February 12, 2010

"Judge's ruling ends Seattle parks gun ban"

The rule banning firearms in Seattle parks was tossed out Friday by King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer, who said the city cannot pre-empt state law.
One of the individuals who challenged Seattle's gun ban was:
Raymond Carter, 44, of Seattle, who was described as a past co-chair of the Seattle Pride Parade and was the founding president of the Seattle Chapter of Pink Pistols/Cease Fear.

The suit said about Carter: "He routinely carries a firearm when he is lawfully permitted to do so because he strongly believes that as an openly gay man, he is more susceptible to becoming a victim of a hate-related crime but, because of health issues, he does not feel that he is physically capable of running away."

Sounds to me like a more effective defense against attackers than any "hate crime" law.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 12, 2010 08:53 PM | Email This
1. Well put, Shark. The second amendment is our concealed weapons permit.

Posted by: RWKook on February 12, 2010 08:59 PM
2. The ever-increasing arrogance of government cannot be overstated.

Nickelbag ought to be held personally liable for paying all costs associated with this nonsense for BOTH sides.


Posted by: Hinton on February 12, 2010 09:33 PM
3. Fascinating defender of the 2nd amendment, this Mr. Carter.

Posted by: Michele on February 12, 2010 10:36 PM
4. A gay guy who appreciates the second amendment?

Sounds like a libertarian to me.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 12, 2010 11:40 PM
5. Amen. The day more people arm themselves with whatever force they can handle is they day crime drops precipitously. If everyone carried a can of pepper spray, a taser or a gun, this would be a lot more polite world.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 12, 2010 11:44 PM
6. Watch that slippery slope back peddle now... The smoking in parks ban is suspiciously dropped now that the gun ban, and its ridiculous pre-emption of city property being "privately owned by the city" disappearing.

funny how that worked out.

Posted by: meanie on February 13, 2010 12:06 PM
7. This is all just common sense, common sense the left is loathe to acknowledge. A well armed populace is not only the best defense against tyranny. It's the best defense against crime in general.

We see this every day. That girl who kicked in the head of her rival in the Metro tunnel is an example. The tragedy is not that the security guards didn't intervene. The tragedy is that this girl knew, on some level, whatever level, that she was free to engage in public violence and get away with it.

Violent criminals, despite what many think, are for the most part rational actors. If they have a reasonable belief their victims or any bystander will fight back, even with the force of arms, they'll not only think twice, they'll abstain.

Put a bullet in one violent criminal's shoulder and you'll make 200 violent criminals reassess their standing in society. In the mind of a criminal, fear is always the most potent motivator. It follows that empowering law-abiding citizens with the ability to defend their values helps EVERYONE.

Posted by: AD on February 13, 2010 04:49 PM
8. Nice #7 paragraph 3, AD. That's why so many murders happen in gun-free zones like universities, because the murderer knows there will be no one to stop him on his rampage. Interesting to see how with all the gun-free zones liberals buffer themselves with, they're inadvertently evolving themselves out!

Posted by: RWKook on February 13, 2010 09:58 PM
9. Well, hell. If the guy didn't run like the fag he is: arms flailing, fake lashes hindering his view, Birkenstocks coming unhinged, screaming like a little girl, he wouldn't need a gun, he could just run away. Jeez!

Posted by: James on February 14, 2010 08:00 PM
10. Your mayor will ask the legislature to allow him to identify places with large numbers of unarmed victims.

That's all these "gun-free" zones are.

Posted by: Independent Voter on February 15, 2010 08:00 AM
11. Nice display of bigotry there, #9. I'm afraid, as a former bar bouncer, I just wouldn't fit your reality very well.

Hint - not everyone is 25 and sprightly. Further, age and infirmity will get us all in the end, if the Grim Reaper doesn't get us first. "Run away, run away" is a dandy strategy *as long as you can physically do it - and RUN FASTER*.

Myself, I'm left with risk management and standing my ground as realistic options - and thus, where lawful, I carry, if I go at all. Like a fire extinguisher, I hope the situation where I must utilize my gun for other than target practice never arises.

A critical element that many have missed that Judge Shaffer addressed rather pointedly - that should she have ruled in favor of the city, the same principal could be applied to all public spaces...like sidewalks, and streets - dropping us into the same safety status as Washington, D.C. - gotta love that awe-inspiring rate of street crime they've got there.

Yet further, when one sort of "rights-free zone" is declared - it is seldom long before others (review the free-speech impacting provisions in the proposed Parks Code of Conduct) are similarly declared using the same logic. Best to call a screeching halt while things are still in the first round of amusement.

To close, it is never a good thing when a Mayor or polity gets it in their various silly little heads that "the law just doesn't apply to them 'cause they are more special or righteous than those OTHER folks", as such is a recipe for balkanization and chaos.

In 1983, the WA Legislature recognized the wisdom of statewide consistent gun laws and passed pre-emption, ending a long era of a nightmare patchwork of conflicting laws where simply stepping from one jurisdiction into another could put one in legal peril. The Nickels Ban took it a step further, and the patchwork would have been by administrative fiat within each jurisdiction - had the ill-considered ban survived. Considered in view of similar limitations being placed on other civil rights, that would have been a very bad thing indeed.

Ray Carter
Seattle, WA

Posted by: Rcarter on February 15, 2010 08:43 AM
12. Why do liberals think a stupid sign indicating an area is a "gun free" zone will stop someone who is intent on using one in a crime? I'll never understand this.

Posted by: Palouse on February 15, 2010 08:48 AM
13. Ray Carter posted:

A critical element that many have missed that Judge Shaffer addressed rather pointedly - that should she have ruled in favor of the city, the same principal could be applied to all public spaces...like sidewalks, and streets - dropping us into the same safety status as Washington, D.C. - gotta love that awe-inspiring rate of street crime they've got there.

Exactly. And then you're left with an interesting conundrum, such as many in New York, NJ, MA, etc experience: how to transport a legally purchased firearm? You can have it at home, and you can buy one at the store, but to have it in your car or on the sidewalk or concealed is illegal.

Basically mandate that it becomes illegal to transport outside and you eliminate the ability to purchase firearms. Well, legal firearms at least. Somehow I suspect those intent on breaking the law will not be stopped by the unlawful nature of their transport of a firearm.

It's simply another step towards demanding we rely on the State for all...

As the saying goes: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Oh, and Ray? We get the occasional post like #9 in here. You'll find that the more prolific, conservative posters are not at ALL represented by such ideas. We get a fair share of drive-by posts like that; I suspect a good number of them come from the more liberal side of things and the posts are made to make conservatives "look bad". Essentially smashing the windows then blaming the homeowner for keeping a ramshackle appearance.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2010 11:11 AM
14. Ray Carter: #9 is pretending to be a right-winger. Ignore him.

Posted by: pudge on February 16, 2010 06:20 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?