weapons of destruction seems reasonable to me.


Fundamental Constitutional rights are not subject to restrictions based on mere "reasonableness". If you truly believe that, then you must believe that discretionary issue LTC as the only legal means of carrying a firearm for self defense is proper, when in reality it is Unconstitutional.

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon." -- U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v Heller.



I mean, even restraining orders could be seen as unconstitutional because they control conduct before a crime occurs.


The fundamental difference there is that a restraining order has gone through due process as a result of being issued by a court, and that makes it conformant to the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause. That cannot be said for the order under discussion.

Again, you do not get to strip someone of a fundamental Constitutional right just because you think it's "reasonable" to do so. To claim otherwise is to destroy the very notion of a right, to strip the term of its very meaning.

greg36f
05-05-2012, 8:34 AM
Darned tootin' it's black and white, at least in this case, because this is a fundamental Constitutional right we're talking about here, not just some random privilege.




I suppose you'd be just as happy to arrest someone who is about to engage in public speech simply because it appears to you that he might say something slanderous, huh?

These are fundamental Constitutional rights we're talking about here. The burden on the government is much higher than mere suspicion when it comes to stripping someone of them.




Fundamental Constitutional rights are not subject to restrictions based on mere "reasonableness". If you truly believe that, then you must believe that discretionary issue LTC as the only legal means of carrying a firearm for self defense is proper, when in reality it is Unconstitutional.

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon." -- U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v Heller.




The fundamental difference there is that a restraining order has gone through due process as a result of being issued by a court, and that makes it conformant to the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause. That cannot be said for the order under discussion.

Again, you do not get to strip someone of a fundamental Constitutional right just because you think it's "reasonable" to do so. To claim otherwise is to destroy the very notion of a right, to strip the term of its very meaning.



This thread has been beaten to death, almost gotten me banned and no one has changed anyone’s mind, so I am not going to address all of your points; I am just going to say this.

You seem to equate not allowing people to bring bats, crow bars and metal poles to a demonstration / riot as the same thing as not allowing free speech, imprisoning people without trial and taking away everyone guns by force.

I don’t see it that way. Every right has responsibilities and restrictions. Very few rights are absolute.

From as STRICTLY theoretical standpoint, of course you are right.

That’s the easy and lazy route to take….When you make the world black and white it allows you to makes decisions without any thought or reason. We have all had bosses like that; by the book with no concern for real world conditions (I don’t care if the house is on fire, the rules say that we can only use non potable water on landscaping; wait till a tree catches on fire).

If rights were absolute and life was black and white, we would not need the Supreme Court right? Why would there be any decisions to make?

If you were the business owner and a group of black clad, masked people were approaching your business with bats, poles and crow bars I’m pretty sure you would not run out and freedom songs with them until they actually hit your business. How about if it was your wife caught up in the demonstration / riot? Sorry honey, but we could not do anything until the crow bar actually HIT your head.

Bringing a crow bar to a demonstration / riot is just wrong. There is no reason to do it other than hurt / kill someone or destroy property.

At some point, reason has to enter the equation.

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 8:56 AM
This thread has been beaten to death, almost gotten me banned and no one has changed anyone’s mind, so I am not going to address all of your points; I am just going to say this.

You seem to equate not allowing people to bring bats, crow bars and metal poles to a demonstration / riot as the same thing as not allowing free speech, imprisoning people without trial and taking away everyone guns by force.

I don’t see it that way. Every right has responsibilities and restrictions. Very few rights are absolute.


Yes, every right has responsibilities and restrictions. But it is not within the government's legitimate power to unilaterally declare anything it wishes to be a restriction merely on the basis of "reasonableness".

Responsibilities are an entirely separate thing from the discussion thus far. Responsibilities are carried out through action or through restraint of action. They are not imposed by government through prior removal of the right, they are imposed through penalties upon the improper exercise of the right. But what we're talking about here is removal of the right -- of prior restraint.



From as STRICTLY theoretical standpoint, of course you are right.

That’s the easy and lazy route to take….When you make the world black and white it allows you to makes decisions without any thought or reason. We have all had bosses like that; by the book with no concern for real world conditions (I don’t care if the house is on fire, the rules say that we can only use non potable water on landscaping; wait till a tree catches on fire).

If rights were absolute and life was black and white, we would not need the Supreme Court right? Why would there be any decisions to make?


Of course you're correct here, but only as regards the exploration of the boundaries of the right itself. That is what the Supreme Court is for.

Again, you're arguing in favor of a preemptive restriction on a fundamental Constitutional right, on the basis of what someone might do, and that said restriction is proper merely because it is "reasonable". How is that any different than arguments in favor of "may-issue" concealed carry?



If you were the business owner and a group of black clad, masked people were approaching your business with bats, poles and crow bars I’m pretty sure you would not run out and freedom songs with them until they actually hit your business. How about if it was your wife caught up in the demonstration / riot? Sorry honey, but we could not do anything until the crow bar actually HIT your head.


Freedom comes with a price. That price is risk. Deal with it.

More to the point, the business owner has just as much right to defend his business as the group of black clad, masked people have the right to wear black and to carry bats, poles, and crowbars. Their rights stop at the actions they would take to harm others, but they do not stop before then.

I understand your apparent desire to maximize the safety of the people, but maximization of safety is antithetical to freedom. The safest person is the one who is locked up in an asylum in a straitjacket. But that is not where any of us want to be.



Bringing a crow bar to a demonstration / riot is just wrong. There is no reason to do it other than hurt / kill someone or destroy property.


Is that so? Why is bringing a crowbar to such an event wrong, but bringing a firearm isn't?

You presume intent when it is not necessarily there. Not everyone can afford a firearm, but most people can afford crowbars.

When it comes to fundamental enumerated rights, mere suspicion of intent is not sufficient grounds for removal of the right. In that direction lies the tiresome arguments that are constantly trotted out by the anti-gunners. And in that direction lies the utter destruction of the right itself. It is not a right if it can be removed just because someone thinks it's reasonable to do so.



At some point, reason has to enter the equation.

Indeed it does, but the fact that something is a fundamental enumerated right sets the bar much higher than mere suspicion and "reasonableness".

DemocracyEnaction
05-05-2012, 9:04 AM
Relax guys, this is to remove any weapons, including bats, batons, etc, from protesters who've gotten violent. Item D states "This order shall not apply to the weapons lawfully kept on business or residential premises"

Ya I think it's for the anarchists. Stupid kids.

Lone_Gunman
05-05-2012, 9:31 AM
Not just bats, poles, 2x4s etc... Guns too. THAT'S the issue. This same edict could be used to disarm legally carrying citizens at a tea party rally. We are not looking at the INTENT of the order (as interpreted by greg36f) we are looking at the letter of the order.

QQQ
05-05-2012, 9:34 AM
Ya I think it's for the anarchists. Stupid kids.Ah, so if you espouse political views outside of those approved by the local, state, and federal government, then you forfeit your right to bear arms. I think I understand now.

greg36f
05-05-2012, 10:47 AM
Not just bats, poles, 2x4s etc... Guns too. THAT'S the issue. This same edict could be used to disarm legally carrying citizens at a tea party rally. We are not looking at the INTENT of the order (as interpreted by greg36f) we are looking at the letter of the order.



To be honest, I don't think that "guns" even entered the mayor's mind when he wrote this. Yes, of course they are "weapons", but I don't think they were the issue here.

I don't think this was seen as a 2nd amendment issue when it was written.

I get the “letter of the law” and the “how this could be interpreted”, but I guess I am just focused on the narrow “bats, crow bars and 2 by 4’s at a demonstration” thing.

It is possible that negative experience in these types of situations narrows my view.

I see that in the “big picture” you guys are right; I think that I am right in the narrow context that this proclamation was intended to address. I do get the whole slippery slope thing, I guess that I (possibly naively (SP?)) don’t see that here.

Meplat
05-05-2012, 6:05 PM
I get the “letter of the law” and the “how this could be interpreted”, but I guess I am just focused on the narrow “bats, crow bars and 2 by 4’s at a demonstration” thing.

It is possible that negative experience in these types of situations narrows my view.

I see that in the “big picture” you guys are right; I think that I am right in the narrow context that this proclamation was intended to address. I do get the whole slippery slope thing, I guess that I (possibly naively (SP?)) don’t see that here.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Part of the problem is that this edict was not needed, at least if WA law is anything like CA law. LE had all the power it needed to handle the situation in the first place. It’s like the mayor is saying; “Yes, you really, really can arrest people for brandishing 2X4’s. The cops can do that already! .

Anything that can be used as a weapon is a weapon, if the intent is to use it as a weapon. All you need is a reasonable cause to believe that the intent was to use it as a weapon.

Now I’m not a cop, but I did work in a government agency. I can justify damn near anything given 30 minutes and a spell checker. I know quite a few cops, and I know that to be able to do the same is a basic survival skill for them. So they could take ‘weapons’ away from any rioters they needed to. And arrest if they wanted.

So, Seattle changed the rules when they did not in fact need to be changed. They created a huge wide loop when the loop they had was plenty big enough to start with. Do you see why people whose rights have been nickel, dimed, and one piece at a timed, away, for over half a century would be just a bit skeptical?
;)

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 6:36 PM
I see that in the “big picture” you guys are right; I think that I am right in the narrow context that this proclamation was intended to address. I do get the whole slippery slope thing, I guess that I (possibly naively (SP?)) don’t see that here.

It's entirely possible that the original intent of this is exactly as you say here. Only the mayor really knows what his real intent is.

The problem is that intent isn't really what matters when it comes to government. Execution is. And long experience and thousands of years of history both show that any government that is given the power to remove a right will do so. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when.

Katrina serves as an excellent lesson on this subject.


As a result, every move by government to restrict or eliminate a right must be viewed with deep skepticism. History shows no other reasonable way to view such moves.

And once a right is removed, restoring it is extremely difficult. Witness the sheer amount of effort that is now being expended to restore the right to keep and bear arms. You know what I say here is true, because you've been on this forum for some time and have been seeing it for yourself.

greg36f
05-05-2012, 7:44 PM
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Part of the problem is that this edict was not needed, at least if WA law is anything like CA law. LE had all the power it needed to handle the situation in the first place. It’s like the mayor is saying; “Yes, you really, really can arrest people for brandishing 2X4’s. The cops can do that already! If you are a CA cop and don’t know already, let me inform you, and then if you don’t buy it from me, ask your supervisor.

Anything that can be used as a weapon is a weapon, if the intent is to use it as a weapon. All you need is a reasonable cause to believe that the intent was to use it as a weapon.

Now I’m not a cop, but I did work in a government agency. I can justify damn near anything given 30 minutes and a spell checker. I know quite a few cops, and I know that to be able to do the same is a basic survival skill for them. So they could take ‘weapons’ away from any rioters they needed to. And arrest if they wanted.

So, Seattle changed the rules when they did not in fact need to be changed. They created a huge wide loop when the loop they had was plenty big enough to start with. Do you see why people whose rights have been nickel, dimed, and one piece at a timed, away, for over half a century would be just a bit skeptical?
;)



Yes, I am well aware of the value of "articulation" and I am aware of the laws that are already in place.

you are the first person in this thread that has really articulated that and when you think of it, it really makes this whole thread, the animosity created and my almost being banned silly.

The mayor simply duplicated laws already on the books.

When you think about it, he was probably just covering the cops and the city's tushes.

All this drama for nothing....

Well, it was a fun argument while it lasted.....:D

dobek
05-05-2012, 10:15 PM
You know if the British had been as smart as the Mayor - those pesky guys outside the Boston customs house wouldn't have started such a fuss.

The Mayor could have prevented the Boston Massacre.....

How is that for another view?

Steve

jdberger
05-06-2012, 12:46 AM
This thread has been beaten to death, almost gotten me banned and no one has changed anyone’s mind, so I am not going to address all of your points; I am just going to say this.

You seem to equate not allowing people to bring bats, crow bars and metal poles to a demonstration / riot as the same thing as not allowing free speech, imprisoning people without trial and taking away everyone guns by force.

I don’t see it that way. Every right has responsibilities and restrictions. Very few rights are absolute.

From as STRICTLY theoretical standpoint, of course you are right.

That’s the easy and lazy route to take….When you make the world black and white it allows you to makes decisions without any thought or reason. We have all had bosses like that; by the book with no concern for real world conditions (I don’t care if the house is on fire, the rules say that we can only use non potable water on landscaping; wait till a tree catches on fire).

If rights were absolute and life was black and white, we would not need the Supreme Court right? Why would there be any decisions to make?

If you were the business owner and a group of black clad, masked people were approaching your business with bats, poles and crow bars I’m pretty sure you would not run out and freedom songs with them until they actually hit your business. How about if it was your wife caught up in the demonstration / riot? Sorry honey, but we could not do anything until the crow bar actually HIT your head.

Bringing a crow bar to a demonstration / riot is just wrong. There is no reason to do it other than hurt / kill someone or destroy property.

At some point, reason has to enter the equation.

Nope. But I might just decide to step out front with a shotgun, hoping to dissuade them.

Of course, that would be rohibited under the proposed law....