The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on June 11, 2008, 03:29:55 PM
-
http://kuow.org/DefaultProgram.asp?ID=15108
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels wants all city property to be gun–free. Last Friday he signed an Executive Order that bans firearms on public property, including parks and community centers.
MAYOR NICKELS SIGNED THE ORDER FOLLOWING A RECENT SHOOTING AT SEATTLE CENTER. TWO WEEKS AGO, THREE PEOPLE WERE INJURED AT FOLKLIFE FESTIVAL. THE SUSPECT HAS A HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. YET LAST YEAR HE WAS ISSUED A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT. NICKELS SAYS IT IS NOT HIS GOAL TO INFRINGE ON PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS, RATHER TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S SAFE IN PUBLIC SPACES.
NICKELS: "We can't wait for another incident, we're taking action now. This is a small step, and hopefully not the last step in protecting the public from gun violence."
-
I read this story and the A-hole KNOWS that his order is illegal! When you knowingly break the law you go to jail!
-
I read this story and the A-hole KNOWS that his order is illegal! When you knowingly break the law you go to jail!
Bullseye!
But sadly, you and I both know that he will not be held accountable.
-
wait so its wrong for a properity owner to control what is allowed on thier properity?
if you say yes, tell me when you want me to drop off a drum or two of hazmat.
-
The NRA should be all over this guy
-
The NRA should be all over this guy
Should, being the operative word there.
-
Take names.
Never forget.
-
wait so its wrong for a properity owner to control what is allowed on thier properity?
if you say yes, tell me when you want me to drop off a drum or two of hazmat.
It isn't his property.
-
I would demand an explaination from the mayor as to what effect this restriction would have had on the shooter? Grandstanding, pure and simple.
Mac.
-
It isn't his property.
is he in charge of said property? if yes, then he does have the authority to dictate policy with in the bounds of the law.
-
is he in charge of said property? if yes, then he does have the authority to dictate policy with in the bounds of the law.
And therein lies the rub.
-
The mayor may do what the owners of the property allow him to do, within the bounds of the law. He is an employee. No?
Mac.
-
THE SUSPECT HAS A HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. YET LAST YEAR HE WAS ISSUED A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT.
I don't know the Washington state gun laws but this guy sounds like, if he had documented "drug abuse and mental health problems," he probably wouldn't qualify for a carry permit in most states. Perhaps the Washington state process is flawed. Leave it to a politician to over generalize and focus on the wrong end of the problem. If there is a problem with one there must be a problem with all.
-
From the article:
WORKMAN: "When the state legislature adopted what we call state pre–emption back in the early 1980s it put that power, that authority solely in the hands of the legislature which means the city of Seattle, or the city of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, Bellingham, pick a city, they can't set up their own gun laws that are any more strict than the state standard."
After thoroughly checking my thinking cap then re-reading for confirmation of my reading comprehension I have come to the conclusion that the fine mayor of Seattle is in violation of the state constitution. TAB, you lost again. The problem is not with the gun, it is with the user. Substitute hammer for gun in this or any story and see the utter futility of thought that it would take to believe that the mayor of Seattle has a sane idea with his "plan" for public safety.
Stop. Breathe Deeply. Think don't feel. (There is a theme in here somewhere.)
-
wait so its wrong for a properity owner to control what is allowed on thier properity?
if you say yes, tell me when you want me to drop off a drum or two of hazmat.
From the article:
WORKMAN: "When the state legislature adopted what we call state pre–emption back in the early 1980s it put that power, that authority solely in the hands of the legislature which means the city of Seattle, or the city of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, Bellingham, pick a city, they can't set up their own gun laws that are any more strict than the state standard."
After thoroughly checking my thinking cap then re-reading for confirmation of my reading comprehension I have come to the conclusion that the fine mayor of Seattle is in violation of the state constitution. TAB, you lost again. The problem is not with the gun, it is with the user. Substitute hammer for gun in this or any story and see the utter futility of thought that it would take to believe that the mayor of Seattle has a sane idea with his "plan" for public safety.
Stop. Breathe Deeply. Think don't feel. (There is a theme in here somewhere.)
Yes, there is a theme here, (http://www.mazeguy.net/silly/butthead.gif)
-
is he in charge of said property? if yes, then he does have the authority to dictate policy with in the bounds of the law.
Your skull can't possibly be that thick. Like playing Devil's advocate, do you?
Then please try to have a reasonable argument in place instead of some half baked nonsense.
-
Your skull can't possibly be that thick. Like playing Devil's advocate, do you?
Then please try to have a reasonable argument in place instead of some half baked nonsense.
I'm not playing devils advocate. I truely beleave that a property owner( or some one in charge of said property) right to restrict what comes onto and happends on thier property. Since you don't have to go on that property, his right, trumps your rights.
-
I'm not playing devils advocate. I truely beleave that a property owner( or some one in charge of said property) right to restrict what comes onto and happends on thier property. Since you don't have to go on that property, his right, trumps your rights.
You should take a class on civics, the mayor does not OWN the town so your argument is assinine(http://www.mazeguy.net/silly/butthead.gif)
-
You should take a class on civics, the mayor does not OWN the town so your argument is assinine(http://www.mazeguy.net/silly/butthead.gif)
He is in charge of it... thats no diffrent then a property manger, the owners of said property gave him power over it when they elected him.
-
Please re-read the article. He does not have the authority according to the state law. He, the mayor, has overstepped his authority. It would be roughly the equivalent of a sheriff from another state writing a traffic ticket,"because something needed to be done".
-
That if for the courts to deside, I'm sure this will be going to court.
AS much as we hate to hear it... gov can enact laws to insure the publec safety.
-
That if for the courts to deside, I'm sure this will be going to court.
AS much as we hate to hear it... gov can enact laws to insure the publec safety.
If there is a law against what has happened where is law enforcement? Is law a one way street to control the citizen only?
The law against what was done is clear and the ban is contrary to law. Claims that interpretation is for the courts to decide is a cop out (interesting term, cop out, where did that come from?) What is the court to decide without an enforcement action..why is there not an enforcement action? Are there no police to charge this guy with malfaesance (sp) in office....is that not a crime for the court to decide? People are arrested and charged every day with far less proof than is exhibited here.
Once again, a one-sided action of enforcement against the sheep and a free ride for the politician. This is how a nation is lost....a lack of enforcement upon the elite....the perverted emergence of people worshipping the policially powerful. A proven track to dictatorial control...as shown in Seattle.
Some laws are "good" and they are enforced because they are "easy", some laws are "bad" and they are not enforced. Obviously, someone who has the power affect someone's paycheck in a government structure must be exempt from the law in Seattle. Is that not tyranny?
-
My guess on "cop out".
Probably started with "cop a plea" meaning to lessen your guilt by helping the cops. Then was morphed into "cop out" meaning to take the easy way.
Just a guess but ya gotta admit it sounds good (doesn't it?)
-
If there is a law against what has happened where is law enforcement? Is law a one way street to control the citizen only?
The law against what was done is clear and the ban is contrary to law. Claims that interpretation is for the courts to decide is a cop out (interesting term, cop out, where did that come from?) What is the court to decide without an enforcement action..why is there not an enforcement action? Are there no police to charge this guy with malfaesance (sp) in office....is that not a crime for the court to decide? People are arrested and charged every day with far less proof than is exhibited here.
Once again, a one-sided action of enforcement against the sheep and a free ride for the politician. This is how a nation is lost....a lack of enforcement upon the elite....the perverted emergence of people worshipping the policially powerful. A proven track to dictatorial control...as shown in Seattle.
Some laws are "good" and they are enforced because they are "easy", some laws are "bad" and they are not enforced. Obviously, someone who has the power affect someone's paycheck in a government structure must be exempt from the law in Seattle. Is that not tyranny?
Well put. (Just a bit dyslexic on malfeasance. Sorry, Mom's an English teacher). The idea that laws are in place to keep the people in theirs is only half the equation. Laws keep the government in place as well (mayor). The Bill of Rights is a limit on Government not the people. The line has been slowly nudged 'till we have a situation like the genesis of this thread.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
These two paragraphs are from the Bill of Rights. The first is the beginning of the preamble, the second is the 10th amendment (often forgotten in today's aught-to-be-a-law society). I've redden it up a bit to emphasize the limits. Sorry for the civics lesson, but clearly it's needed. Besides, I have the constitution on my side. A teacher I had once stated, "Every law that is passed destroys a freedom". It is a good thought that should be passed around and then remember why this Nation is great but slipping.
-
AS much as we hate to hear it... gov can enact laws to insure the publec safety.
TAB. I don't think you understand the term "preemption". Dave Workman's explanation was crystal clear. I don't think you want to understand it. You seem to be suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you're a graduate of the Alan Colmes school of debate. Either way, you're wrong...just like Seattle's Mayor Quimby.
-
Mayor Nagin did essentially the same thing in New Orleans, didn't he? How is that working out for him these days?
Mac.
-
It's working out too well. He's not in prison, he has his bank account. It's worked out far too well, unfortunately.
Another example sheep of worshiping the politically powerful in the land founded by the free and the brave.
Here's a thought for you....wonder if he's on B-HO's short list for VP?
-
TAB. I don't think you understand the term "preemption". Dave Workman's explanation was crystal clear. I don't think you want to understand it. You seem to be suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Either that, or you're a graduate of the Alan Colmes school of debate. Either way, you're wrong...just like Seattle's Mayor Quimby.
The list of things TAB doesn't understand seems to be fairly extensive.
-
That is for the courts to decide, I'm sure this will be going to court.
....And thus the Judicial Monarchy that has become our great nation.
Everything is decided in the courts now, and with the activist judges that we have running wild we are in bad shape. You never see any issues on the ballot anymore. Only career politicians who are more then happy to let the courts run our country while they are busy lining their pockets and worrying only about their careers. It makes me sick!
-
The list of things TAB doesn't understand seems to be fairly extensive.
Ouch.
-
I'm not playing devils advocate. I truely beleave that a property owner( or some one in charge of said property) right to restrict what comes onto and happends on thier property. Since you don't have to go on that property, his right, trumps your rights.
Article: Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels wants all city property to be gun–free. Last Friday he signed an Executive Order that bans firearms on public property, including parks and community centers.
-
As I said, political grandstanding. Mayor Nichols knows his efforts will do nothing to stop the rampant violence, which is the fruit of real problem. He instead picks on a tool of violence as his quick fix to sincerely pretend to DO SOMETHING. He won't take a bite into the sour apple of truth. We now have a couple of generations raised in parent-less, Godless, hopeless homes, who don't mind killing and don't mind dying, as if it was their manifest destiny. Taking on the real problem would make lots of folks mad. After all, it's hard work being good parents (2). Not a lot of ME time with kids.. Easier to let the streets raise'em.
If Mayor Nichol wanted to solve his city's problem with shootings and violent crime, he would have to dig a lot deeper into today's social ills, a very politically sensitive subject. But, if he summoned the resolve, and found a way within the City's resources to bind "The Family" back together, not only could he take credit for improving the futures for all Seattle's residents, he might just have found the way to save our Nation.
Mac.
-
As I said, political grandstanding. Mayor Nichols knows his efforts will do nothing to stop the rampant violence, which is the fruit of real problem. He instead picks on a tool of violence as his quick fix to sincerely pretend to DO SOMETHING. He won't take a bite into the sour apple of truth. We now have a couple of generations raised in parent-less, Godless, hopeless homes, who don't mind killing and don't mind dying, as if it was their manifest destiny. Taking on the real problem would make lots of folks mad. After all, it's hard work being good parents (2). Not a lot of ME time with kids.. Easier to let the streets raise'em.
If Mayor Nichol wanted to solve his city's problem with shootings and violent crime, he would have to dig a lot deeper into today's social ills, a very politically sensitive subject. But, if he summoned the resolve, and found a way within the City's resources to bind "The Family" back together, not only could he take credit for improving the futures for all Seattle's residents, he might just have found the way to save our Nation.
Mac.
Bullseye!
He and every other politician out there take the very same approach simply to look like they are being proactive and doing something. They don't want to truly work on solving the problem because they know that it is too much of an up hill battle, and what it takes to win that war will not be popular with the electorate - thus they once again do what is in the best interest of their careers and not what is in the best interest of the American people.
-
Article: Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels wants all city property to be gun–free. Last Friday he signed an Executive Order that bans firearms on public property, including parks and community centers.
it is public property, but the public voted him to power over it. If they don't like it, they can recall him.
-
They voted him in so he can do whatever he wants;legal or not.
I believe that is THE MOST ignorant statement regarding elected officials ever posted to the DRTV Forums.
-
it is public property, but the public voted him to power over it. If they don't like it, they can recall him.
You are a little off the mark. He does not have the power to circumvent people's rights as given to them by the state and/or the federal government. He does not have legal power to outlaw carrying guns in the public square. If people have the right to be there and their state laws concerning concealed carry say that they have the right to be there with their guns, then there is nothing he can legally do about it. He is a Mayor, not a King. He is also not a legislator and does not have the power to make law. He is there to be a steward of the city, and not to rule over them as a monarch.
He must follow the law or be held accountable in court if he does not. No other business owner or owner of property that is open to the public would be allowed to due what he is doing. He is discriminating against law abiding CCW permit holders. A property owner who's property was open to the public wouldn't be able to say that their property was immune to the American's with Disabilities Act and not be required to provide wheelchair access or handicap parking spaces. They wouldn't be able to make black people use separate water fountains or restrooms. A mayor also can not do those types of things within a city. He is ignoring the law and is trying to say that those places in the city are off limits to the legal carrying of firearms.
--------->There is also a bigger issue in play here. That being that gun free zones do not make people safer, but instead makes them defenseless against any would be threat. What he is doing, legal or not is counterproductive.
-
Ohio recently passed a State Pre-emptive law for firearms. No government within the State of Ohio can pass a gun law more restrictive than what the State of Ohio has passed.
The Mayor of Cleveland issued Executive Orders to reinstate the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban plus a couple public property bans saying that the He knows what is good for Cleveland and the State laws be damned.
The DA there stated that should any arrests be made for violation of these "illegal laws" she would not prosecute.
The Police leadership instructed the force not to enforce them either.
I have a special respect for the DA because she stated that even though she thought these laws should be in place, she would not prosecute what were clearly illegal laws.
Perhaps someone in Seattle will have the courage to stand up to their mayor rather than talk about the power elected officials have to do as they please until recalled.
-
it is public property, but the public voted him to power over it. If they don't like it, they can recall him.
Might I also add......
"THE SUSPECT IN THIS CASE HAS A HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS". So, why has the mayor not taken the approach of banning people who have histories of drug abuse and mental health problems from the public areas? Yeah, me thinks the ACLU would go crazy over that one.
-
Ohio recently passed a State Pre-emptive law for firearms. No government within the State of Ohio can pass a gun law more restrictive than what the State of Ohio has passed.
The Mayor of Cleveland issued Executive Orders to reinstate the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban plus a couple public property bans saying that the He knows what is good for Cleveland and the State laws be damned.
The DA there stated that should any arrests be made for violation of these "illegal laws" she would not prosecute.
The Police leadership instructed the force not to enforce them either.
I have a special respect for the DA because she stated that even though she thought these laws should be in place, she would not prosecute what were clearly illegal laws.
Perhaps someone in Seattle will have the courage to stand up to their mayor rather than talk about the power elected officials have to do as they please until recalled.
The DA should bring charges against the mayor of Cleveland in this case. It is an abuse of power and he is attempting to deprive people of their constitutional rights (Both federal and state).
-
Might I also add......
"THE SUSPECT IN THIS CASE HAS A HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS". So, why has the mayor not taken the approach of banning people who have histories of drug abuse and mental health problems from the public areas? Yeah, me thinks the ACLU would go crazy over that one.
what diffrence does it make if he should not have got the permit or not? If this was an off duty cop that went nuts and started shooting people...would it change the out come? Also a history of mental health problems can mean almost anything, same with the drug abuse... it does not say what kind of drugs, just that he abused them... it also does not enclude the extent of his abuse.
-
TAB, do you believe gun-free zones deter violence? Not talking about metal detectors, just any posted areas?
Mac.
edited to add: Not just to TAB, does anyone here believe no-gun zones are effective in preventing acts of violence?
-
I do beleave there are places guns should not be, but I do not agree with the current applcation of gun free zones.
I do beleave property owners should have the right to exculde them... this covers every thing from retail stores to comm'l airlines.
-
what diffrence does it make if he should not have got the permit or not? If this was an off duty cop that went nuts and started shooting people...would it change the out come? Also a history of mental health problems can mean almost anything, same with the drug abuse... it does not say what kind of drugs, just that he abused them... it also does not enclude the extent of his abuse.
It was an example of ridiculous root-cause analysis. Obviously the mayor is on board with ridiculous trains of thought if he thinks that guns (inanimate objects) are the problem. So hey, why stop there.... He could also make the same idiotic case that because this crime was perpetrated by a male, then it would save lives and deter crime to ban all males from public areas as well.
-
I do beleave there are places guns should not be, but I do not agree with the current applcation of gun free zones.
I do beleave property owners should have the right to exculde them... this covers every thing from retail stores to comm'l airlines.
And what good will come of that?
-
And what good will come of that?
1st have you ever ran a biz? 2nd do you exclude people from bringing things into your home?
-
1st have you ever ran a biz? 2nd do you exclude people from bringing things into your home?
And your answer to my question would be.....? Come on, I think Its a pretty fair question.... I just want to know what you think will be accomplished by allowing retailers and others to establish gun free zones where ever they please. Simple enough, I think.
-
How about staying in biz? is that a good enough reason for you?
-
How about staying in biz? is that a good enough reason for you?
??????
Sorry, I don't follow you.
-
check the other thread.
-
Don't bother argueing with a closed mind. Tab is simply an anti concealed carry pin head. He's jealous of everyone else because he lives in Ca. and couldn't get a permit without bribing the sheriff, there fore he thinks every one else should be subject to the same socialist stupidity. He even objects to LEO's being able to carry nation wide, and no amount of facts or reasoning is going to convince him that a CITY mayor should not ignore the STATE law that says only the STATE can make gun laws. And do not expect coherent answers as he has none.
-
Don't bother argueing with a closed mind. Tab is simply an anti concealed carry pin head. He's jealous of everyone else because he lives in Ca. and couldn't get a permit without bribing the sheriff, there fore he thinks every one else should be subject to the same socialist stupidity. He even objects to LEO's being able to carry nation wide, and no amount of facts or reasoning is going to convince him that a CITY mayor should not ignore the STATE law that says only the STATE can make gun laws. And do not expect coherent answers as he has none.
I enjoy debating.
-
TAB, do you believe gun-free zones deter violence? Not talking about metal detectors, just any posted areas?
Mac.
edited to add: Not just to TAB, does anyone here believe no-gun zones are effective in preventing acts of violence?
/quote]
Tab, you did not address my question. Do you believe that the Mayor's order to ban guns from a public place will have ANY deterrent effect on the occurrence of the next shooting or gun related act of violence? Mac.
-
I enjoy debating.
Since I figured out what a twit he is I just like ragging on TAB. When I get bored I come to one of these threads and flame TAB, ;D
TAB, do you believe gun-free zones deter violence? Not talking about metal detectors, just any posted areas?
Mac.
edited to add: Not just to TAB, does anyone here believe no-gun zones are effective in preventing acts of violence?
/quote]
Tab, you did not address my question. Do you believe that the Mayor's order to ban guns from a public place will have ANY deterrent effect on the occurrence of the next shooting or gun related act of violence? Mac.
Don't hold your breathe waiting for TAB to get a "feeling". Of course gun free zones accomplish nothing but provide a Cal-OSHA approved safe work enviroment for robbers rapists and killers. It's just the felons version of a trip to the range.
-
It's just the felons version of a trip to the range.
With moving targets!! ;)
-
I'm just tired of being made to suffer as collateral damage when politicians pass laws that do NOTHING to attain the stated goal. What we need here is a better class of criminal! :P
Mac.