Park gun restrictions: One-man challenge planned in West Seattle

4:36 PM UPDATE: From the mayor’s office, which is now handling all comment on this: “If this resident plans to enter a Parks facility with a concealed weapon, he will be asked to leave. If he refuses, he will be arrested.”

ORIGINAL 12:04 PM STORY: Seems like Southwest Community Center and Pool is just the place to be tomorrow, more than usual. First we published news last night of a group renting the pool tomorrow night for a clothing-optional swim (since their first choice, Ballard Pool, is closed for repairs) – now, a man says he’s planning to challenge the city’s park/community center gun restrictions (already targeted in a lawsuit) by showing up at SWCC at noon tomorrow with a concealed weapon. He cc’d us and other media on a “courtesy” letter to the city; his entire letter is ahead – but first, a note: We asked if he chose that time and place for a particular reason; he told us he was hoping to attend the “Dogs in the Hood” show. Read on for the letter:

Dear Ms. Potter: [Dewey Potter, Seattle Parks]

As a courtesy, this is advance notice that at noon tomorrow, Saturday,
November 14, I plan to exercise my legal right to bear arms in Seattle’s
Southwest Community Center, 2801 SW Thistle Street. I will be safely and
securely carrying my holstered Glock pistol. I have a current valid State
of Washington License to Carry Concealed.

I am an attorney licensed to practice in Washington since 1991. I have
carefully reviewed the issues, and I concur with and am relying on AGO 2008
No. 8. Put bluntly, Seattle Parks and Recreation Rule P 060 – 8.14 was
promulgated in knowing and blatant violation of state and federal law.

In 1991, I took the Oath of Attorney just like every attorney licensed in
Washington. In doing so I solemnly declared, among other things, that I
would “support the constitution of the State of Washington and the
constitution of the United States,” and that I was “fully subject to the
laws of the State of Washington and the laws of the United States and will
abide by the same.” As mayor of Seattle, I believe Greg Nickels was
required to take an oath with similar pledges. Unlike Mr. Nickels, I take
mine seriously.

Please understand that I am not looking for, nor do I want there to be any
kind of uncivil confrontation. I will fully and peacefully comply with any
instruction given to me tomorrow at the Southwest Community Center by law
enforcement personnel and/or any City of Seattle official acting within the
scope of his or her official capacity and presenting proper identification
credentials. I will be wearing a Tacoma Rainiers baseball cap for easy
identification should anyone wish to speak to me tomorrow. The cap is navy
blue, with the stylized capital letters T and R in predominant silver on the

Please e-mail me should you have any questions.

Bob Warden

We’re checking to see if he’s gotten any reply. 12:40 PM: Also checked with Parks, which is “working on a statement.” We’ll add it to the story when it’s out. (note – statement came from mayor’s office and was added atop this story) ADDED EARLY SATURDAY: Bob Warden talked with channel 13 tv news on Friday night – here’s their story:

105 Replies to "Park gun restrictions: One-man challenge planned in West Seattle"

  • mark November 13, 2009 (12:13 pm)

    We can only hope they send him to King Co lock up by mistake and he ends up in General Population for the night. Guns belong in parks as much as unleashed pit-bulls.

  • Rich November 13, 2009 (12:19 pm)

    That was a very detailed description of a Rainiers baseball cap. Thank you Mr. Crackpot, with this information it will be easier for my family and I to avoid you.

  • brittany November 13, 2009 (12:31 pm)

    i’m so glad that crazy people continue to fight for their right to carry firearms around. hooray!

  • Luke November 13, 2009 (12:37 pm)

    I’m glad that people back illegal laws with their bigoted and ignorant opinions. Just because something “feels good” doesn’t make it legal…

  • Chad November 13, 2009 (12:44 pm)

    Seriously, is this guys business as an attorney that bad that he must strike a media storm to draw attention to himself. Also every news agency is pointing out his name and that he is a practicing attorney…Bob Warden…reminds me of “Bob Lablaw..Attorney at Law”?

    Plus this guys lives and practices in Kent. Go back to Kent and leave Seattle alone.

    I think there is only one word to describe this guy:

  • JenV November 13, 2009 (12:48 pm)

    look, just cuz this guy wants to walk around with big hairy bear arms doesn’t make him craz…oh, wait…

  • Adam November 13, 2009 (12:49 pm)

    Who is more of a douchenozzle, the lawyer drawing attention to himself, or the people supporting an illegal law that happens to suit their interests?

  • Dave November 13, 2009 (12:51 pm)

    This guy is a true counter cultural American Hero, fighting the man!

  • Donn November 13, 2009 (12:51 pm)

    Only paranoid people carry guns.

  • I am Spartacus November 13, 2009 (12:51 pm)

    It would be hilarious if like 50 people showed up wearing a hat like that. Not only would it split the focus away from him and onto the “protest”, but to make his point he’d have to un-conceal the weapon.

    If you’re so insecure that you need to secretly carry around a tool whose sole purpose is to kill people from hundreds of yards away when you leave the house, maybe major population centers aren’t for you.

  • Dave November 13, 2009 (12:55 pm)

    Mark, but your unleashed Golden Retriever is perfectly acceptable? We teach kids in school to stand up against unjust laws and parade the victims as the pinnacle of human existence. Well, this man is singling out an unjust law brought by a rogue city government just to preserve our constitutional rights, come on, this guy is all of the above, he is a true hero!

  • Smitty November 13, 2009 (12:56 pm)

    Hey Crackpot – don’t you know that civil disobedience is only ok for things like naked bike riders, WTO mobs and code pink!

    How dare you!

    I also didn’t realize that criminals are all paranoid! Thanks Donn!

  • mark November 13, 2009 (1:00 pm)

    Dave, he is using the same argument NAMBLA uses. That no matter how appropriate (or inappropriate it is in this case) that what he is doing is a protected right. At some point common sense needs to prevail. Teach that one to your school age kids and see how it goes over.

    Sorry about the pit-bull slam, no unleashed dog belongs in a park, including my child eating Terrier!

  • John November 13, 2009 (1:00 pm)

    “Guns belong in parks as much as unleashed pit-bulls.”

    Which, in an off-leash park, are completely allowed.

    The broad painting of anyone who believes in a right to carry firearms as ‘crazy’, or a ‘crackpot’ makes me sad to be associated with liberals.

  • Kevin November 13, 2009 (1:01 pm)

    I don’t own a gun, nor do I desire to own one, but I agree strongly with people who DO STAND UP for our rights.
    This is exactly how we can lose our rights, just one little step at a time. And then next thing we know, we lose our rights to bear arms, or at least the ability to carry them in public.

  • DownOnAlki November 13, 2009 (1:02 pm)

    I agree with Dave. There is nothing wrong with questioning authority. Even though we are taught from a young age to keep our mouths shut and quietly go along. This is a great way to demonstrate (peacefully) an ILLEGAL law. If you don’t like the current law on concealed weapons – at the Federal level, fight for change at that level. Don’t just make worthless, costly laws to justify your own opinions, wants and desires.

  • Dave November 13, 2009 (1:03 pm)

    Thanks Smitty, I forgot! Now maybe he has to go to the park in a cardboard cut out of a Glock like those morons wearing turtle costumes during WTO, then the media would take him seriously!


  • Glenda November 13, 2009 (1:03 pm)

    I think the gun ban is dumb, because it won’t discourage the type of people that would carry a gun and want to use it in a park anyway. Is it constitutionally illegal to make this a Seattle law? Probably. That said – it cracks me up that THIS among all the possible things people could rightly be upset about, is what gets so many people twisted up.

    I like Bill Mahers take on gun ownership the best – it might have made sense as a “right” when the country was founded for people to bear arms – now though, it’s just a “vice” like alcohol, or gambling. Doesn’t mean it needs to be illegal, but gun owners need to admit they just enjoy guns and shooting things just like people enjoy drinking and getting a buzz on. It’s the protected “rights” status of this that always makes the issue so fuzzy.

    Whatever ballcap guy, if this is your Big Issue, than so be it.

  • Jose November 13, 2009 (1:07 pm)

    Bravo, Smitty.
    I don’t know who’s more obsessed with trying to tell other people what to do with their persons, neo-cons or liberals. The neo-cons are far more obnoxious about it, but the liberals are catching up in the area of hateful rhetoric.
    The 2nd Amendment is in place for a reason, otherwise it wouldn’t have been included at all; the concealed weapons law is in place as well, and those who follow it, pay their fee and pass the background check are entitled by law to carry a firearm.
    The city and its pink/medium-rare Mayor overstepped its boundaries with the law against guns in parks. If someone is law-abiding enough to do the right things by law to carry, then they should be able to carry anywhere of their choosing, despite what the nutty anti-gunners think of it…because anti-gun sentiment is just an opinion, to which they’re entitled – but the law is the law and people like the mono-killer shouldn’t be able to make secondary laws to abridge it.

  • Dave November 13, 2009 (1:09 pm)

    Mark, do you realize that a man with a concealed weapon permit saved lives four years ago when some crazed teen ager shot up the Tacoma Mall. There was one man with a concealed weapons permit took this mad man down, the police would have taken minutes to arrive and who know how many more people would have died. So not only on a freedom perspective but yet a public safety perspective the concealed weapons law saves lives!

  • Babs November 13, 2009 (1:15 pm)

    Would I want to carry a concealed gun anywhere? No. BUT I do respect this act of Civil Disobedience. Remember everyone, we have that right and it is one we really must honor because freedom to do as such is not a given world wide right. A reminder of what it is: “Civil Disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power. It is one of the primary methods of nonviolent resistance.”

  • Robert2715 November 13, 2009 (1:16 pm)

    I’m thinking of a “Spartacus” scene where there’s a 50 people with the same baseball hat on “I’m Bob Warden”…

  • Patrick November 13, 2009 (1:20 pm)

    I think it is very poor timing and poor taste on his behalf to make this statement with the recent murder of a police officer.

  • austin November 13, 2009 (1:28 pm)

    He should take it to a bar or liquor store next. Or do those not apply? Lame attempt at publicity stunt.

  • Forest November 13, 2009 (1:32 pm)

    I’m disappointed that WSB and the city give this guy free publicity. Now all he has to do is stay home and the press will manage to make news out of his absence.

  • John November 13, 2009 (1:36 pm)

    This man has the right to carry his gun. The Seattle law will be struck down and found illegal. He will get arrested and then sue the City for millions and walk away with $100,000…smart dude.

  • Hal Mueller November 13, 2009 (1:37 pm)

    If you don’t like the law, then ask the legislature to change it. Tim Eyman has this figured out, so it isn’t rocket science. But what you don’t do is to pretend that a mayor, or a parks superintendent, has the right to violate the law, or pretend (for convenience’s sake) that it doesn’t exist.

    The mayor’s “gun ban” only tries to change the behavior of people who have already been fingerprinted, had a criminal background check, and took the initiative to get a Concealed Weapon Permit. Yeah, those are real crackpots. It makes great public policy sense to disarm those folks and let the drug dealers keep doing business as usual.
    This promises to be an act of civil _obedience_, not disobedience, to point out the city government’s disrespect for law. Kudos to Mr. Warden.

  • WSB November 13, 2009 (1:42 pm)

    Forest – I actually didn’t publish this for a few hours – the guy’s note came in before 8 am, as I was about to leave to go downtown for an unrelated story I’m still writing. I do tend to be from the school of “if someone says they are going to protest something, wait to see if they show up rather than making a big deal in advance.” (Have seen WAY too many cases of advance hype that did not pan out.)
    Then I got a couple notes later from people who saw it published elsewhere ( apparently ran it around 9:30 am) and wanted to know if we were aware of the story. I’m not a knee-jerk me-too person but I looked at it again to say – are we making a mistake by not mentioning it? Since this is OUR backyard in West Seattle, should people know that a guy is going to make a point of challenging the gun ban – and would it be wrong for us to have known, but not published, that a guy with a gun was going to show up at a local community center? That thought gave me the nudge over the edge. I appreciate that you brought up the point. That’s how it played behind the scenes here. – TR

  • Been here a long time November 13, 2009 (1:47 pm)

    Thank you TR.
    If he wanted to stand in the middle of a wide open park, I can sort of understand this. But Saturday Noon at the South West Community Center and Pool… This is when kid and tots swim lessons are in full swing. He really NEEDS to bring a gun to a kids swim lesson time? What is next? Elementary school? Do most people really support that?

  • LB November 13, 2009 (1:52 pm)

    Bravo to Mr. Warden for taking a stand on this issue in a civil, lawful and respectful manner. He has the legal right to proceed and is not breaking any law.


    This whole “Gun Ban Rule” on city property is absurd. Beyond the fact that this is an illegal ordinance, it only impacts responsible citizens and impacts them unfairly. Criminals DO NOT adhere to the law and will certainly pay no attention to some sign at the entrance of a city park. So what purpose is served?


    To those posting to call Mr. Warden (and all gun owners) names; your knee jerk bias is offensive. People who own and choose to carry firearms are not some kind of “other”, no matter what you’ve been brainwashed into believing. We are your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, etc. At the very least, be happy we live in a country where those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights still have the freedom to do so. Even if you do not personally choose that path yourself.

  • Hold on Just a Minute November 13, 2009 (2:03 pm)

    Just a few responses to the comments above:

    1) Refusing to obey laws that you believe are unjust or invalid is admirable, especially when those protesting these laws risk public disrepute, fines, or imprisonment for their acts of civil disobedience. Mr. Warden’s cause may not seem that important to you, but this type of protest benefits our country, and our society, in the long run.

    2) Guns are tools; tools that can be used in self-defense, as well as for hunting and recreation. Just because you don’t need to use a gun to defend yourself very often (or ever, hopefully), does not make you “paranoid” for owning or using a gun. By way of example, I take comfort in the fact that my health insurance covers pancreatic cancer, even though there is a very small chance I will ever use this coverage. The fact that I wanted my health insurance to cover pancreatic cancer does not make me “paranoid.” It makes me a rational human being who guards against a perceived risk-albeit a remote risk. Likewise, I am not “paranoid” for wearing a seat belt, though I have not yet “used” it by getting into an accident. Again, this is rational behavior, not paranoia.

    3) Just because you don’t exercise a certain right, does not mean that others should not be allowed to. Again, guns are tools; tools happen to be dangerous. Whether–and to what extent–individuals should be permitted to own and use them turns on a cost-benefit analysis, like any other dangerous object in our society (such as cars). I see that some of you don’t own guns, so you put “zero” on the benefit side (which is arguably incorrect, given the possible deterrent effect concealed carry has on criminal activity, but OK). However, please recognize that other people who own and use guns responsibly see a benefit in these rights. There are, of course, costs to having guns in our society (though it is debatable whether it would even be possible to get rid of all guns, with any law). The point is this: I realize that the cost-benefit calculus is different for you than it is for people who own and use guns, but please consider the value of protecting others’ rights to own and use tools that they find beneficial, even though you do not exercise the same rights.

    For example, I imagine the cost-benefit calculus for the use and ownership of automobiles is different for many pedestrians, because they suffer most of the cost (namely, pollution and the danger of getting run over) and none of the benefit. This does not mean that we should ban cars. [Notably, none of the people who complain of firearm deaths seem to have any problem with the 1,000s of needless deaths caused by excessive speed limits and automobiles in general. Why? Because they happen to see a benefit to cars (a tool used to get to work faster), which must be preserved even if a few innocent lives are lost.] Should we ban cars or guns? No. We should regulate them so that people can exercise their rights with the least amount of harm resulting to others. Those of us who choose not to exercise certain rights need to be a bit more tolerant of others who make choices different than our own. Tolerance is crucial to a diverse, multi-faceted society such as ours. Homogeneity in lifestyles, choices, or preferences weakens our freedoms and threatens this diversity.

    4) Just because you don’t exercise a right does not mean that the right is not “needed” or “important.” Would it be acceptable for the government to strike the First Amendment from the constitution just because 98% of the people do not exercise their rights to petition their government for a redress of their grievances? Would it be acceptable to disenfranchise everyone who had not voted for the last 10 years? Soldiers have never been quartered in my home, but I would probably object to the Third Amendment being repealed. Examples abound, but the point is this: Civil rights serve a valuable purpose, even if they are not used often or by many.

    5) The Second Amendment (and its much broader Washington-state analog) should not be stricken from the Constitution because they happen to be unpopular now. Constitutional protections exist to protect unpopular rights from bandwagon majorities. In our society, we overturn murderers’ convictions to protect the rest of us from abuse of police power, we overturn child pornographers’ convictions to protect others’ rights to free speech, and we allow people (even the untrained) to bear arms to protect from similar government overreaching, but also to allow individuals to protect themselves without having to rely on the government. Just because you do not use, understand, or feel good about the right to bear arms does not make it a bad idea or not important, and just because it does not seem relevant today does not mean it will not be monumentally important at some other time.

  • Mike November 13, 2009 (2:10 pm)

    The 2nd amendment is intended to provide the right for citizens to support protecting our country, not shoot people around them.

  • MW November 13, 2009 (2:21 pm)

    I am all for taking a stand against illegal laws…

    But I do think that people need to be respectful of innocent children. It unnerves me to think that the guy/girl standing next to me while I swing my 5 yr old daughter at the park could be carrying a gun. There are just things that are inappropriate, and carrying a gun in a park with children at play is inappropriate.

    And I do think it would be funny if we all showed up tomorrow with Tacoma Rainiers baseball caps on (sans kids of course). That comment made me laugh.

  • Hold on Just a Minute November 13, 2009 (2:26 pm)

    Thanks, Mike. Please also enlighten us about Art. I, Sec. 24 of the Washington State Constitution. Does this one just apply to militias? (Hint: You won’t find the answer to this one on Wikipedia.)

    Also, if the “right of the people” in the Second Amendment only benefits government-organized militias, please also tell us how you read the “right of the people” referenced in the First and the Fourth Amendments. Does it really mean “people” there, or are you going to tell me that free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures are all subject to government annulment as well?

  • Gunnutz November 13, 2009 (2:33 pm)

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.
    No break down of suicides in public parks with banned guns.

  • Kayleigh November 13, 2009 (2:52 pm)

    “Refusing to obey laws that you believe are unjust or invalid is admirable.”

    Really? ALWAYS? What if a child molester wants to challenge the law? Or an animal abuser? Or a tax cheat?

    How self-indulgent and silly–both the law and the challenges to it.

  • LE November 13, 2009 (2:58 pm)

    Much thanks to “Hold on Just a Minute” for a brilliant, rational post.

    I am very surprised – astonished – that WSB moderators apparently allow posters to refer to other people as a part of a personal hygiene article used by women. As a woman who possesses personal parts, I find such references grossly offensive to all women. You don’t agree with somebody, so you think you should express your contempt or disgust, by analogy to disgust for women? Bizarre.

  • LB November 13, 2009 (3:14 pm)

    I second “LE”:

    Well stated “Hold on Just a Minute”, thank you.

  • Hold on Just a Minute November 13, 2009 (3:20 pm)

    Kayleigh, you raise a good point. Many scholars would draw this line at the point where “malum prohibitum” (like carrying guns in parks, and yes, taxes!) crosses into “malum in se” (animal or child abuse). There are plenty of fascinating discussions of this philosophical distinction in our law, as well as the limits of cultural relativism. Which laws we should protest through civil disobedience definitely brings up a huge line-drawing question, and the answer is a culture-dependant one. For example, my strong support for Ref. 71 may have been viewed as criminal by some just a few years ago, but civil disobedience to protest laws discriminating against homosexuals would be welcome these days. Well, at least in a forward-thinking place like Seattle.

  • Kate K November 13, 2009 (3:21 pm)

    Let’s all wear t-shirts that say “Bob Warden is an idiot.”

  • ScubaO2 November 13, 2009 (3:29 pm)

    I assume that as soon as he steps foot onto the park property he’ll be removed of his Glock firearm, placed in handcuffs and arrested. Our tax dollars will follow this case all the way to the supreme court… I don’t think breaking the law is an effective way to protest. I think there are better ways to promote one’s ideals and principals.

    Guns have no place in our kid’s parks.

  • Mike November 13, 2009 (3:31 pm)

    Just so “Hold on Just a Minute” knows. I didn’t get the details from wikipedia, but here… just so you have a chance to read the source I did get it from:

    BTW, I own guns, I grew up hunting.

    Thanks! :)

  • big gulps,eh? well, see ya later. November 13, 2009 (4:00 pm)

    I personally wish that nobody owned guns. I wish that gun ownership was tantamount to private citizens owning a critical mass of u235. As much as I dislike private gun ownership, I more so dislike the idea of local jurisdictions attempting to deny constitutional rights.

  • Hold on Just a Minute November 13, 2009 (4:04 pm)


    What details? You didn’t tell us anything, or answer my questions.

    BTW, I own a car, a jar of pears and a Sony walkman. I grew up playing the tuba.

  • kg November 13, 2009 (4:10 pm)

    Remember, you can’t call someone a
    but you can allude to someone being a
    all day long. That’s how it works folks.

  • charlabob November 13, 2009 (4:16 pm)

    A few weeks ago Glen Beck appeared in Seattle and I posted a note on a local right wing blog (Sound Politics — find the link yourself.) I said I would be attending the event and picketing outside with my legally sanctioned weapons. The owner of the blog said that was juvenile and combative and took down my post.

    It was the first and only time in my long history of online communication that I’ve ever been censored. Strange, don’t you think? So, I may have to give up my plan to bake cupcakes for a kids’ party and drop by the dog fair.

  • Doc November 13, 2009 (4:28 pm)

    I am completely on Bob Wardens side. He should legally be able to carry in the park, and although putting out the letter and identifying himself is a little against the idea of “concealed”, he has every right to do so.

    I carry concealed every day and have yet to shoot anybody. However I think the unleashed pitbull (who would have to have been raised horribly to kill people) would have gotten a kid long before I shot one.

    I am also a soldier. I have served in Iraq. I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Sounds like I took an oath to help defend against people like that recent cop killer, who as it turned out was a domestic terrorist. Carrying a pistol sure does help in that defense.

    To all the people who seem to think that guns kill people and not, um… I don’t know, MURDERERS, and are against Bob for carrying his weapon in regards to the constitution, grow up and take a look at yourself. You are challenging him for supporting the constitution!

  • WSB November 13, 2009 (4:39 pm)

    If you’re just hanging out in comments you might miss this added to the top of the story – official comment from the city, now being handled by the mayor’s office: “If this resident plans to enter a Parks facility with a concealed weapon, he will be asked to leave. If he refuses, he will be arrested.”

  • Mike November 13, 2009 (4:51 pm)

    Doc, thank you for serving our country.

    As Doc mentioned, the fact that Bob has stated he plans to do this will be a thorn in his battle in courts later. It shows intent.

    Regarding “Hold on Just a Minute”, the State of Washington provides the rights you are discussing, I was referring to the Bill of Rights which is Federal. You seem to think I don’t agree with the right to bear arms. It’s interesting. Here’s my thoughts: Doc, I don’t fear people like you with guns. “Hold on Just a Minute”, I fear people like you. Having been on the other side of a pond with steel shot landing on my head while in my duck blind, I fear people that carry guns in public and seem to have no regard for proper training and safe use of them.

  • Richard November 13, 2009 (4:59 pm)

    I was surprised to learn that the Washington State Constitution is broader than the Bill of Rights with respect to the right to bear arms. Mike, here’s the language Hold On was referring to:
    “SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

    Even with that broad right, the law in our state does make it illegal to bring firearms into schools (RCW 9.41.280). The exception for concealed weapons applies only to those who are picking up or dropping off a student. You can’t legally wander around on school grounds with your concealed weapon if your only purpose is to show off your Tacoma Rainiers cap. Can someone help me understand what makes a community center and pool, filled with kids at their swim lessons, any more appropriate of a place for firearms than a school? I am not sure I would have reached the same conclusion as Mayor Nickels about all parks being off-limits, but I think there are some places that should be and SWCC on a Saturday morning would certainly be near the top of my list.


  • no meato burrito November 13, 2009 (5:00 pm)

    FYI, the issue of the constitutionality of state gun laws is due to be argued in the Supreme Court sometime in January.

    Notice Justice Scalia’s comment about the Heller decision:

    “Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    To wit: Just because we have freedom of speech doesn’t mean we can yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (5:55 pm)

    So if I have a concealed weapons license I have the legal right to bring it into Quest/Safeco? Or on my next airline flight? Or into the courthouse??

  • rob November 13, 2009 (6:00 pm)

    your parallel is a little off. bearing arms in exercise of that right would correspond to being able to speak without being censored. yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater would be more like waving a gun around, or “brandishing”. which, is just as illegal as inciting panic by yelling “fire!” when there isn’t one.

    @scuba02: the “law” in question is merely a city policy and is really just a rule the mayor is using to get around the fact the city can’t create an law prohibiting possession of firearms on city property. if they could, the city council probably would do just that. instead the mayor had to take a page from bush and cheney and go rogue, issuing an order that is clearly a contradiction to state law. as such, the only way to challenge a policy like this in court is to have it applied to you. this is no different than if the city instituted an illegal policy regarding issuance of building permits (or hey, strip club permits). you wouldn’t be able to sue them over it until you yourself had standing to do so, by having had the policy applied to you and violate your rights.
    the mayor created this situation, and did it in such a way the only recourse anyone has to challenge it is what this guy plans to do. i’d rather not have it happening two blocks from my house, but i really can’t blame the guy, because the mayor is clearly the one at fault.

  • Foghorn November 13, 2009 (6:38 pm)

    I don’t have a problem with the guy bringing his gun to the park, I hope he has the common sense to leave the bullets at home.

  • rob November 13, 2009 (6:39 pm)

    jamminj: qwest field and safeco field are private properties and have the right to refuse to allow people in if they have weapons, alcohol, or pretty much whatever else they don’t want there. as long as they aren’t discriminating based on gender, race, age, etc, they are free to do that.
    federal govt says no to carrying weapons onto an airline flight.
    state law says where you can and can’t take a weapon in courthouses and other govt buildings.
    note that these laws are about specific places(schools, jails, courts), and not just government property in general.
    those last two are pretty pertinent here. they are examples of what this policy is not, laws enacted by federal and state legislative bodies. we are all free to lobby those bodies to change the relevant laws to include parks and community centers if we want to, and that would be the appropriate way to go about it.
    also in regard to those these examples, they are what this policy is not practically speaking. it is foolish to try to convince people that banning guns from someplace makes them safer if you’re not going to do anything to ensure that no one has them there. when you get on a plane, go to a game at qwest, or go into a courtroom, you and everyone else are screened for weapons first. equalized to a point if you will. when you create a policy such as this one, people who don’t make a habit of breaking the law will generally go along, while people who do make a habit of breaking the law (drug dealers, rapists, burglars, murderers, etc) will not pay a bit of attention to it. in the end the people you should really be scared of haven’t been deterred from anything.

  • Chuck and Sally\'s Van Man November 13, 2009 (7:02 pm)

    Spartacus wrote: “If you’re so insecure that you need to secretly carry around a tool whose sole purpose is to kill people from hundreds of yards away when you leave the house, maybe major population centers aren’t for you.”

    For the record, handguns are intended for up close self-protection in the face of a deadly threat to your person. Like, say, when a woman jogger is over powered by a rapist in a PARK. Or when some gang-banger decides to show off to his friends during an initiation in a PARK and robs and/or beats you far away from the eyes of onlookers or police.

    Look people, the U.S. and STATE constitution gives you a right to protect yourself wherever the threat to your person occurs. Whether it’s in your home, or thanks to a concealed carry permit, most anywhere in the state except where alcohol is served (among other exceptions). Just because your kids are in a park does not mean very dangerous elements of our society (read: felons–not licensed gun owners) aren’t also there, putting you and yours at risk.

    To Mr. Warden I extend my greatest congratulations for personally taking on this illegal law. A stupid legacy that was bestowed upon us by a stupid bureaucrat that will cost us taxpayers countless thousands of dollars. But I hope everyone sleeps better thinking our parks are somehow immune from the rest of society’s dregs.

    Go Bob!!!


  • KateMcA November 13, 2009 (7:07 pm)

    Thank you LE and Hold on Just a Minute. I think this guy is very intelligent- just because you disagree with a law does not automatically give you the standing to challenge its constitutionality in court. Being named a defendant certainly does.

  • Roche November 13, 2009 (7:27 pm)

    I don’t think this guy is a douche nozzle. I think he’s a “douche box”, meaning that he’s something that’s used to carry douche nozzles to a specific place.
    The best thing to happen tomorrow would be if it rained like holy hell and this guy was home for lunch. He’s a complete doofus, and anyone who thinks it’s smart to notify every media organization in town that you’ll be somewhere specific breaking a law is similarly ill-equipped to handle a firearm.
    Sadly for our city, you know Jim Foreman will be there with his fancy pants on to exploit this moron’s retardedness. Bright and early.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (7:33 pm)

    “private properties and have the right to refuse to allow people in if they have weapons”
    ???? – so the 2nd amendment can be withheld because it’s a private property??? What other constitutional rights can be ignored due to it being a ‘private’ property.
    I can’t carry my weapon at an event filled with adults, but I can carry my weapon to an event filled with children??? HUH???
    And people are fighting for their ‘right’ to bring a weapon to a childrens event, but not an adult event??

  • Roche November 13, 2009 (7:43 pm)

    “Robert Warden” is a fake name. There’s no record of an attorney, or even a resident, with that name.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (7:45 pm)

    hey, you changed your comment. – I liked your original one.

  • kg November 13, 2009 (7:47 pm)

    I wonder how many ‘hero’s’ are going to try and start an altercation with this guy? That is if he shows.

  • Smitty November 13, 2009 (7:51 pm)

    Dude, seriously – ride to the park on your bike NUDE, except for a Code Pink t-shirt and a WTO do-rag and you will be a fricken hero!

    Hero, I tell you!

    I’ll even call that Rachel Maddow chick (the one that looks like the kid from wonder years) and you will become a celebrity!

    Maybe even John (Edward R Murrow of the Left) Stewart will do a spoof on you!

  • WSB November 13, 2009 (7:51 pm)

    Roche, I actually did some background checking and yes, there IS such a person, including on the state voter rolls, which is as official and verifiable an example of someone’s existence as you can find in publicly accessible databases. And regarding lawyering, here’s his Avvo page:

  • Dave November 13, 2009 (7:54 pm)

    I agree with his opinion however there this is overkill to prove a point. There is already a lawsuit against the mayor’s gun ban in progress. No need to do more other than personal gain. This is only going to anger those who are neither opposed nor for gun rights. I’m 100% for all my gun rights and own many. I too have my permit to carry but do it responcibly. I know this ban will be overturned so I don’t feel the need to stir anything more up. Now if noone has done anything about it then I would have done something about it. Again this is too far by one individual.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (7:54 pm)

    So exactly how is this guy a ‘hero’??? showing up at a kids facility with a gun??
    sorry, will leave that for the boys in blue.

  • Roche November 13, 2009 (7:56 pm)

    He must be the world’s worst lawyer, then. Even the worst lawyers who get work wind up on the web somewhere. I searched on, and found more “Robert Warden” hits in Kent, UK than Kent, WA.
    Such a shame.

  • Jennifer Nicole November 13, 2009 (8:05 pm)

    I support our Second Amendment rights, and Warden’s choice to protest a law that, in his estimation, is illegal.

    To those falling back on the age-old “FOR THE CHILDREN!” line: you’d be surprised how many of your friends, acquaintances and coworkers have concealed permits, and how many of them are carrying when they come to your home. The point is that you (and anyone else) don’t know it’s there.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (8:13 pm)

    “I support our Second Amendment rights,”
    so just to clarify, you support the 2nd amendment EXCEPT when private properties says to suspend the right, when govt says to suspend – such as courthouse, when airlines can suspend – BUT when it is a children’s facility such as a community center, you want to fight for your ‘right’?

  • rob November 13, 2009 (8:15 pm)

    ???? – so the 2nd amendment can be withheld because it’s a private property??? What other constitutional rights can be ignored due to it being a ‘private’ property.
    the us constitution doesn’t give you the right to go onto someone else’s property if they don’t want you there. a private party (whether its a football team or your next door neighbor) denying you entry to their property because they don’t want you bringing weapons onto their property isn’t a violation of anyone’s rights. this is because no one has any obligation to allow you onto their property in the first place if they don’t want to. this is not someone “suspending your rights”.
    this isn’t about events and it really has nothing to do with children. children are only brought into this argument by those who wish to use kids as an inflammatory element to turn it it into a competition of emotions.
    the real issue is whether or not the city has the right to make rules restricting what citizens can do on public property (whether it is a park or community center, or whatever) which belongs to all of us. in regard to firearms, their rights are limited by state law, and the rules they have created are plainly contrary to those laws.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (8:34 pm)

    “the real issue is whether or not the city has the right to make rules restricting what citizens can do on public property ”
    isn’t the courthouse a public property? It seems to me that we do restrict the 2nd amendment in a variety of ways, even on public property.
    so the current city of seattle argument seems to stem from the state law and how the city violates that law. So if the state law was changed to disallow firearms near certain areas, such as courthouses, where alcohol is served, and near children’s facilities… that would solve the dispute??? Just a change in current law??
    Guess my question is, people throw around the 2nd amendment like it’s their right to carry where ever they want because it’s their constitutional right… but we obviously have restrictions to that constitutional right – and people don’t challenge those restrictions on constitutional basis. So can we as citizens make further restrictions??? such as schools and community centers?

  • Doc November 13, 2009 (8:52 pm)

    Jamminj: Ok, sorry but you really need to look up the laws that Washington State has in regards to having a concealed carry permit. If it is private property you cannot carry if the owned does not want you to. You may also not carry at concerts, federal buildings, courthouses, or anywhere in which you need to be 21 to enter. Educate yourself before entering a debate please.

    You need to understand that many people choose to carry a concealed weapon FOR THE CHILDREN as well as for adults. The same reason you want them not to carry is why I DO carry. I carry mine for that 1 in a million chance that a person decides to go on a shooting spree, and hopefully myself or another CC person can stop him. Because when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

    If a conceal and carry permit holder goes to the park, do you really expect that they take out their pistol and roll it down the slide where a child can find it? No! They keep in concealed and noone knows that it is there, hence its point. Think of how many people carry a pocket knife into the park, something just as dangerous as a gun, but I don’t hear you complaining. There are most likely people that you pass every day, at the store, on the bus, at your work or on your drive home that have a loaded, concealed handgun on them. There are not exactly many incidents of a person LEGALLY carrying their handgun and having a child in a park obtain it.

    Frankly I feel that if I am in ANY location in which I am not screened, such as parks, the post office, whatever, where I cannot carry legally I would like to. I have no problem leaving my weapon at home at things like the airport in which everyone must go through security.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (9:35 pm)

    thanks for your response Doc. what I have a problem with is the blatant, “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands” mentality.
    many, even here act as if there are NO restrictions to the 2nd amendment when there definitely are restrictions.
    the argument is whether a city can govern themselves, whether the state can govern themselves, or that the federal govt can trump all.
    You have already settled on how far the 2nd amendment can be restricted, what if the state, city, the citizens would like further restrictions (by changing the law)?

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (9:38 pm)

    “look up the laws that Washington State has in regards to having a concealed carry permit. ”
    I have and realized that just about anyone can get a permit, no training, no education, no restriction for lockup around others not authorized.

  • rob November 13, 2009 (9:43 pm)

    “So can we as citizens make further restrictions??? such as schools and community centers?”
    yes. you get the appropriate lawmakers to change the laws. this can mean lobbying representatives and senators, or it could mean getting a referendum on the ballot.
    i’ve said this over and over since this thing became a reality a few weeks ago. if we as a populace want these types of places restricted, then the appropriate laws (the state laws) should be changed to include them. it really is that simple. creating policies that attempt to get around the law because the mayor would rather garner publicity than improve anyone’s safety in a realistic way, is just silly.
    all that said, i am still trying to figure out how exactly people think banning law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun in a park or community center makes anyone safer. the notions that “oh my gosh kids are there” or “i don’t want to have to worry that the person next to me has a gun” don’t really hold water. those are emotional outbursts (also sometimes referred to as, rhetoric) that don’t make any sense unless someone expands on them and explains what they mean. when no one explains, it makes it really hard to not interpret those sorts of statements as tantamount to “oh my gosh, cooties!”
    maybe they have good reasons, rooted in logic and common sense. if so, share them.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (9:59 pm)

    “yes. you get the appropriate lawmakers to change the laws.”
    so the 2nd amendment can be trumped by local laws.
    what is worrisome is that one feels such the need to carry a weapon to a school, but not to an adult function.
    My dad was army infantry, and I carried a weapon for 8 years in the AF, the last place I (we) wanted to have a weapon was at a school. guess just don’t understand the mentality, that’s all.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (10:09 pm)

    ““i don’t want to have to worry that the person next to me has a gun” don’t really hold water. those are emotional outbursts ”
    and so is carrying a gun to a community center while making a media circus of the situation.
    You are more apt to be endangered driving to the facility than being attacked by a random person. Don’t throw out ’emotional outburts’ without also recognizing the 2nd amendment zealots who also thrive on constitutional masturbation.

  • rob November 13, 2009 (10:22 pm)

    “I have and realized that just about anyone can get a permit”
    depends on your definition of “just about anyone”.
    anyone except criminals convicted of any of a long list of offenses, people who are mentally ill, people who aren’t old enough, people who aren’t residents of WA. a very large amount of people are excluded.
    then you need to understand what such a license does and doesn’t entitle you to do. it doesn’t allow you to carry a gun into an airport, into court, in a bar, while you’re drinking. if you do those things you may as well not have the license, and if you get caught doing it you’re not going to have it long and you’re probably never going to get it back.
    if you are concerned about the quality of people who do have these licenses though, you might want to do some research on how often people who have these licenses commit crimes. also look into how often the licenses are revoked. it doesn’t happen much.
    more importantly you need to understand what it is you fear about people being able to get a license to carry a concealed pistol, and how it is you think you would be safer if they weren’t allowed to. and while you consider that, understand that no restriction you place on law-abiding people is going to deter a drug dealer, murderer, rapist etc from doing what the want.
    “, no training, no education, no restriction for lockup around others not authorized.””
    none of these things are required to _own_ a gun either. i would hope that if someone wanted to enact laws to make these things requirements, they would be down at the level of owning a gun, not up at the level of carrying one concealed. other states do have some of these things. i believe in oregon you have to take a class where they cover legal issues regarding self defense, when you are allowed to defend yourself and using what amount of force, that sort of thing. done right these requirements are ok. they scare some people though because they can be a slippery slope. for example, if you changed the law to require a class as a condition of getting the license, and established an authority tasked with administering the class, you create the potential for someone to arbitrarily create a class than no one can pass, and effectively create a ban. kind of like if you said we have an open immigration policy, and that anyone who can pass a test can become a citizen, but then went and made the test impossible for anyone to pass. yeah, you have an open immigration policy but you really don’t because no one can meet the requirements. i believe lawyers call this an “end run”, going around the law because you can’t change it.
    interesting too that none of those things are required to buy a car either. sure, you need a license to drive a car legally, but you don’t need one to buy one. not having one only stops you from driving if you’re worried about getting in trouble. also interesting to note that drivers(licensed or not) kill a lot more people than people licensed to carry a concealed pistol do.

  • rob November 13, 2009 (10:29 pm)

    “so the 2nd amendment can be trumped by local laws.”
    not sure where you got this. restricting it in some places out of some reasonable public interest (like in a courtroom) is not trumping it. trumping it would be creating laws that invalidate the amendment wholesale, like saying it doesn’t apply at all in the whole state.
    also, not sure what you mean by local. in the context of this issue, i think local means city, and in the state of washington, cities aren’t allowed to enact gun laws any more strict or lax than state law, so no on that front.
    “what is worrisome is that one feels such the need to carry a weapon to a school, but not to an adult function.”
    i am not sure who said they need to do this.

  • rob November 13, 2009 (10:32 pm)

    “and so is carrying a gun to a community center while making a media circus of the situation.”
    don’t really see how you could call this an emotional outburst. the guy has explained pretty clearly and rationally what his purpose is and really hasn’t left anything unexplained.
    as for the media circus part of it, he hasn’t created anywhere near as big of one over this as the mayor did on multiple occasions. don’t really see the problem there, particularly since no one needs to read those news articles if they don’t want to.

  • jamminj November 13, 2009 (10:36 pm)

    thanks for your responses rob.

  • Doc November 13, 2009 (11:10 pm)

    Rob, Jamminj, and others: I honestly appreciate you bringing up valid points in a discussion, having rebuttal, etc. I’m glad noone has to turn to name-calling and just being a general moron withing the chat. I’m quite happy that a serious discussion can remained civilized! Keep being awesome!

  • MB November 13, 2009 (11:46 pm)

    I just can’t help but find it ridiculous and incredibly ignorant that anyone would actually believe that a “firearms prohibited” sign at a park is really going to protect you or your children from who you should really be afraid of. I’m pretty sure that anyone who actually wants to shoot people isn’t going to be deterred by a sign. Good luck with that.

  • HuskyKMA November 14, 2009 (12:00 am)

    To those who say they are scared for themselves or their children to be around someone with a gun, were any of you at the UW basketball game tonight? Were you scared then?
    Standing in front of me at the game was a guy (college student, whom I know) with a concealed handgun under his shirt. I could tell because he brushed up against me when he passed by and I felt it, and later on I could see the shape of the grip under his shirt. And throughout that entire game he posed no danger to any of the thousands of people in that arena. Your children were in no danger. It made me feel good to know that someone nearby took his safety and the safety of those around him seriously. Thank you, sir.
    About 1 in 20 people in this state carry a concealed weapon. Concealed, legal guns are around you everywhere you go. There’s no way you, or your kids, can avoid it.

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 14, 2009 (2:14 am)

    What’s up “Doc”…maybe I’m a bit ignorant on this subject so please take my questioning with a grain of salt..

    So you have a cc permit for that “1 and a million” chance that someone decides to open fire on the public? And “we the public” are assured that you know exactly what you are doing and that you will be shooting accurately at the criminals in our defense with your lethal weapon?

    Sorry, but I would rather wait for the police before you open fire into a crowded mall, Bumbershoot, Bite of Seattle, WS Farmers Market, etc. And please tell me that you leave your weapon in the car when you walk through shopping malls or attend such events? As you’ve stated having a cc weapon is not allowed in such venues but since it’s concealed how do I know you left it back in the car?

    Call me paranoid but I still can’t see a reason to walk around town with a concealed weapon unless you are somehow associated with a law enforcement agency.

  • Phil Dirt November 14, 2009 (5:49 am)

    I’m going to Lincoln Park today also. I’m bringing all 17 of my pitbulls with me. They love to run and romp through the park. But, don’t worry. Most of them are quite tame, and unless they become nervous, they are not likely to attack and maim your children.

  • Donn November 14, 2009 (6:59 am)

    I hope he has good control of his gun, because I’m going to be there and try to steal it from him and start shooting up the place.

    And that is the point of not having guns in places where the public visit. Someone could easily grab your gun!

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 14, 2009 (7:12 am)

    Comparing the death rate statistics caused by that of automobile drivers (licensed or not) to those having a concealed weapon….interesting yet completely irrelevant.

  • George Hanshaw November 14, 2009 (8:32 am)

    I believe this individual’s second amendment rights are every bit as important as the Seattle Times’ first amendment rights.

    I support both.

  • David November 14, 2009 (8:47 am)

    You can call this guy “crazy”, “paranoid”, whatever you want. It doesn’t change the fact that the Seattle park gun restriction is in violation of our constitutional rights.

  • r November 14, 2009 (8:55 am)

    Maybe it’s time to change the constitutional rights. If you carry a gun into my business, you will constitutionally be arrested! It’s legal to walk naked around town but that doesn’t mean people feel compelled to do it. Big man with a gun in his hand, just another insecure psychopath!

  • Phil Dirt November 14, 2009 (9:15 am)

    I almost can’t believe how ignorant most of the responders to this blog seem to be. I say “almost” because deep down I do know how ignorant, or do I dare say, stupid you really are.

    I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon and always do so when I go to the park. In order to get a license one must be 21, have no felonies, and pass an FBI investigation.

    If I ever have to use my pistol, it will be only in the defense of my loved ones or myself. A long time ago I decided that I would never use it to defend any of you ignorant morons who inhabit this city. So… you don’t have to worry about this gun nut opening fire in a crowd. If you are ever attacked by an off their leash pit bull like my wife and I have, you clowns are on your own. Your children are much more likely to be injured by a pit bull in this city than by a licensed to carry gun owner.

    Of course, only the law abiding sort will pay any attention to this stupid, illegal attempt by Mayor Lardbutt to deny the citizens of this city their federal and state Constitutional rights. The criminals, and pit bull owners who allow their dogs to go unleashed, will still do what they do.

    I, too, will continue to do what I do. If I get arrested in a city park for legally carrying, I will also file suit against the city of Seattle.

  • Doc November 14, 2009 (9:22 am)

    If I am going to a place where the weapon is not allowed, generally I do not bring it at all and leave it safely at home. I don’t leave it in my car because when someone steals my car, which has happened in the past, I dont want them to get a bonus prize.

    Do I know how to use my weapon? Yes. Very well actually. With six years in the army, a tour in Iraq and training with a military police unit (while I am a medic myself). I have also scored expert on pistol and rifle for the last two years at ranges. I have a pretty good understanding of how to shoot my pistol.

    I carry a CC permit for more situation than that one in a million chance, but I was just using it to illustrate. After all, I wear my seatbelt but have yet to be in an accident.

    As you say “we the public” know that I know what I am doing. We are both the public, and you can get a CC permit if you would like yourself, and know what you are doing if you carried it.

    I understand you want to wait for the police to open fire first, but at what point do you stop taking charge of your life? You look when you are driving, before you cross the street, you hopefully exercise and stay healthy. You do all this by yourself without anothers help, so why are you against defending yourself or letting me defend myself if (when, hopefully never) that time comes? Frankly I am more afraid of a sorority girl driving while texting on the freeway than I am of a handgun. The car has far more kinetic energy than any bullet from any gun I have.

  • Doc November 14, 2009 (9:27 am)

    You are more than welcome to try to take my pistol from me, however you have to discover who I am first. Hence the point of CONCEALED. I do not opencarry, which is legal in this state but carry the weapon concealed. Also, you sound a little crazy that you just threatened to steal a weapon from a soldier and “start shooting up the place”. Frankly, I also carry because of people like you.

  • Steve November 14, 2009 (10:08 am)

    The City ORD is in violation of State law, plain and simple – the State A.G. agrees. It needs to be legally challenged and overturned. It’s just too bad that it has to be done at taxpayer expense.

  • rob November 14, 2009 (10:10 am)

    “Comparing the death rate statistics caused by that of automobile drivers (licensed or not) to those having a concealed weapon….interesting yet completely irrelevant.”
    nearly everything that has been said in this comment thread is irrelevant to the issue at hand, your posts included. if the point of the comparison was too complicated for you to understand, ask some questions.

  • jiggers November 14, 2009 (10:21 am)

    Go for it Mr. Warden. I applaud your courage. Most people don’t have the cahones to stand up and fight for what they want.

  • rick November 14, 2009 (11:37 am)

    Was that you Glenda(Alma)?

  • r November 14, 2009 (11:53 am)

    Balloon boy, gun guy…reality entertainment not news.

  • r November 14, 2009 (11:56 am)

    what a turd, wants fame and self satisfaction

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 15, 2009 (12:10 am)

    Well Doc, I appreciate the fact that you have served our country dutifully. You obviously have training in the use of lethal weapons abroad and can now use that training right back here in WS per the Second Amendment. Which by the way was written a few years back ago…say 1791? Maybe times have changed a bit since then?

    You stated that “If I am going to a place where the weapon is not allowed, generally I do not bring it at all and leave it safely at home.” So in other words you do carry it with you but with consideration of the possibility of your vehicle being stolen so would continue to carry it with you into places that prohibit guns fearing it being stolen out of your car?

    If guns were banned then Officer Timothy Brenton would still be alive. John Allen Muhammed was just executed the other day for killing 14 innocent people thanks to the absolute non-compliance with the selling and issuing of weapons permits. Both he and his accomplice John Lee Melvo bought their weapons in WA state before they set out on their random killing spree.

    You, and very few others may be able to own a gun and use it ( or not use it) while abiding by the law but for the majority of the population it is just an open invitation to rob, kill and degrade our society further.

    Have you ever been to a country where only law enforcement officers are allowed to carry guns other than a police state like Iraq dictated by our military? I have and I feel much safer than having a bunch of Clint Eastwood wannabees thinking that they can police their own world as well as mine…

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 15, 2009 (3:12 am)

    Oh, and thanks Phil Dirt for calling us “stupid, ignorant morons”. So glad folks like you are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I know I for one feel so much safer having someone like you in my neighborhood.

  • kg November 15, 2009 (4:54 pm)

    “You, and very few others may be able to own a gun and use it ( or not use it) while abiding by the law but for the majority of the population it is just an open invitation to rob, kill and degrade our society further.”–Leron

    When is this rob/kill/degrade party set to kick off? Should be happening by now shouldn’t it? I mean with so many guns in untrained hands and all.

    “Have you ever been to a country where only law enforcement officers are allowed to carry guns other than a police state like Iraq dictated by our military?”–Leron

    In the Al-Anbar province the head of a household is allowed to have a fully automatic AK-47…as of 2006-2007. Things may have changed since I was over there at that time.

    “Oh, and thanks Phil Dirt for calling us “stupid, ignorant morons..”—Leron

    Yes, the name calling really gets old.

    So this thread and the other related to it get over 100 posts each, but the last crime article WSB wrote about, the one where the criminals robbed their house while they were sleeping, only had 2 posts as of this time. NICE!

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 16, 2009 (2:05 am)


    “When is this rob/kill/degrade party set to kick off? Should be happening by now shouldn’t it? I mean with so many guns in untrained hands and all.”

    It happens everday around our country. I think in just the past two weeks I’ve read about the mass killing at Fort Hood along with a couple of schools and workplaces. What more evidence do you need?

  • kg November 16, 2009 (7:55 am)

    With the amount of guns in untrained hands that you mentioned I thought you were insinuating somthing on an epic scale. Somthing along the lines of the civil war.
    I still doubt you will change my mind though in regards to firearms ownership. At least we can type more than a few sentences to each other without resorting to name calling….woohoo!

Sorry, comment time is over.