Seattle declares emergency 5/1 confiscate firearms order

Seattle declares emergency 5/1 confiscate firearms order

This is a discussion on Seattle declares emergency 5/1 confiscate firearms order within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-con...2012/05/eo.pdf Sent from my 300 baud modem...

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76
Like Tree72Likes

Thread: Seattle declares emergency 5/1 confiscate firearms order

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Happypuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Small Town USA
    Posts
    893

    Seattle declares emergency 5/1 confiscate firearms order



  2. #2
    Member Array CaptainHaplo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    32
    Key there is Section 1 D: (empahsis added

    "This order shall NOT apply to the weapons lawfully kepton businessor residential premesis."

    While I don't agree with it, this is not a "take all the guns away" order. Its designed to keep guns off the streets until the idiocy of the few (mainly left wing nutjobs) is handled. Too bad they don't get the old adage that "if you outlaw guns......"
    Its also temporary - so nothing to get into a big wad about - yet....

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    It is a restriction of 2nd Amendment Rights of Law Abiding Citizens. Panties SHOULD be in a bunch. If this state has CCW, then it is a violation of Rights. Law abiding and legal citizens losing rights because of a few left wing nut jobs is horrible. They do it once....they can do it again. So GLAD I don't live in Washington State.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit51 View Post
    It is a restriction of 2nd Amendment Rights of Law Abiding Citizens. Panties SHOULD be in a bunch. If this state has CCW, then it is a violation of Rights. Law abiding and legal citizens losing rights because of a few left wing nut jobs is horrible. They do it once....they can do it again. So GLAD I don't live in Washington State.
    Can we say Fascists?? Just asking.....
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  5. #5
    Member Array CaptainHaplo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    32
    As I said - I don't agree with it. It would have been better if the owners of the businesses simply sat in their businesses and when someone smashed a window, popped them. Legally, they felt threatened and would have had every right. I guarantee you that would put a halt to this "occupy" idiocy.

    Then again, Spirit - you bring up an interesting point. You said LAW ABIDING citizens. Nothing law abiding about vandalism and rioting. I would be willing to bet that no self-respecting, responsible gun owner gets affected by this.... Know why? Because we have better sense than to be out in the streets acting like dumbarses.

    If the state had constitutional carry, then yes I could see an infrigement. But the fact is, state regulated CCW is an infrigement - and you seem ok with that. If the state can control WHO can carry concealed (via a permit process) and HOW they carry (concealed vs outlawing open / constitutional carry) then why is it suddenly an infrigement when they add yet another "how" to the equation? After the first violation of rights, the rest don't really matter because you have already let government "control" something it shouldn't have control over.

    There may be some legal fallout from this, but it will be minimal. Emergency situations that exist temporarily are considered valid (historically supported) reasons for martial law or like acts.
    War of 1812
    1892 - Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
    1906 and 1934 in California
    There have been a couple more in the US but they escape my memory at the moment. Its neither unprecedented historically nor is it suprising. I still don't agree with it though - but then again - that goes back to the whole ccw state control issue.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    I just read it again. It doesn't say those involved in the "protests". It says anyone. What if you are going shopping, to a doctor's appointment, to work or other legit business in this "area". It would still apply, right? If I lived in Seattle I would be outraged.
    shooterX, sigs, carracer and 2 others like this.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  7. #7
    Member Array paullie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    kansas
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo View Post
    Key there is Section 1 D: (empahsis added

    "This order shall NOT apply to the weapons lawfully kepton businessor residential premesis."

    While I don't agree with it, this is not a "take all the guns away" order. Its designed to keep guns off the streets until the idiocy of the few (mainly left wing nutjobs) is handled. Too bad they don't get the old adage that "if you outlaw guns......"
    Its also temporary - so nothing to get into a big wad about - yet....

    so 20 years would be ok??? thats temporary

  8. #8
    Member Array paullie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    kansas
    Posts
    355
    kansas has this:


    48-959. Seizure of firearms prohibited during official state of emergency; cause of action created; attorney
    fees.
    (a) No officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision thereof, member of the Kansas national guard in the
    service of the state, or any person operating pursuant to or under color of state law, receiving state funds, under control of
    any official of the state or political subdivision thereof, or providing services to such officer, employee or other person,
    while acting during a declared official state of emergency, may:
    (1) Temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited
    under state law, other than as evidence in a criminal investigation; or
    (2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by state law.
    (b) Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek in the courts of this state relief in an action at
    law or in equity or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such
    individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges or immunities provided by this section.
    (c) In addition to any other remedy at law or in equity, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a
    firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the district court of the county in which
    that individual resides or in which such firearm is located. In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall
    award the prevailing party, other than the state or political subdivision thereof, reasonable attorneys' fees.
    (d) "Seize" shall mean the act of forcible dispossessing an owner of property under actual or apparent authority of
    law.
    Last edited by Rock and Glock; May 2nd, 2012 at 02:14 PM.
    DamnitBob and Eagleks like this.

  9. #9
    Member Array CaptainHaplo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by paullie View Post
    so 20 years would be ok??? thats temporary
    If you read it - it must be filed within 48 hours and voted up or down within one week. It will be rescinded as soon as the leftist loonies are gone. Even pretending it would make it to a vote - and lets even pretend it would be voted as a necessary continuing matter - they would then get hit with a lawsuit that would overturn it so fast it would make their heads spin - as it should!

    Don't misunderstand - I don't like it any more than ya'll do - but to try and make it into something its not - like an "OMG THEY ARE COMING TO GET ALL OUR GUNS!" or "RIGHTS INFRIGEMENT" is a bit much.
    The OP provided no detail other than a blanket statement of "emergency confiscation of guns!" - which is , at best, highly misleading in its inference. The rights infrigemnent on carrying has been in place long before this - so to get bent out of shape NOW - especially over an overreaction to a bunch of leftist crybabies who want everyone to pay their way, is just a little overdramatic.

    This whole "well I have business in that area" idea - really? So your going to go "hey, I gotta run to the store and get some milk and cheese, and I think I will go down there where all them riots and stuff is happening. Oh yeah, better carry while I am at it." If that is your attitude about carrying - instead of taking the responsibility to say hey, maybe I have a responsibility to not put myself in a more dangerous situation - especially when I am armed - is ludicrous. Its not just a firearm you stick under your pant's leg or under your shirt - its a really heavy load of responsibility. Go to a different store. Tell work that its not safe to get to the office. Sorry doc, we have to reschedule my checkup, I don't care to put myself in a position to have to shoot some idiot in the street.

    As a gun owner who has carried for many years - I can tell you one very important fact. The people that get into situations or trouble with their guns - most of the time didn't take the precaution of common sense - they put themselves into positions where they COULD get themselves into trouble. Sure, the occasional one doesnt. But most do. Because they don't use their ole braincase.

    This is a really crappy "solutions" that won't solve anything for the city of Seattle. But calling it rights infringement when you have to get permission from the state to carry to start with? I got lost with that to start with......

    Edit - Paullie - +1 for Kansas! Someone did some thinking ahead! Can't expect that from the left coast though - unfortunately.

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Wow, I just hear about this part of the story. I am incredibly PISSED! I was not in the state today, but I could very well have been in that area on legitimate business unknowing of the stupidity of the "protesters". We won't even get into what they are protesting if anything. The fact that any normal law abiding citizen going about their daily business could instantly be turned into a criminal and have their lawfully carried firearm confiscated is not only offensive, but very very troubling.

    I understand what he was trying to do here, and protecting the city and police is important, but this went too far! At least write in a clause requiring that the "weapon" be intended for criminal use or that the person it is applied to must be taking part in the protest/riot. Give some indication that the proclamation does not instantly change the legal status of otherwise law abiding citizens.

    Does anyone know who we can contact to voice our disapproval? And what does everyone think about the legal standing of this order?
    Walk softly ...

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    I have lots of issues with this.

    First, note the clause about businesses doesn't appear to cover legal CCWers.

    If you think about it, when hooligans are trying to whip up a little mob anarchy, that is exactly when you want to be carrying.

    Next, the order basically creates a reversal of presumption of innocence. Basically by simply having it -- never-mind your permit -- they will assume nefarious purposes. Normally they could think what they want, but now they can take your firearm.

    Good luck getting it back. I recently priced another HK P2000 SK. Well, I'm willing to lose it to defend my life, but having the police be able to randomly take it?!

    This doesn't cover all my concerns, but you get the idea.

    Oh, and I note there is no end time on that order....

    -john
    beararms, carracer and Eagleks like this.

  12. #12
    Member Array CaptainHaplo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Western, NC
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by bzdog View Post
    Oh, and I note there is no end time on that order....

    -john
    It ends when rescinded, or when voted down by city council. That is in the order. It must be filed within 48 hours (and technically I wouldn't count on it being enforcible until filed). It must be voted on by city council within one week.
    IF it were to be approved by the city council, THEN the lawsuits will start and it will be Katie bar the door for Seattle - they will lose their backsides. No way this stands once it hits a courtroom!

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo View Post
    This whole "well I have business in that area" idea - really? [..] Oh yeah, better carry while I am at it." If that is your attitude about carrying - instead of taking the responsibility to say hey, maybe I have a responsibility to not put myself in a more dangerous situation - especially when I am armed - is ludicrous.
    I think you should check your assumptions. I work a couple blocks from the center of this mess and my wife works in one of the buildings that was hit. She doesn't have a job where she can just decide not to come in because there is a protest scheduled.

    We live about 25 miles away. We can't just change our mind later if we are going to carry on a given day. Once downtown, 25 miles from home, you are committed.

    Did we go hang out on the street? No. I stayed in the building and skipped lunch. Would I have gone out if my wife needed me? Of course. Would I have disarmed just prior to heading out into a riot? Hopefully that doesn't require an answer.

    But also keep in mind we had to get *to* work and get *from* work. Just saying don't go out isn't always feasible. And yes, we were prepared to spend the night at the office if needed, but we felt we had an opportunity to leave, and that leaving was better than staying.

    In the end, the police won't claim they can protect each of us, so how exactly is it even moral to disarm us in times of INCREASED danger?

    -john
    beararms, MleeC, carracer and 4 others like this.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo View Post
    and technically I wouldn't count on it being enforcible until filed
    While that may be legally true, I bet anything that the police did confiscate items today under this order. And that would make it *actually* true if it happened to you.

    -john

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array bzdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle(ish), WA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo View Post
    It ends when rescinded, or when voted down by city council. That is in the order.
    I read it again. I don't see anything along the lines of "until rescinded". I assume that is implied.

    -john

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

concealed carry in seattle
,

gun confiscation 2012

,

gun confiscation washington state

,
guns confiscated in seattle
,
how will they confinscate firearms washington state
,
seatle gun selzrres
,
seattle gun confiscation
,
seattle to confiscate guns
,
seattle wa gun confiscation
,
seattle washington, gun confiscation
,
state of emergency gun confiscation
,
wa state gun confiscation
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors