Update: Armed man’s challenge to Seattle parks/gun law

It’s all over – Bob Warden went into Southwest Community Center with his concealed weapon (backstory here), a parks security staffer came up to him and asked him to leave, he left, now he says he’s got grounds to sue. Big media circus, of course, including TV, newspaper and new-media crews. Here’s the TV contingent (photo added 12:58 pm – sorry we didn’t get the photojournalists’ names, but at left and right, reporters Theron Zahn from channel 4 and Chris Daniels from 5):

Adding more shortly, video and photos. The reason Warden said he chose SWCC at noon was because they were having the Dogs in the Hood show; as of 12:30, the people and dogs who showed up for the show left when they saw all the commotion. (Photo above – TV reporters asked to see his gun, after he’d been asked to leave; when he entered the center, it was under his jacket.) ADDED 12:55 PM: Here’s video as we followed Warden entering the center, after spending about 15 minutes talking with the media outside, then leaving as he’d said he would if asked:

(Despite what you heard him say there toward the end of our clip, he had sent a letter to the city Parks Department informing them he’d had a gun, so you could say they DID know.) Police were standing by inside the center but did not get involved at any point.

With Warden was one of his young-adult children, Casey. A few people showed up to support him, including a man who worked the media sidelines handing out pamphlets for the Museum of Flight, where he said he was a docent. We asked Warden if he’d be going home and starting to draw up legal papers immediately; he said, no, he’d probably watch some sports.

162 Replies to "Update: Armed man's challenge to Seattle parks/gun law"

  • wseye November 14, 2009 (12:44 pm)

    Looks like the gun is this poor man’s best friend. Sad.

  • homesweethome November 14, 2009 (12:46 pm)

    I’m not sure how to put this…but the SW Community Center at noon on a Saturday – why not choose Lincoln Park about 11pm on a Saturday? If the argument is that one may need this weapon for self-defense in park and you’re just out to prove a point then why not make your point where you may actually need self-defense in a park?

  • Roche November 14, 2009 (12:51 pm)

    Just like I thought. A lonely jerk with no common sense ruins a perfectly good event for his own selfish gain, and the press gives someone without the sense to shave the attention he can only get by staging a prank with 48 hours notice. Can’t wait for the pointless law suit. Make sure you waste all our tax money, Mr. Warden!

  • JenV November 14, 2009 (12:57 pm)

    what a TOOL. he just did this so he’d have grounds to sue. Scumbag.

  • jiggers November 14, 2009 (12:58 pm)

    You folks obviously don’t get the picture like he does. Our freedoms are being taken away at a rate that is alarming. He’s fighting for the “Right to bear arms” Amendment number 2.


  • austin November 14, 2009 (1:00 pm)

    “Big media circus” is right.. it’s too bad this whacko was given so much attention.

  • vincent November 14, 2009 (1:07 pm)

    Way to go WSB! hopefully this will garner another 100 personal attacks for against someone calmly exercising their rights.

    Whatever gets the sponsor click through revenue though, right guys!

  • JenV November 14, 2009 (1:12 pm)

    no jiggers, he’s not. he’s a lawyer, and he’s just doing this so he has grounds to sue. he’s a scum sucking bottom feeder.

  • jiggers November 14, 2009 (1:17 pm)

    The guys knows what he is doing. Media will eat this story up. If Nickels wasn’t so naive, we wouldn’t have this circus. I hope it becomes national news.

  • JenV November 14, 2009 (1:18 pm)

    oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a left wing liberal gun owner. I think this POS is a moron, and I wish the media would just ignore his dumb ass.

  • brittany November 14, 2009 (1:24 pm)

    the words “attention whore” come to mind.

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (1:28 pm)

    Let me get this straight. Liberals talks at nauseum about tolerance and then resort to irrational name calling because they are not tolerant of another persons beliefs. Hmmmmm.

  • Roche November 14, 2009 (1:29 pm)

    @jiggers: I totally understand what he’s doing, but it’s not smart, kind, or productive. You wouldn’t show up to your son’s graduation with a machete just to second-guess the law that says they’re banned. It’s just in very poor taste to bring a killing machine to a family event in the sole interest of validating your right to do so.

    If you want to bring a gun to a park, fine, whatever. Who cares? Just don’t be such a jerkoff that you notify the media and tell them what you’ll be wearing and what time you’ll be there.

    I don’t think there’s anyone that wants to surrender rights, but we deserve to have events in our community without them being hijacked by a truly pathetic fool who doesn’t even live in Seattle. Killing machines don’t belong in family events.

  • jiggers November 14, 2009 (1:31 pm)

    This thread/story has the potential to bust 200 comments when it is all said and done..

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (1:34 pm)

    “attention whore”? Interesting, Brittany.

    The words “freedom fighter” and “Second Amendment” come to my mind. Crystal clear where your mind lives.

  • JenV November 14, 2009 (1:43 pm)

    “freedom fighter” LOL!! good one. I hope I see this guy out and about, in a park with his penile-extension…er, I mean GUN.

  • MargL November 14, 2009 (1:48 pm)

    I’m a little unclear on the impact to the dog show.
    “as of 12:30, the people and dogs who showed up for the show left when they saw all the commotion. ”
    Does that mean they went inside to have their show, or they went home and the show was canceled?

    It’d a shame if a community event -was- canceled because some guy with a legal concealed gun wanted to prove a point and have a media circus. He could have gone to any empty Seattle park – stood in the middle of a grassy area and waved his arms around proclaiming “Hey! I’m exercising constitutional rights here!!! Look at MEEEE!”

  • Michael November 14, 2009 (1:48 pm)

    The “neas” have described it all perfectly. And if you are worried about all our freedoms, don’t be. I travel to lots of other places are ours are just fine. This is about a vocal minority applauding an idiot who wants to put his paranoia ahead of anything involving the community. Doesn’t sound so “American” to me. Tea Bagger idiocy. You folks are NOT the patriots you try to paint yourselves as. You are mostly reckless and self centered and stay out of the places our kids play.

  • r November 14, 2009 (1:50 pm)

    what a flipping idiot, now go home and watch men in tights and shorts fight over a ball.

  • I. Ponder November 14, 2009 (1:53 pm)

    I knew 2 people murdered by Americans with guns. One was a good friend, the other my brother. Neither could have defended themselves had they been armed.

    I wonder how many other people have similar experiences.

    Even traffic arguments can end in death when one person has a gun. I believe that’s what happened to a local food delivery guy a few years back here in West Seattle. His killer had a child seatbelted in the back seat and let his temper get the better of him. At least 2 lives ruined there is my guess.

    It shocks me what we tolerate in America.

  • GenHillOne November 14, 2009 (2:02 pm)

    I am completely tolerant of his beliefs. I am completely intolerant of the time, place, and manner he chose to express them. And now he openly admits to a planned lawsuit. Tool is a perfect description – and that is based on his actions, not his beliefs. Call it tool-like behavior if that makes you feel better.

  • cliff November 14, 2009 (2:02 pm)

    I don’t care if he wants to take a bazooka into any place in Kent as long as he stays the hell out of W. Seattle.

  • Gray Peterson November 14, 2009 (2:04 pm)

    Just an FYI to everyone: This guy has absolutely NOTHING to do with the case that was filed in King County Superior Court late last month.

    Chan v. City of Seattle

    In fact, I actively oppose Warden involving himself in a legal challenge for several reasons:

    1) He’s clearly doing this because he thinks that he, as a lawyer who does primarily labor relations law, is somehow better than the lawyers involved who have 2nd amendment or firearms related litigation experience.

    2) His own personal determination that the plaintiffs (one of them being me) has no standing to challenge the Seattle park firearms rule has no basis of law in this state. Standing is a legal doctrine that the courts have created to cut down on frivolous and vexatious litigation, as well as their workload. He used a ruling in the Heller case during it’s time in the Court of Appeals level (when it was called Parker). The Heller case was the law which struck down DC’s handgun registration and possession ban, and the ability to keep a loaded firearm in your own home. The standing rules in the DC Circuit, being the seat of the federal government, is very strict versus other federal court jurisdictions (9th Circuit is where we are located). This is why Heller was the only plaintiff who survived in the challenge against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. Since Heller was the only one who applied for and was denied a handgun registration certificate, Heller was the only one who had standing this is filed in state court and is based solely on state law and the state constitution, the federal court rules in standing DO NOT APPLY.

    3) Bob Warden has just come out of nowhere. He’s had zero involvement with anyone that I know of who considered themselves second amendment activists. During meetings in reaction to the Seattle Gun Rule taking effect (which was covered by the media), the idea of doing what Bob did was dismissed as unnecessary. Civil litigation is preferable to possibly getting arrested (which didn’t happen here, but could have). The City would much rather face a lone wolf attorney who will file pro-per (ask any attorney if they would represent himself in a case, almost all of them would tell you “no”) who doesn’t have his facts straight and has various logical understanding issues than a professional law firm hired by a legal foundation.

    One more thing: To the conservatives who post on here who keep posting “Liberal=anti-gun” or various epiphets towards liberals, stop. There are some liberals who are very pro-2A and very much against the rule (and also against Bob Warden going rogue) and there are some conservative “law and order” types that think gun control is just the ticket to control crime. Thinking of things of a “liberal/conservative” angle doesn’t help anything.

    To the liberals and progressives to post on this blog: What Nickels and Seattle is doing is no different than banning people who wear certain religious symbols (Crosses, pentagrams, star of david) or any religious symbols at all, from being able to enjoy the parks. In the State of Washington’s Constitution, we have Article 1, Section 24 of our state constitution, which makes it very clear:

    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…

    As progressives and liberals, we have fought for the civil liberties of individuals over time. From the Women’s Suffrage movement to the Civil Rights movement, and now in order modern times, the LGBT equality movement, we have fought for the civil liberties of people, civil liberties which include not only the liberties which one cannot choose (race, gender, sexual orientation), but also for those who make a choice (religion, marital status, creed).

    Progressives and Liberals should not denigrate a person based on a choice that they make which is protected by our state and federal constitutions. It’s too easy to do if you think that all gun owners and those that carry for personal protection are all conservatives and think that George W Bush was the best thing since sliced broad. But there were some of us progressive liberals who not only armed themselves because of the fear of violence against them due to them being LGBT, they also armed themselves for fear that a religious conservative government will go too far and start loading LGBT people into the cattle cars, or put us into internment camps similar to what the US government did to the Japanese 65 years ago. Some of the straight progressives may not quite understand this, but when when you’re a hated minority, and you understand history, you can see why members of the LGBT community arm themselves.

  • AceMotel November 14, 2009 (2:05 pm)


  • acemotel November 14, 2009 (2:11 pm)

    LOL JenV

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (2:18 pm)


    If his is a penile extension, what does that make yours?

    and Cliff…

    You sound like the redneck you’re assuming Bob Warden is.

  • gunzonthemoon November 14, 2009 (2:19 pm)

    Museum of Flight docent, WOW!

  • cruiser November 14, 2009 (2:33 pm)

    Hi everyone!!

    Ah how I do miss this classic stuff in West Seattle:)
    Was this guy gonna shoot the first offleash dog that came out of the show?

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (2:46 pm)


    No one is saying liberals = anti gun. But liberals
    do equal hate speech. I’ve have never witnessed such immature, hate filled rants in my life!

  • Dano Beal November 14, 2009 (2:51 pm)

    We have the same “No guns allowed” signage in every public school in Seattle… Would people be so supportive of the right to carry a concealed weapon if this man chose an elementary school for his little stunt?… The right to bear arms was written during a much different time, during much different circumstances… And it spoke to firearms that were NOTHING like the weapons we see today. I fully support gun control, and teach with that in mind, proudly….. everyday.

  • rnl November 14, 2009 (2:53 pm)

    Why do we need guns, when we can all have tasers?

  • JanS November 14, 2009 (3:00 pm)

    Georgia..you have a sheltered life. Listen to Faux news, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity ad nauseum. Read comments on articles in the Seattle Times or on AOL, and this will seem extremely mild compared to that.

    If this guy wants to truly make a difference, wants to truly protest, let him just go about his business in and out of parks, wearing his concealed weapon. If and when he gets caught in a park with it, then let him go to court to fight the law. Today he was just grandstanding, and that turns most people off to what he’s trying to do. And am I missing something here? Concealed? Doesn’t look that way.

    And blue or green would have been a much better choice in colors. Orange? Not so much.

  • Gray Peterson November 14, 2009 (3:06 pm)

    We have the same “No guns allowed” signage in every public school in Seattle… Would people be so supportive of the right to carry a concealed weapon if this man chose an elementary school for his little stunt?… The right to bear arms was written during a much different time, during much different circumstances… And it spoke to firearms that were NOTHING like the weapons we see today. I fully support gun control, and teach with that in mind, proudly….. everyday.

    Wait, hold on a moment, Dano, do you not know that it is actually an actual state criminal law violation if he were to carry inside of the school building.

    RCW 9.41.280

    He would have actually been a criminal if he had walked into school property, and WOULD have been arrested for certain, as he should be.

  • Gray Peterson November 14, 2009 (3:11 pm)

    The right to bear arms was written during a much different time, during much different circumstances… And it spoke to firearms that were NOTHING like the weapons we see today.

    So the first amendment only protects quilled pens and newspapers? Dano, you make the same argument that religious conservatives make about the internet, that it deserves no first amendment protections because the 1st Congress (made up of many of the founding fathers of this country) could not seen the ability of misuse of the internet for nefarious or illegal purposes versus a news paper. Our court system, and I’m sure you and I, disagree with that perspective wholeheartedly. It is no different than modern firearms and bladed weapons.

  • Chris November 14, 2009 (3:18 pm)

    Could not agree more with Georgia’s comments. Mostly liberal hate speech here. It’s called the constitution people. Men and woman with guns have died to give you the freedom to speak your minds, however warped in a venue, such as this. I fear for our future as a nation with neighbors like you.

  • West Seattle November 14, 2009 (3:20 pm)

    this is horrible! What’s next, taking a book into a Seattle Public School?

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (3:21 pm)

    Jan S,
    Your assumption is made from your narrow very mind.

    However, that statement is not an assumption, it’s is a statement of fact because of your accusation on the backstory of my opinions.

    BTW, aren’t “marches” through the streets, disrupting traffic, et al. also grandstanding? My GUESS would be that you hypocritically support those.

  • GenHillOne November 14, 2009 (3:23 pm)

    Cool, who do we talk to get that criminal law violation extended beyond school buildings? That would be something I could get behind!

  • GenHillOne November 14, 2009 (3:25 pm)

    Oh, and are we talking the state of “Georgia” here? No need to jump down my throat, it’s an honest question.

  • JanS November 14, 2009 (3:35 pm)

    ok…getting personal is not what’s acceptable on here. I consider myself fairly liberal. I’m also a vet. Yes, a stint in the army. So..who’s the patriot? Who has a narrow mind? Not me? And name calling of each other on here gets you nowhere. And to top it all, I’m a hypocrit, huh. Thanks. You’;re ever so nice. Marches in the streets…is that breaking a law? Holding a sign up that is against OUR president that has a despicable picture of bodies piled on top of each other in Dachau…is that against the law? NO. I don’t like it, fer damned sure. But it’s OK for them to do it. This guy hasn’t had his right to bear arms taken away from him. State law says that he can’t carry in a school…why isn’t he protesting that? City law says that he can’t carry in a park…but it’s OK to protest that, when at a community center where there are children and families? NO, that doesn’t cut it for me. Sorry. Oh, and for the record. I have listened to Rush, and Glenn, and Sean, and Faux news, and if you think the “libs” are the only ones with hate talk, well, I’m pretty sure I can’t convince you otherwise. If the words liberal and conservative were forever wiped from our language we’d be left with people…who disagree, and have every right to say so.

    So…discuss the topic, not the people who are commenting on here. It’s a basic rule on this blog.

  • WSB November 14, 2009 (3:44 pm)

    Thanks, Jan, and that is indeed the case. I haven’t had time to review all the comments yet as we have both been running around covering other stories since immediately after this one but I will and will remove any namecalling between people participating in this discussion. When it comes to commenter vs. commenter, you can criticize an idea, but not the person voicing it. “What you said is idiotic” is OK. Not, “you’re an idiot.” Fine line but we keep it as a barrier to absolute combative chaos, which you can find (and engage in) on plenty of OTHER news sites if that is your preference – thanks. – TR

  • WS Steve November 14, 2009 (3:53 pm)

    ZOMG! My daughter and I showed up at the SW pool to go swimming not fifteen minutes after this little media circus wound up. I have to agree with posters who feel this was not the appropriate way to handle this act of of civil disobedience. However, I also refuse to participate in raking him over the coals for wanting to take a stand for what he believes in.

    That said…his actions don’t seem in any way connected to a well-regulated militia so I don’t think he has the Second Amendment on his side. And I’m with people who believe handgun ownership for personal protection is of dubious efficacy, while also being risky for the carrier, his or her loved ones, and anyone they encounter when they might be having a bad day.

    Lastly, anyone who thinks the Second Amendment is cut-and-dried has an axe to grind, IMO. If the founders had wanted everyone to walk around with guns 24/7 there would be less words in that sentence.

  • WSN Helen November 14, 2009 (3:56 pm)

    How dare he disrupt the time honored tradition of Dogs in the Hood?! Dogs in the Hood: The greatest dog and hoodlum appreciation event of all time.

  • Been here a long time November 14, 2009 (4:19 pm)

    There used to be a small sign near the counter of the community center stating “We reserve the right to refuse service…..”
    The story says “He was calmly asked to leave.”
    They were with in their rights as well.
    They can ask a homeless man to leave.
    They can ask a person with an out of hand dog to leave.
    They can ask me to leave if I was causing a scene and bringing a disrupting media circus.
    I have seen that sign in most community centers from Sea-Tac to Edmonds.

  • JenV November 14, 2009 (4:24 pm)

    @ georgia: mine’s just a gun, hon. I am not so insecure that I have to walk around with my dick in my hand to feel like a big man.

  • Cheese for the Whine November 14, 2009 (4:27 pm)

    Anyone who believes that the 2nd Amendment is being threatened needs to wake up and smell the gun powder.

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (4:28 pm)

    Another hateful assumption.

    Born and raised in West Seattle.

  • charlabob November 14, 2009 (4:40 pm)

    TV Reporters *asked* to see the gun and the “reporters” of WSB chose to photograph it because it’s such a great asset to their “news” feed. Can’t tell you how horrifying it was to see the picture of the “lawyer” “carrying,” in what I thought was a responsible community “news” outlet. History does finally win out.

  • GenHillOne November 14, 2009 (4:42 pm)

    I guess that was for me, Georgia, but unlike YOUR assumption, I was not assuming anything. I am far from a hateful, but you assume. I actually was trying to look at this through a different lens. Clearly snarkiness is blind.

  • LB November 14, 2009 (4:48 pm)

    So far in these comments I have read:

    lonely jerk
    scum sucking bottom feeder
    attention whore
    pathetic fool
    Tea Bagger idiocy
    flipping idiot
    Some West Seattle Blog readers showing their true colors here: hateful speech and offensive slurs. These comments are FAR more scary, simple-minded and inane than anything you may want to attribute to somebody exercising their First AND Second Amendment rights.
    Well done.

  • JamminJ November 14, 2009 (4:59 pm)

    “Our freedoms are being taken away at a rate that is alarming.”
    And only one person shows up to protest? Not such an ‘alarming’ response to your rights being taken away in my opinion, if such is the case.

  • Doc November 14, 2009 (5:02 pm)

    When you say it was a much different time when the right to bear arms was written, are you refering to the state or federal constitution? Because I will have to agree with you, it was a much different time. Since federal was adopted in 1787 and our states in 1889, 102 years apart, I must agree that it was a much different time.

    I personally do not believe that he had the right place or timing for this, and I also agree it was a bit of a media circus, however I think that the POINT is that he is standing up for rights that he believes are being taken away from him.

    Oh, and the post by rnl FTW.

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (5:04 pm)


    Good one, GenHillOne! I almost fell off my chair laughing!!

  • GenHillOne November 14, 2009 (5:08 pm)

    It wasn’t a joke, but that works.

  • Georgia November 14, 2009 (5:13 pm)


    Good One,GenHillOne! I almost fell of my chair laughing!!!

  • I. Ponder November 14, 2009 (5:19 pm)

    This Georgia person is a big crybaby with all the “hate speech” BS.

    As an adult you have the right to drink alcohol and drink yourself into a stupor. However, you don’t have the right to then drive a car. So, there are limitations to your right to endanger other people who are trying to enjoy their rights.

    America is awash in handguns, and we’re not safer or better off for it. America is and will remain a violent nation thanks the Second Amendment combined with an overabundance of self-righteous morons.

  • Patrick November 14, 2009 (5:37 pm)

    The “right to bear arms” in the 2nd amendment that so many poor, misguided Americans are so obsessed with (while people are being killed with guns at alarming rates beyond any other country times ten) was obviously meant in regard to raising a militia againt tyranny, NOT so we could all carry handguns around to shoot other people when we lose our tempers. What a pathetic person, what a violent country, and what a stupid misguided population of people.

  • bridge to somewhere November 14, 2009 (5:37 pm)

    someone ought to reanimate our founding fathers and ask them if this is their intended interpretation of their [now our] second amendment. With respect to both sides, I have no idea what they’d say given our present time and culture – and I suspect they wouldn’t agree amongst themselves, they being thinking, smart human beings like ourselves

  • rw November 14, 2009 (5:47 pm)

    Interesting how for many people gun ownership is THE litmus test for whether we are a free people.

    Allow people to carry a gun almost any place and any time = we are a free people.

    Block gun privileges in any way and we are not free.

    There are many ways we are less free than we should be, and many of these restrictions on our RIGHTS are foisted on us by so-called conservatives, but somehow this is the big one they care about.

    The constitution was drafted in a far different time and place, and somehow I believe if the drafters were writing the constitution today, they would have written this amendment very differently to take into consideration the incredibly harmful impact guns and gun violence have on the health adn wll-being of our society.

    I consider myself a libertarian, and overall I support gun rights, but when you look at the harm guns cause, and the many, many other intrusions on our rights as citizens, then I have to conclude that resonable restrictions on gun rights (who can purchase and possess them, where they can be carried) are appropriate, and true conservative libertarians should be worrying about other infringements on our rights as free individuals who should be allowed to determine what we do, as long as we do not harm others.

  • Smitty November 14, 2009 (5:47 pm)

    It’s interesting to see the “party of tolerance” being so intolerant of someone’s rights.

    Naked bike riders? Cool!

    WTO hippies breaking windows? Awesome!

    Old ladies in pink shirts disrupting Congressional hearings? Yeah, baby!

    Pies thrown in faces of conservatives! Hell, yeah!

    Everyone else – you are just a Hannity loving fool!

    Gotta love em.

  • Doc November 14, 2009 (6:10 pm)

    I like the way you think. Guns in this day and age really do help determine a free people. Use Iran as an example. There are still massive riots against the government and if they had weapons, they very well may have toppled the regime already! There certainly should be restrictions, such as at airports, courthouses and schools.
    I live near lincoln park and see people smoking pot there every once and a while. The law states that pot is illegal, the park signs say it is illegal but it still happens. Signs do not stop people from smoking pot and nor will they stop someone who wants to kill or harm others.

  • rw November 14, 2009 (6:12 pm)


    What party of tolerance are you referring to?

    Yeah, I don’t care if you choose to ride your bike naked…. as long as you don’t block traffic, which imposes your rights above others1 rights.

    WTO rioters. Throw them in jail.

    But what ab. marijuana? Who gets hurt? Heck, Washington restricts teh rght to sell liquor to protect us from ourselves (I suppose), but then goes out and runs the state liquor systm to (supposedly)eke out the maximum profits for themselves.

    Prostitution or strip clubs? Who gets hurt (except in cases of enslavement or child abuse, inwhich case the offenders should be thrown in jail).

    What ab. abortion rights, the rights of a woman to decide for herself about her body? Or the rights of a person to choose to end their own life if their suffering becomes too great?

    So-called conservations are the thought police in these and many more areas. But just don’t restrict our guns or we are no longer free. Give me a break.

  • AceMotel November 14, 2009 (6:16 pm)

    I agree with JenV again.
    good comparison.

    I am glad most of those commenting recognize the idiocy of this action.

  • Dante November 14, 2009 (6:17 pm)

    I may have missed something in the story, but the picture you have posted is not of someone carrying a concealed weapon. He is clearly carrying openly. Did I miss something, or do the people here not know what ‘concealed’ means?

  • Chris November 14, 2009 (6:19 pm)

    Took the words right out of my mouth Smitty. Looks like a pretty innocent, harmless and respectfull protest considering others that we have seen in the recent past. Lots of hypocrites on this blog tonight.

  • KalHel November 14, 2009 (6:28 pm)

    I need to carry everywhere, because I have to compensate for my small penis. Which is small, everywhere.

  • JanS November 14, 2009 (6:46 pm)

    the man doesn’t even live in Seattle…he lives in the Kent Valley. Yes, I’m sure he comes to Seattle to visit, and I’m equally sure he’s always got that thing in his armpit, just in case us non-law-abiding citizens attack him.

    to those who are questioning the “concealed” part. I,too, wondered that…and then I watched the little video above. He originally had a coat on, hence, the concealed part. And, if he had simply not told anyone he was coming, and had kept his coat on at the community center, and allowed the program to go on unaffectd, everything would have been copacetic, because no one would have known. That’s the beauty of “concealed”. Unless you’re there to commit mayhem, etc., no one would have known, his rights would not have been affected.

  • Doc November 14, 2009 (7:11 pm)

    The problem is that his rights are still affected even if he entered the place and noone knew he had the weapon. The place still said “no guns”. If he went in unannounced, he simply would have broken that rule and gotten away with it. By your logic I could carry in a school as long as I don’t get caught. Just because we do not know about something does not mean we are not having our rights violated. If someone wiretapped your phone and you never knew about it, would you still think that your rights were not violated?

  • West Seattle Mom November 14, 2009 (7:14 pm)

    I take my children to this community center and think that this was a ridiculous thing for him to do. I do not feel “safer” with this man carrying around a weapon. Funny that.

  • wseye November 14, 2009 (7:19 pm)

    Don’t we have more important issues to worry about, folks?

  • Mike C November 14, 2009 (7:43 pm)

    What the anti-gunners do not understand is the 2nd Amendment is their amendment as well. They have the same right to keep and bear arms just as gun owners do. By them attacking us who exercise this right, they are in essence attacking themselves. Why would some want to attack their own constitutional rights???

  • JanS November 14, 2009 (7:53 pm)

    Mike C..many of us our here who think that what this man did is not right, will defend his right to carry a gun. Why did he have to do it this way? Why not on a jogging trail in a park, any place else besides a child oriented place. I can disagree with his methods and not be “anti-gun”.geesh !

  • JamminJ November 14, 2009 (7:55 pm)

    you’re constitutional rights are NOT being taken away. We already have limitations on where and when we can carry weapons. Just because some mayor went rogue doesn’t mean that our 2nd amendment has been repealed.

  • bluebird November 14, 2009 (8:36 pm)

    I think this was executed perfectly. The entire purpose was to contest the new law, on the basis that his rights are being violated. By alerting the media, and thus us, he ensured that everyone was prepared in advance for a non-violent, non-confrontational event. Who was harmed by anything other than inconvenience? Unannounced, the scenario would have played out with a swat team over “man with gun” hysteria. The required legal process can now proceed.


    And for those suggesting the middle of an empty field, how would this garner a request to leave, without him brandishing his weapon, and again risking a swat scene. He went to a community center, not a children’s center, on a weekend when school children were not having PE. Any child would presumably have adult supervision. I think he showed respect, as opposed to the people on here incapable of dialogue beyond calling him a tool.

  • Joe November 14, 2009 (8:56 pm)

    The only thing more ridiculous than this nut job, is the fact that there was so much media there. Why not cover a worthwhile story instead of this moron who’s now encouraged to do it again?

  • Travis November 14, 2009 (9:04 pm)

    Its nice to see that he is so passionate about his cause that he will, eventually, get around to filing the lawsuit after watching some sports on tv. I’m horrified by how many more of our constitutional rights will be taken away while he sits in his easy chair. Think of all the people in public parks that will go unprotected while he’s watching college football! I, personally, will not leave my house until I know I’m fully protected from criminals by his right to carry a gun.

  • MargL November 14, 2009 (9:04 pm)

    If his only goal was to make the point that it’s his constitutional and legal right to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise, apparently) on Seattle Park Property he very well could have done it on -any- Seattle Park Property.

    He notified everyone where he was going to be and what he was going to look like… why do it in front of a community center where there’s a pre-planned event that could be (was?) disrupted by the media circus?

    Why -not- in the middle of an empty sports field owned by the Parks Department?
    Would have been a much more interesting statement (and picture) to be standing in the middle of this empty soccer field surrounded by circle of cameras and reporters discussing what he was doing and why.

  • DanS November 14, 2009 (9:22 pm)

    Wow, I guess I should have checked the site first instead of waiting for the news on tv.
    I was leaving the locker room after taking my 4yo daughter for swimming lessons. I noticed cops and cameras in the lobby and asked a bystander whats going on. He said there is a guy thats coming in with a gun to sue the city. Just so you folks know the community center has lots of kids in there on saturday. Well anyways I watched him being asked to leave and standing outside talking to the reporters. Then I thought about how I actually feel about the whole deal and to tell you the truth I didnt really care about the new law, but trying to see both sides of the story, someone like this person walks in with a gun I wouldnt care, then just imagine southwest pool somewhere in a bad part of town and some shady characters hangin out at the community center with their guns. All it would take at that point is “Hey! what are you looking at?” or just some gang signs flashed. I am actually against gun control, but I dont think its unreasonable to ask a gun carrying citizen to leave their weapon in a car, and make sure you have a lock on it.
    What do you guys think.

  • Michael November 14, 2009 (9:56 pm)


    This was 100% a sideshow intended to get publicity.
    Dude was not arrested or forced out in any way. He was asked to leave and he complied.
    A parks department rep can ask you to leave if you sit down on the center of a soccer field during a game. Yet that’s not necessarily against the law.
    I do applaud Mr. I Have a Right for keeping the taxpayer expense down: this will likely get laughed out of court at a low level and all appeals quickly rejected.
    In fact, I wonder if he might have done this to SUPPORT the new law…?
    Not that this will help our country, which is fast getting known as the place where nutbars show up with guns everywhere…

  • carter November 14, 2009 (10:08 pm)

    I’m all for the second amendment as it’s written in the United States Constitution. Warden is more than welcome to take his musket and powder in the Southwest Community Center. At least I would have plenty of time to duck if he gets trigger happy . . .

  • rob November 14, 2009 (10:42 pm)

    i can’t figure out why its so unclear that the second amendment isn’t at issue here. the issue is one of state law, and how the city is choosing to defy it. if they don’t like what the state law says, they should try to get it changed, not just pretend it doesn’t exist.

  • rob November 14, 2009 (10:54 pm)

    “We have the same “No guns allowed” signage in every public school in Seattle… Would people be so supportive of the right to carry a concealed weapon if this man chose an elementary school for his little stunt?… The right to bear arms was written during a much different time, during much different circumstances… And it spoke to firearms that were NOTHING like the weapons we see today. I fully support gun control, and teach with that in mind, proudly….. everyday.”
    i don’t mean this to sound offensive, but i am really shocked a public school teacher wouldn’t know that state law forbids carrying a firearm in a public school, and that a parks dept run community center isn’t a public school. my mom is a public school teacher and can tell you exactly which RCW you’re looking for (i just called her to ask).
    if we want to extend that prohibition to parks and community centers, there is a right way to do that…
    “Cool, who do we talk to get that criminal law violation extended beyond school buildings? That would be something I could get behind!”
    the state legislature. they can change state laws. the best thing to do would be to start calling representatives and senators and let them know that is what you want.

  • Short November 14, 2009 (11:04 pm)

    Kudos! This law abiding Patriot knows the Constitution. He did what he needed to do to protect our Constitutional right. Makes you wonder why the “no firearm” allowed signs posted and threats to be arrested have any clout. Do you think criminals read or even care?

    This is tax payers money used to post “illegal” signs. Is this what you call creating “new” jobs???

    The King County government has yet again “pushed” this on us and is slowly trying to strip away our constitutional rights. We reserve the right to protect our family, friends and neighbors.
    God Bless!

  • JamminJ November 14, 2009 (11:24 pm)

    “i can’t figure out why its so unclear that the second amendment isn’t at issue here. the issue is one of state law, and how the city is choosing to defy it. if they don’t like what the state law says, they should try to get it changed, not just pretend it doesn’t exist.”
    and just as this individual decided to go against city law, maybe the city decided that they have a right to govern themselves, even against a state law. Maybe this was the cities first step to get the laws changed – just as this individual did.
    “second amendment isn’t at issue here.”
    the first person to bring up 2nd amendment was a pro-gun protectionist regarding our rights. Seems as if most here support 2nd amendment with restrictions, but we have 2nd amendment activists who argue that any restriction is a violation of the 2nd amendment.
    want to admit that an individual does NOT have a right to carry firearms wherever and whenever they want, that the 2nd amendment DOES HAS RESTRICTIONS without infringing on that right,THEN you might have a rational discussion.
    But media circuses like this does nothing to bring a legitimate discussion to the topic.

  • rob November 14, 2009 (11:43 pm)

    “and just as this individual decided to go against city law, maybe the city decided that they have a right to govern themselves, even against a state law. Maybe this was the cities first step to get the laws changed – just as this individual did.”
    problem is that in this regard, the city doesn’t have the right to govern themselves. intentionally disobeying a clearly established law that isn’t contradicted or supersceded by a higher law is a bad way to strive for that change. the difference between what the city has done and what this guy has done is that the city does not have a higher law on its side, and he does.
    “the first person to bring up 2nd amendment was a pro-gun protectionist regarding our rights.”
    yes, i was talking to them too.
    “want to admit that an individual does NOT have a right to carry firearms wherever and whenever they want, that the 2nd amendment DOES HAS RESTRICTIONS without infringing on that right,THEN you might have a rational discussion.”
    i think i’ve been pretty clear that i agree that restrictions are acceptable and appropriate when they are reasonable and in the public interest.
    “But media circuses like this does nothing to bring a legitimate discussion to the topic.”
    everyone seems to have an opinion on this. mine is that i don’t really think the guy was going for a legitimate discussion on the topic. some of the circus was necessary to ensure that he would be confronted and asked to leave. if he hadn’t said he was going to do it, no one at that place probably would have ever asked anyone there if they had a gun on them. huge problem with the ordinance is that the city has no plan to actively enforce it, and the chance that anyone is going to get hassled over it without someone first complaining (or someone doing what this guy did) is pretty slim.

  • Mike November 14, 2009 (11:50 pm)

    He has nothing to sue the city over. Being asked to leave is not illegal and did not infringe on his rights to bear arms. He left on his own terms, nobody forced him.


    Another thing he has against him now is he notified the public of his intent to show up to a public facility with a loaded weapon. That alone will be a hit against his argument. It was a public threat with a deadly weapon.


    This guy is a lawyer? Not a very good one.

  • Dano Beal November 14, 2009 (11:50 pm)

    Rob, believe me, I know it is a state law… Several years ago,(not in Seattle…) My class was in lock down while a licensed gun owner killed three indiviuals within view of the 300 students attending that elementary school… It was his property… not on our campus, but within 10 feet… Trust me when I say that every one of those kids will remember that day….. The sounds of people screaming….. The swat teams running thru our parking lot, and the general chaos that is associated with such horrific events. And while your comment isn’t taken as offensive, I want you to know I am thoughtful, educated guy… I’m just throwing my two cents into the conversation. Also, I am aware of several schools and community centers that share a common campus.

  • Mike November 14, 2009 (11:56 pm)

    I also noticed that this guy had a recording device on him. If he tries to use that in court it will be thrown out if he did not inform the person being recorded that he was doing so.

  • lg November 14, 2009 (11:58 pm)

    I’m sure there were a lot of children shaken up, unnecessarily. I think this didn’t really do his cause any good in terms of promoting it among the people that were there, although, it doesn’t seem to be his concern.

    I’ve really not got an opinion on this issue, but I will say that his behavior today did nothing to advocate his cause to me and I’m guessing it didn’t sway any of the people whose days he ruined at the community center either. So what he did seems counter-productive in that sense, even if he may have made legal headway.

    For me (and it seems like many other pps) it’s not a questions of whether the substance of his argument was valid or not, but whether the style/setting of his protest was the best choice.

  • Mike November 14, 2009 (11:58 pm)

    This guy is the Jack Thompson of gun control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28activist%29 I assume eventually he’ll be disbarred just like Jack was if he keeps it up.

  • rob November 15, 2009 (12:24 am)

    dano: i have a lot of respect for teachers. this is my mom’s 40th school year, and trust me i don’t think anyone should be taking guns into schools. in places where its appropriate i think they should be screening people to make sure they aren’t doing it (police included). the legitimate reasons for them being there are very few. if the police are there to arrest someone or something, fine, but they don’t need to have a gun on their hip to teach a drug class or give a speech on drunk driving. the “someone could take it and use it on you” thing applies to them too. we had a trap/skeet class, but that was conducted at a range, not at the school (we did do archery class on the playfields though). i could see a community center on school grounds as probably being covered by the same law as a school. in this case though, the ordinance here is about parks dept. places. the guy is trying to challenge the city law regarding those places, not state law regarding schools (or courts). he hasn’t said anything that i think anyone could reasonably interpret to mean he’s looking to challenge those restrictions.
    lg: if you take him at his word, promoting a cause isn’t what he’s after. he doesn’t appear (to me at least) interested in convincing the public at large of anything, but rather convincing a court that the ordinance is against state law. i don’t think the court will be as concerned with his personality as your average citizen is.

  • WSB November 15, 2009 (12:58 am)

    Mike @ 11:56 – I believe you’re referring to part of the wireless mike gear at least one of the TV crews applied before he went into the building. It is generally considered, for what it’s worth, that if a video camera is visible, audio is being recorded as well, unless you ask that it not be. I don’t know if he had any recording device of his own, but you are right, this state requires consent to audio recording.

  • D.C. November 15, 2009 (2:54 am)

    Like most things, people who are ill-informed about something tend to be afraid of it. A gun isn’t a magical item that dispenses death, it’s simply a tool like any other. The whole “people had guns around our children!” argument is nothing more than emotional junk food for the unintelligent.
    We’d all be a lot better off if we had tighter restrictions on who is allowed to drive a vehicle and lesser restrictions on the carrying and possession of fire arms.
    I was originally impressed by Mr. Warden’s plan to defy this unconstitutional law, but in the end I share the same opinion of him that many of the guns-are-the-devil crowd do. I am disappointed that this was just a publicity stunt and he didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand his ground and make them arrest him for violating the “pretend” law. All it would take is one attempt at prosecution to get this thing thrown out once and for all.

  • rob November 15, 2009 (3:04 am)

    i don’t think he intended, nor did he need to push things to the point of getting arrested for trespassing. being told he wasn’t allowed to be at the facility and that he must leave should be enough. now that he has been kicked out, he can sue over it. from reading his letter, sounds like this was all he was after.
    i am having a hard time understanding why so many see it as some empty publicity stunt. based on what he said he was going to do, what he actually did, and the fact he didn’t act like al sharpton while doing it, it all seemed pretty low key to me.
    the news made a big deal out of it, but i hardly see how he is to blame for that. they could have just not shown up, and found something else to do today.

  • WSB November 15, 2009 (4:18 am)

    I wouldn’t call it being “to blame,” but FWIW, he chose to CC his note to six news organizations (us, two newspapers, one citywide online news org, two TV stations; one of the TV stations he did NOT send it to saw the story somewhere else on Friday and did a preview interview with him on their newscast Friday night).
    Certainly you’re right, we all have free will and could have chosen not to show up. It was one of seven places/events at which we shot photos and/or video Saturday – the biggest story among the other 6 was the High Point Neighborhood Center dedication a little more than an hour after the SWCC hoopla, and given the magnitude of the HP project, it would have been nice to have seen the other news organizations that turned up at SWCC show up at HPNC with us for that event too – we were the only media cameras in view there.
    However, for better or for worse, back to SWCC, the way in which Bob Warden chose to communicate his intention WAS a de-facto press release — the vast majority of people who send e-mail to city officials every day do NOT cc the news media – if he hadn’t done that, he may well have walked into the facility today and had nothing happen – I asked him before he entered the center today if he had even received a reply directly from the city after sending his note yesterday, and he said no, the only indication he had of their reaction were the various quotes in the Friday stories, including here – TR

  • Kayleigh November 15, 2009 (5:52 am)

    I hate guns. I think people who are obsessed with guns (under the guise of “rights” and “protection” or whatever) are a little off. It’s almost like a fetish or something.
    But due to unpleasant circumstances in my life, I considered getting a gun a few years ago. I took the concept very seriously—I talked to people who knew me well, even a couple of ex-boyfriends who offered to teach me how to use it (against their better judgment.) I decided that I was not the type of person who should own a gun (not steely enough to use it properly if I was threatened). And that adding to the level of violence in the universe, because guns are symbols and tools of violence, was not something I wanted to do.
    Pretending that the proliferation of guns in our society has nothing to do with our tragic levels of violence and crime is completely illogical.
    And for those of you complaining about the hate speech here, didja read the homeless threads? They were much worse. Of course liberals hate.

  • GenHillOne November 15, 2009 (8:22 am)

    I’m pretty sure that off-duty police officers even have (self-imposed) restrictions on where they can and can’t carry their firearms. *I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, lol* It just makes sense.

    For all those concerned about others calling this guy an idiot – he, for all intents and purposes, broke the law. It doesn’t matter if he thought he had a good reason to do it. I hope that you all will stand up for the next petty thief or (it is WS afterall) off-leash dog owner when people call out stupid as stupid. Wouldn’t want anyone’s feelings to be hurt.

    And thank you, rob, for acknowledging that there is something positive we can do to extend the limitations on handguns. What was this guy going to do with his piece if he was going to go for a swim? Put it in a locker? Even leaving it in his car doesn’t seem like a great option. There just is a time and a place.

  • Jim November 15, 2009 (8:32 am)

    Call him a whacko or whatever else you want – in principle he is correct and it is hard to see how he doesn’t win a suit against the city in court.

  • Raise the Level of this Debate November 15, 2009 (8:43 am)

    99% of those posting on this forum seem chalk up any disagreement with their views as a result of (1) fanaticism, (2) stupidity, or (3) ignorance. Please suspend your disbelief that someone could actually disagree with you, stop getting offended by people disagreeing with you, and discuss the issues. There are real issues to discuss here.

    And for all the questions about the meaning/interpretation of the Second. Put down your computer (and get off of Wikipedia!), and pick up a book or two. Heller v. DC (which is publicly available)–including the dissent–is a good primer, though I would also suggest general historical research and the Federalist Papers.

    The framers of the Constitution decided to put certain rights beyond annulment by a simple majority, and made these protections harder (though not impossible) to repeal. It is irresponsible to form an opinon on this issue based on your “feelings” (that goes for both sides). Inform yourselves: You do live in the most literate city in the country, right?

  • West Seattle November 15, 2009 (9:05 am)

    “Pretending that the proliferation of guns in our society has nothing to do with our tragic levels of violence and crime is completely illogical.”

    Lots of guns in Canada, much lower murder rate. Of course, most of the gun murders in this country are gang related…the majority of gun murders are done with illegal hand guns, not legal ones.

    Simple solution. No one with a criminal record can own a gun. All gun purchases must have background checks (ie no more internet sales and gun show sales).

  • gunznutz November 15, 2009 (9:16 am)

    Are Canada’s gun laws effective? Here are some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre:

    * There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
    * For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
    * For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
    * For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
    * For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

  • MoonbatApparently November 15, 2009 (9:21 am)

    DC says “emotional junk food for the unintelligent” … funny, that seems to fit the idea that if we can’t carry guns absolutely everywhere we are not free to a tee. Great choice of words! Thanks!

  • eric November 15, 2009 (9:23 am)

    how much money will the city spend to defend their illegal rules? and for what? bad guys will still carry regardless of signs.

    think of the people we could have fed/children we could have educated/homeless we could have sheltered if our soon-to-be-former mayor didn’t come up with this stupid illegal rule.

    classic seattle.

  • Mark November 15, 2009 (9:49 am)

    There seems to be a lot of misinformation about the law posted here. My attempt to clean it up:

    – SCOTUS has decided the “militia” part of the US 2A was just a motivation, not a requirement. You can disagree with the decision if you like, but that is the law of the land for now.

    – WA state’s right to bear arms clause is much more expansive. No militia required, so even if you don’t like the SCOTUS decision, the WA constitution’s version is crystal clear about gun ownership and bearing being an individual right not connected with a militia.

    – State law on pre-emption of gun control is clear. The state attorney general has already stated in an opinion that the Seattle rule is in violation of preemption. Again you can chose to not like state law, but that doesn’t make your or the mayor’s opinion “the law”.

    – State law on recording devices is more nuanced than stated here. Recording private individuals without consent is illegal. Recording *public* officials like police officers and other state employees is legal — no consent required. It falls under the open records / government provisions.

    – State law gives this person the right to carry open and concealed at that location. Again, you can not like the law, but it is what it is.

    – Even if you are of the opinion that he made a “threat” by notifying the parks department beforehand, he only made a “threat” to trespass. There is no enhanced sentence for premeditated trespass (which is the law Seattle is attempting to regulate under).

    Only time will tell what history records of Mr Warden’s protest. It might be forgotten. It might be a footnote. It might be a tipping point. Calling him and each other nasty names on some blog forum isn’t really going to matter.

  • Doc November 15, 2009 (10:22 am)

    ^^^^ Mark FTW ^^^^

  • Friend ODingus November 15, 2009 (10:34 am)

    I am interested what would happen if I acquired a concealed weapon permit, and a hand gun, and then scheduled an appointment with this attorney at his office. We could discuss estate planning (or labor law) while I quietly, yet continuously caress my holstered weapon.
    I wonder if he would feel at ease with me being in his office concealing a weapon (which could be pulled on him at any moment), or if he would instead ask me to remove it for his safety and peace of mind?

  • Gina November 15, 2009 (11:41 am)

    I don’t agree with his method, but I do agree with his principle.

  • jiggers November 15, 2009 (12:35 pm)

    I need to carry everywhere, because I have to compensate for my small penis. Which is small, everywhere.


  • jiggers November 15, 2009 (12:40 pm)

    It also occured to me here that a lot of the same posters here just a few short weeks ago were laughing at the mayors new “No guns in park law” only now to see this Mr. Warden guy challenge the new law. Bunch of hypocrites here if you ask me.

  • Mike November 15, 2009 (12:41 pm)



    IF he did have a recording device on him, even speaking with public officials makes it illegal since the sole purpose and his intent would be to use it in a court of law against the public official.


    It only takes one person to show up at court and say they felt they were threatened by his actions to make it a threat, it’s not an opinion.

  • Been here a long time November 15, 2009 (5:16 pm)

    The sign says No Guns. People state that this is a bogus law.
    This man brings a gun to protest this bogus law…. Some say he is bravely defending our rights.
    There is no bike lane, “no biking” signs posted on certain roads;
    Some would call this a bogus law as well.
    Some would protest this bogus law.
    But Critical mass is not getting any of the kudos this guy is getting. Yet the intent behind the action is the same. Disobey and challenge laws that violate freedoms and are deemed illegal. There is nothing illegal about carrying a gun. There is noting illegal about riding a bike.
    If a gun is perfectly acceptable at a kids community center, then can we also accept some bicycle’s on a highway? Both are done for publicity, and to prove a point.
    Just a fun question.

  • WS Gangstah November 16, 2009 (5:55 am)

    It’s not so much that they want to restrict guns in community places. It’s just that you never know when it will stop. Just like drinking milk most certainly leads to heroin addiction (how many heroin addicts have never had milk?) it’s very clear that the government will start by taking our gun rights away and the next thing you know they will be charging us five cents for our shopping bags. When will the madness stop?

  • MoonbatApparently November 16, 2009 (8:15 am)

    What I’m waiting for and dreading is the (unfortunate) intersection of Critical Mass and someone in an inconvenienced vehicle carrying a weapon. One unfortunate road-rage incident later, everything will have changed – not least for all those directly involved.

    Both are nearly-pointless grandstanding, but at least Critical Mass doesn’t have so much potential to injure someone at a distance.

  • cclarue November 16, 2009 (9:24 am)

    Guns do not hurt or kill people without a person to shoot them. Our problem is people without knowledge of a gun who accidentaly shoot their friends or people who have an intention to hurt or kill someone. But the real problem is the people who have guns who should not. Just like cars do not kill people but plenty of people die in car accidents. It is the people driving the cars, not the cars themselves so a gun in the right hands is like a car in the right hands but in the wrong hands it is a different and dangerous story.

  • Elizabeth November 16, 2009 (11:21 am)

    Headlines today:

    “3 dead, 1 wounded in Flint, MI shooting”

    “Shooting at a D.C. apt. building kills 9 year old”

    “Police investigating triple shooting outside Seattle nightclub”

    That is just a sampling on the gun related violence that took place around this country this weekend.

    We can call all the names we want, but in the end, what good does that do?!

  • t4toby November 16, 2009 (11:28 am)

    Calling him and each other nasty names on some blog forum isn’t really going to matter.

    Oh, Mark. Like my girlfriend says, Dont’ try and use facts and logic about this.

    This all seems to be, literally, Much Ado About Nothing. He was exercising his right to protest. Like it or not, that’s his prerogative.

    Can we nominate Mark for Mayor?

  • WestSeattleDrew November 16, 2009 (11:28 am)

    Geeez! What a jerk, standing up for his constitutional right. Who does he think he is?

  • Doc November 16, 2009 (11:30 am)

    Why don’t you see how many people died in car crashes? Or specifically car crashes involving drugs or alcohol? Do you really think guns are to blame or the people weilding them or not storing them properly? Just like “cclarue” said, it’s not the guns that kill people but the people themselves. Guns, just like everything else (to include knives, cars, the killers clothing that conealed the gun, and the food that he ate that gave him the energy to commit the crime) can be used in an illegal act but that does not make the item itself inherently bad. It makes the PERSON bad.

  • bluebird November 16, 2009 (11:40 am)

    No need really, to single out gun violence. We’ve been killing each other since the beginning of time. When there aren’t guns we use everything from a sharpened toothbrush, to a rock, to a bathtub, to a knife, to our bare hands. The way some of you speak, it’s as if you’ve never read a history book, or even the bible for that matter, beginning with Cain and Able.

  • Elizabeth November 16, 2009 (11:44 am)

    You are right it is not the inanimate object that kills someone, it is the person controlling it (or not controlling it). My point is more to… why even test the waters? Why push the envelope with something that could so easily kill someone?

    I don’t want to get into a big philosophical, semi political and inevitably passive aggressive discussion about the bill of rights.

    I just want to make a point about how many people die at the hand of guns. At this point in time the article at hand is discussing gun use and the right to bear arms not drunk driving, or the use of illegal drugs. That is an entirely separate conversation we can take up at another time.

    I am not in the business of spending my time looking up the statistics, I happened to open the PI.com and those three headlines were at the top of the local and nationwide news sections. It seemed to pertain, so I mentioned it.

  • John November 16, 2009 (12:30 pm)

    He has the right to carry that weapon and he’s fighting to keep that right. I see him doing nothing wrong.

    We all have the right to have children. What would you do if that was being taken away from you (like one child per couple in China)? Would you sit back and except it or would you stand up and fight? Stop your complaining and be glad someone is standing up for our rights…scheeeeez.

  • shane November 16, 2009 (2:43 pm)

    I was not going to get into this for all the name calling and hate but I have a question. Would there been the same reaction if I were to walk into the community center with my Taser or a pepperball gun? Neither require a permit to carry open or concealed.

    Is the objection the means by which I would want to be able to defend myself or the fact that I WOULD want to defend myself.

    Hate away

  • Doug November 16, 2009 (3:17 pm)

    There seems to be this assumption that we’re all idiots being duped by our govt. as our rights are slowly taken away. Only right wing ideologues and their paranoid followers believe this ridiculous bs.

    Our rights aren’t unlimited. Societal norms create boundaries for us to live within. Most people would agree you can’t take a gun anywhere you want. The argument that these limits are slowly eroding your freedoms is not one I buy. Just because some gun owner wants to test the limits of their “rights” doesn’t mean we are in danger or losing our rights. I used the word “their” because this was a selfish act, not a selfless act.

    If your a gun owner and you fear for your safety at the community center, then by all means your free to avoid it (and take your gun elsewhere). I don’t think this is going to hamper your ability to form a militia against the evil govt.

  • shane November 16, 2009 (3:36 pm)

    Washington State law says, and this has been confirmed by the Attorney General, that municipalities may not enact laws regarding firearms that are more strict than state law. I might suggest that you contact your state legislator and ask him or her to sponsor a bill further restricting where firearms can be carried by CPL holders. If it passes, problem solved.

    Over at the Seattle times board, some one commented “I dont give a damn what state or federal law is, this is Seattle and we can do whatever the hell we want.”

    Not only is that inaccurate but incredibly arrogant don’t you think?

  • shane November 16, 2009 (3:44 pm)

    Mr. ODingus
    “I am interested what would happen if I acquired a concealed weapon permit, and a hand gun, and then scheduled an appointment with this attorney at his office. We could discuss estate planning (or labor law) while I quietly, yet continuously caress my holstered weapon.
    I wonder if he would feel at ease with me being in his office concealing a weapon (which could be pulled on him at any moment), or if he would instead ask me to remove it for his safety and peace of mind?”

    I cant speak for the Atty, but you are invited to obtain a weapon (And you wouldn’t need a permit to conceal it in a private residence) and join me at my home for coffee. As long as the weapon stays in the holster, there will be no fear on my part.

  • Doug November 16, 2009 (3:59 pm)

    Good point, I will contact my legislators and ask them to add to the places where firearms should be restricted.

  • shane November 16, 2009 (4:06 pm)

    You’re welcome Doug, that’s how the system works

  • Dan November 16, 2009 (5:45 pm)

    WSB sez:

    “Comments that serve no purpose other than to call someone else a name or otherwise insult them are subject to deletion; criticize ideas if you must, but not the people who offer them.”

    JenV sez: “what a TOOL. he just did this so he’d have grounds to sue. Scumbag.”

    So, WSB, is JenV exempt from your rules because she’s a regular?

  • Travis November 16, 2009 (6:01 pm)

    Shane, I think if you walked into the West Seattle Community Center brandishing a taser or pepperball gun the people working there would have every right to ask you to leave, as you would be making everyone there uncomfortable and they are responsible for the safety of people using that facility. It would have nothing to do with your right to carry those legally. If you decided to sue over it you would be wasting tax payer dollars and people’s time that could be better spent on important things. That’s just common sense.

  • shane November 16, 2009 (6:19 pm)

    A good argument. I would not want to make anyone uncomfortable. That’s why I carry concealed, as the law allows and in fact requires (there are some who argue open carry is legal, but I disagree). Mind you I did not say brandishing. Just possessing.

    It does seem to support my theory however that there is no defense whatsoever would be acceptable.

    Please keep in mind that I am firearms (and taser) certified by the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission, have spent thousands of dollars and many hours training this year alone and take the responsibility of carry very seriously.

    I’m starting to become a little offended that the general consensus of this board is that those with a CPL just want to shoot children and such………..

  • Travis November 16, 2009 (6:51 pm)

    I think the mayor’s response was a knee jerk reaction, and I think Nickels has screwed us on many levels. However, I’m uncomfortable with some of the knee jerk reaction of CPL carriers in response.
    There was the group that threatened to show up at the last Folklife Festival parading through the grounds letting everyone know they were carrying. Thankfully, they were blowing smoke and no one noticed they were even there if they showed up at all. I think this guy is grand standing in the same way to make a media circus out of this. Why couldn’t he have just joined in supporting those that have already filed suit against the city to overturn the mayor’s banishment of guns in public places.
    As someone who works in arts event production and understands the potential for tragedy that the incident at Folklife could have been its hard to take sides. I’m more afraid of the people that post hear saying any criminal that comes near them will be shot without question, than I am responsible gun owners that keep to themselves. Its, obviously, a passionate argument but I really dont think its got much to do with whether you are conservative or republican. You are either responsible or not.

  • shane November 16, 2009 (7:07 pm)

    OK Travis, you’re alright :) I do wish this dude hadn’t made such a spectacle of the whole thing. Certainly didn’t put the cause in a good light. I do agree that there are folks out there that may be a little quick to pull the trigger, and they frighten me as well. As an aside, I got to do a role play with some police officers recently…..a shoot don’t shoot kinda thing. I got killed. Apparently I’m too reluctant to employ my weapon.

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 17, 2009 (12:07 am)

    I’m gonna go listen to The Doors -“This is the End”…

  • Leroniusmonkfish November 17, 2009 (3:24 am)

    I thought it was a bit amusing that the only states that honor the WA “Concealed Weapon Reciprocity” are ALL our neighboring states….NOT

    North Carolina


  • Friend ODingus November 17, 2009 (8:43 am)

    Hey Shane, thanks for the invite for coffee sometime. I, like Travis above, don’t have so much of a problem with fully trained and responsible individuals (clean criminal record, AND clean mental health evaluation) being licensed to carry concelaed weapons. My concern is that not all venues are appropriate for the risk being taken at all (just because a person has no history of criminality or mental health problems doesn’t mean that this will neccesarily be the case in the future). Venues where there is an abundance of children, or one’s with adults who are consuming alcohol, just seem to me to be just too risky when compared to the individuals constitutional right to carry a weapon. May I point out that free speech is also a constitutional right, however yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theatre is not constitutionally protected. It’s just too dangerous to allow one’s rights in one ragrd to trump the next person’s right to safety.
    In addition to the above issues, the loopholes in current background check laws allow for individual gun sales, and sales at gun shows, to be conducted without background checks at all. No crimal record check, no mental health check. I would suppose internet gun sales are also quite lax in their background checks, because how can the person purchasing’s true identity be checked should someone decide to just give GrandPa’s name instead.
    Of course, individuals who purchase weapons this way, who otherwise wouldn’t be allowed too, are not, and could not, get a concealed weapons permit. The continuous flood of unchecked purchaers is what makes people like myself so nervous, not so much people who have legally obtained a concelaed weapons permit. Do concelaed wepaons permits expire? Are the permit holders reviewed every couple of years to make sure they still qualify as having a clear criminal and mental health history? Perhaps a law and signage that says ‘No Guns’ but with a quiet stipulation that those specific charges will be dropped against the person offending if they do in fact have a valid concealed weapon permit, and have not violated any other law in the process??
    Basically, my point is that constitutional rights have limits, and generally those limits are where one’s person’s protected rights begin to infinge on another person’s protected rights. Me waiting until I have been shot to prove that my right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ has been violated is not sufficient; any more than abridging one’s right to free speech must wait until after someone has been trampled in a crowded theatre. Falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre is illegal, and not protected under the constitution, even if no one is harmed in the process. It’s just too risky otherwise.

  • shane November 17, 2009 (12:11 pm)

    Wow……are some of us finding common ground?

    I would agree that never ever should alcohol and firearms be mixed, feel the same way about cars and booze….same bad consequences.

    CPL is good for 5 years. As far as I’m concerned there could be a shorter period with a re investigation of background etc….hell, check me every year if you like. I can support that. In fact, just between us, I wouldn’t mind seeing a training / testing requirement too.

    “Perhaps a law and signage that says ‘No Guns’ but with a quiet stipulation that those specific charges will be dropped against the person offending if they do in fact have a valid concealed weapon permit, and have not violated any other law in the process??”

    Actually, that’s a bit redundant in that it is already illegal to be carrying concealed without a CPL (there are those that argue open carry is legal. The specific firearms law states something to the effect that is is as long as it does not cause others distress or alarm. As I see it, that would be most cases, and I promise that if someone were to open carry in public I would be the first to scream off with his head!). That being said there are lots of redundant laws and signs…..so ok, no guns signs. I’m too lazy to go looking for the specific rcw’s right this moment, but many of the laws regarding restrictions have the verbiage to the effect of “except those licensed and acting in accordance with RCW 9.XX (the CPL law). That small addition would remove all of my objections to this law.

    Oh, and FYI, internet gun sales are a pain in the a$$. You have to find a federal firearms licensee willing to take delivery of the arm and process your background check etc…..the one time I did it it ended up costing me more money and time than just buying from a local dealer…..for what thats worth.

  • Travis November 17, 2009 (1:49 pm)

    Ok, so, the Folklife Festival, where this whole ridiculousness started, is a free event in a public place. They have beer gardens. Should those individuals carrying a concealed weapon, in a public place, be allowed to enter the beer gardens?

  • shane November 17, 2009 (2:13 pm)

    Absolutely not. And in fact, it is illegal to carry into any place that is restricted to those over 21 (If I had my way someone would be collecting car keys at the entrance to the beer garden as well)Now, are we going to have everyone patted down at the gate? No, of course not. But people who obey the law will obey the law. For example, I have removed my weapon before entering any public park since this all started. Its clear I disagree with the law, I am fairly certain I could get away with it (barring pat downs at the park entrance or some kind of idiot public announcement:)) Yet I don’t because right now, it is not legal. Although I can’t speak for them, my guess is convicted felons and those who would carry without the appropriate license aren’t too concerned about that.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 17, 2009 (2:35 pm)

    FOLKLIFE is/was an outdoor music festival.. Its illegal to carry a gun at an outdoor music festival in WA State. It is illegal to carry a gun into an establishment that is limited to 21 years and older, ie. a bar, a beer garden….

  • WestSeattleDrew November 17, 2009 (2:38 pm)

    Does anyone really think that a NO GUNS sign is going to stop a person from shooting someone??? Does anyone remember Virginia Tech?? I’m pretty sure you couldn’t carry a gun there…

  • shane November 17, 2009 (3:32 pm)

    Hey Drew, you don’t happen to have the RCW on that one do you? I was just looking through 9.41.3 and can’t find it. All I could find was

    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or

    I do seem to remember that restriction re the outdoor music festival but cant find the associated law.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 17, 2009 (4:23 pm)

    SHANE… RCW 70.108.150 It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport or convey, or to have in his possession or under his control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

  • shane November 17, 2009 (5:08 pm)

    Thank you good sir

  • Friend ODingus November 17, 2009 (9:06 pm)

    It does indeed look like we have some common ground, at least for me individually that is.
    So, where does this leave us? Without plugging the gaps in the ways people can get a hand gun while bypassing the background check(s), then we are still back to basically asking that lawless individuals do the right thing and obey the signs and laws; obviously criminals will not.
    Why do you think the lobbying arm of the NRA does not support closing the gun show, and individual sales, loopholes? How about ballistic fingerprinting all new guns before they get sold?
    Honestly I don’t know. They seem reasonable to me in order to encourage more responsibility for keeping track of your guns when in your ownership, and responsibility for selling only to legally verified buyers.
    Oh, and thanks for the info about internet sales, I didn’t know exactly how that worked.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 17, 2009 (10:16 pm)

    Ballistic fingerprinting is a JOKE. Make the firing pin stamp the casing as it ejects.. OK, pull out the firing pin (VERY VERY easy to do) and hit it with a piece of sandpaper OR you just pickup up your bullet casings OR you buy an old guy, theres like 300 million in the US…. Oh and gun parts wear out, just like the brakes on your car, even the riflings (current method, you’ve seen this on CSI) change over the life of a gun. Bullet #1 and Bullet # 45,000 will be different.

  • shane November 17, 2009 (10:50 pm)

    Good evening Friend.

    I can’t speak to gun shows. Believe it or not I’ve never been to one. Always buy new off the shelf. I suspect its like anything else, about 99% of everyone plays by the rules, 1% causes problems.

    I do agree with Drew that anyone with the least bit of knowledge could probably defeat a ballistic fingerprint. That’s something else I know very little about but would suggest, however, that ship has likely sailed. There are probably too many weapons out there now to make that practical.

    I do agree that any practice that regularly and allows criminals to purchase guns needs to be addressed. I am only guessing here, but would be willing to bet the vast majority of firearms used by criminals were obtained by good old fashioned theft and not purchased at gun shows.

  • shane November 17, 2009 (10:56 pm)

    Oh, wanted to add that I appreciate Friend, Travis and Drew engaging in rational and open minded discussion. Given the tone early on, I am pleasantly surprised. I know I’m not likely to change anyone’s mind, but appreciate that you are taking the time to consider my opinions

  • WestSeattleDrew November 17, 2009 (11:31 pm)

    I looked into gun shows a year or two ago.. Going off of memory, I could only find one (in Washington), the WAC (Washington Arms Collectors). In order to buy a gun you had to be a member, which required a background check. The WAC has 2 shows a month, one in Monroe and one in Puyallup. I went once a couple of years ago. There were maybe 75 table (sellers), 2 of which were actual gun shops that brought a standard inventory, the rest were old guys selling their 40 year old hunting rifles for more way then they were worth.

  • Friend ODingus November 18, 2009 (10:30 am)

    I did a little searching and found the below quote. “One study by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms found that gun shows were involved with more than 10,000 trafficked guns a year and accounted for about 30% of all criminal trafficking. In that report, the ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking”. A recent review of trace data from 2007 and 2006 by Mayors Against Illegal Guns confirms that in each of these years more than 40,000 guns were exported by states with weak gun laws and ended up as crime guns in states like New York.”
    That hardly seems insubstantial to me.
    However, that was taken from the website http://www.nyagv.org/legislation-fed.htm
    and as with any discussion these days, there seems to be information and statistics from both sides which imply totally different results and findings (see healthcare, climate change, second hand smoke, et al) so no one knows what to beleive. This of course isn’t new, and the truth will win out….eventually.
    Included in that quote was a link to:
    where they discuss microstamping. As WSDrew pointed out, firing pins can be altered, and casings can be picked up, so this will not admittedly solve all problems. I beleive it would dissuade some sellers from selling to someone who isn’t background checked (to cover the seller’s ass should any questions arise). The article quotes manufacteurs as saying it would add .50-3.00 dollars to every new firearm to be microstamped during production. Is this too much for a little more control of the flow of hand guns?
    I see it like this. Fingerprints can be obscured by gloves, or removed from crime scenes by the culprit, yet how many crimes to this day are solved, or successfully prosecuted, based in full, or in part, on fingerprint evidence? Should we stop gathering fingerprints upon booking criminals because some of them are bright enough to get around them? Of course not. Should we stop gathering fingerprint evidence because there are millions of Americans whose fingerprints are not on file already, and therefore are not in any database? Again, of course not.
    As for the casings, sure they can be picked up after the crime, but how much time does that take in a dark alley, after the gun has been discharged and presumably the po po is one the way. Maybe some will successfully retrieve them all, but some surely will leave one or all behind. Heck some may even be apprehended while they search around on their hands and knees looking for that last casing.
    Barring an outright ban of guns, which I think we all know just isn’t going to happen in the U.S. of A, then why wouldn’t we want law enforcement to have every available tool, however imperfect, in order to try and at least slow down this insane rate of gun violence? Plugging the loopholes which allow sales without background check for the purchaser (checking the seller is second best to checking the buyer), implementing microstamping, re-implementing the assault weapons ban, all seem to me to be very reasonable expectations for improved safety, yet they are vehemently opposed by the NRA (as I understand it anyways).
    If not the above remedies, albeit partial and imperfect, what should we do? Can we at least agree that gun violence is on the rise? Can we agree that something has to be done to slow down the almost weekly occurence of mass homicide? How about domestic violence cases, or workplace shooting sprees, or children playing with weapons?
    There must be SOME common ground here, right?

  • Friend ODingus November 18, 2009 (10:40 am)

    Oh, and please forgive the above reference to “checking the seller is second best to checking the buyer” I misunderstood WSDrew’s posting and thought it said that all seller’s at the WAC were background checked, not the buyers. My bad.
    It does seem though, that the gunshows conducted here in WA have more stringent controls than say the one’s in VA (or WV, or MD, etc). Should we leave this up to states to decide, or should we make the requirements uniform by use of a Federal law instead?

  • WestSeattleDrew November 18, 2009 (12:09 pm)

    I don’t think that microstamping would help control the flow of gun, even if every gun made after today was stamped. There’s already 300 million gun that aren’t stamped. Microstamping is useless if the gun is stolen, 100,000-200,000 are stolen every year. And as mentioned before it so easy to alter the firing pin. Even if it did slow down the flow of gun, they would only be the guns legally purchased in the USA. If we constrict the flow enough, the demand goes up, the price goes up, and then gun are imported just like drugs are.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 18, 2009 (2:04 pm)

    How do reduce gun violence? I don’t know. But I do know that places with gun bans see the most gun violence. (seems backwards right?) Look at Washington DC, Chicago, NY, they have the highest murder rates and its illegal to have a gun there. Criminal know that you don’t have a gun and therefor can’t defend yourself. Almost all of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones. The only true gun free zones are airports and building where you have to go through a metal detector, that’s the only way to insure that no one has a gun. If not your just trusting the criminals to follow the no gun signs, which they don’t do, they’re criminals, they don’t follow the rules.

  • shane November 18, 2009 (3:06 pm)

    Freind, Is gun violence on the rise? I don’t know, it may well be, but then again with todays technologies you hear about things in other parts of the country, or other parts of the world that you never would have say 20 yrs ago. Are there more gun crimes or are they just more widely known? Again, I don’t know but I know that its widely touted that overall crime is down (a claim I also have no basis to defend).

    As for micro stamping, my understanding is that it would add .50 to 3.00 to EVERY ROUND FIRED (I fire about 600 rounds a month) effectively eliminating firearm ownership for all but the wealthiest. If it is in fact .50 to 3.00 per firearm, I would have to re think any position I have (I actually hadn’t formed one yet).

    As for private transfers of firearms, I personally have no objection to putting a stop to them. I’m sure there are folks who can fashion a very good argument against me, but I’m not invested in them.

    The assault weapons ban is kind of a misnomer. An assault weapon is normally a select fire or automatic weapon (pull and hold the trigger and the weapon will continue to fire until you release the trigger). Those are and have been illegal for all of my 43 yrs. The “assault weapons” in the ban are semi automatic (pull the trigger, it goes bang. pull the trigger a second time it goes bang a second time. Almost all modern firearms are of this design) The criteria to determine what an assault weapon is is frequently a matter of cosmetics. Some weapons with a black plastic pistol grip stock are an assault weapon until you put a pretty wood stock on it then it isn’t, function is the same. Doesn’t make sense to me. Kinda reminds me of when I was in high school. Local Sheriff wanted to “chase all the hot rodders and drag racers away”. When asked how he identified “hot rodders and drag racers” he honestly replied “mag wheels”.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 18, 2009 (3:45 pm)

    “Assault Weapons” account for only 2%-8% of gun crimes. Handguns account for 85%.

  • shane November 18, 2009 (4:06 pm)

    Good Afternoon Drew
    I’d like to figure out what the per capita “gun crime” rate is over the last….say 15 yrs and how it correlates with the overall crime rate. You appear to know some sources that might help me there. Im curious of the percentage of “gun crimes” as a percentage of overall crime and overall violent crime has substantially changed over the years.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 18, 2009 (4:08 pm)

    Shane…. There are two type of micro-stamping. 1, the firing pin stamps the ejected casing with a serial number (that is the method I has talking about). 2, is bullet micro-stamping or
    “bullet serialization”, that is where the bullet itself has a serial number, I believe that’s what your referring to. That method will cost $.50 to $3 for every bullet you fire. 600 rounds a month would cost $2000 instead of $120. Thus making it impossible for people who do carry a gun for self defense to practice (which is very important). It also total screws people who just like to target shoot at the gun range. This method is also easy defeated.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 18, 2009 (4:22 pm)

    Shane… Google is your friend. This should get you started: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Scroll down to Selected statistics, click on “Criminal Victimization in the United States – Statistical Tables” There are TONS of table with TONS of info here… Happy reading.

  • shane November 18, 2009 (5:20 pm)

    Drew/Friend: I was thinking of the bullet serial #’s, my bad. Thanks for the link. I’m about done playing for today but I’ll check out that DOJ website tomorrow. Have a good afternoon / evening all.

  • Friend ODingus November 19, 2009 (2:10 pm)

    I looked around and it seems that nationally the ‘violent’ crime rate has in fact dropped substantially. Although, fair to note I didn’t see any stats that included the most recent three years. I suppose it is at least partly just a case of more coast-to-coast news coverage making violent crime appear more frequent. I did not look at WA or Seattle numbers specifically, however in general I still think that we can do better in protecting each other by means of many methods, legislation being one of them.
    As for firing pin microstamping, I still do not see a problem supporting this process even if some will work around to defeat it. $3.00 per hand gun just isn’t a whole lot of money to spend even if just a handful of cases could be solved, or that irresponsible/illegal buying and selling could be curbed. Again, I point to my fingerprint example. This option has the additional benefit that no one’s consitutional ownership rights are imperiled.
    I wonder if anyone has ever looked at micro”printing” on the inside of each and every shell casing. I wonder if this method could be done for fractions of a cent per round, versus stamping?
    Regarding elevated rates of gun crimes in places like DC and Chicago. I ask, which came first, the high rate of gun possesion (either legal or illegal) or the rise in the occurence rate? Either way, if we don’t have rates as high as CHI and DC, well then let’s do what we can to not follow down their paths.
    Best of luck to you both. I hope you find the balance I think most of us really would like to find.

  • WestSeattleDrew November 19, 2009 (5:54 pm)

    The DC gun ban was established in 1974. Chicago in 1982.

  • shane November 20, 2009 (6:51 am)

    I was actually surprised at what I saw there as well. I don’t remember the 90’s being so dangerous. I had a cash intensive business at the time and frequently ran around with deposits in the late evenings. Guess I was lucky :)

    What stood out for me was that over the last 10 or so years that the first five were pretty ugly while the last 5 were **for the most part** flat.

    One thing I did note that surprised me was the percentage of multiple violent offenders attacking a single victim. I don’t recall if that percentage was up/down etc, just that it was lots higher than I would have guessed.

    The reason that one stuck out so much to me is that things like tasers, physical self defense techniques etc lose lots of effectiveness with multiple attackers.

    Best to you as well friend, you have been a pleasure to debate with

  • shane November 20, 2009 (7:33 am)


    Don’t know if this shows anything of value but gives a kind of local picture. It does appear that “violent crime” is flat but property crime has grown. (08-09 yoy)

    As for the DOJ stats we have discussed above, something else came to mind. The homicide rate was down quite a bit from 95 to 05.

    Playing “Devil’s Advocate” I have to wonder if advances in EMS and surgical procedures do not skew this number down (a gunshot wound that would have most certainly been fatal in 95 may be a very survivable event today). I don’t know how or if that could be quantified or if its significant. If we say “gun deaths” are down, we would have to acknowledge this as being at least part of the picture.

Sorry, comment time is over.