New ruling on Seattle park-gun ban – this time, a judge says it’s OK

A new ruling on the city’s ban on guns in certain park/community center facilities – and this time, the judge says it’s constitutional, according to this story just published by our citywide-news partners at the Seattle Times. They were ruling on the challenge that happened here in West Seattle last year, filed by the Kent man who went into Southwest Community Center last November (after letting the city and media know of his intention) and was asked to leave (WSB coverage here). This follows a county ruling in a separate challenge, overturning the ban (here’s that story). The Times says the city’s trying to sort out what this all means. 6:12 PM: The city has sent out a news release – more of a summary than a reaction – read on (also added, the ruling document itself):

Yesterday, a federal court in Seattle rejected a constitutional challenge to the city’s rule prohibiting guns in areas of parks where children are likely to be present.

U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman’s decision, which affirms that Seattle’s rule is consistent with both the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, acknowledges this country’s long history and tradition of upholding reasonable firearms regulation facing constitutional challenges.

Last month, the King County Superior Court held in a separate lawsuit that a Washington state statute preempts Seattle’s rule. Therefore, the city is no longer enforcing the rule and has removed the gun prohibition signs from city playgrounds and parks. The city is planning to appeal the state court ruling.

The city of Seattle is represented in this case pro bono (at no cost) by Daniel Dunne, a partner at the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, working with Assistant City Attorney Gary Keese.

ADDED 6:49 PM: The city also sent a copy of the ruling itself – read it here.

mark March 12, 2010 (11:50 am)

Its about time, common sense gun laws upheld!

clark5080 March 12, 2010 (11:58 am)

It isn’t over yet. My bet is it will be appealed

Larry B March 12, 2010 (12:31 pm)

Every ridiculous proposed gun law is described by supporters as “common sense.” Kind of loses it ring of credibility after a while.

This was a wrong coast Federal Court ruling and will be appealed and overturned. The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right just like the other nine Amendments making up the Bill of Rights. The States cannot arbitrarily claim the right to limit free speech or the right of a citizen to not incriminate oneself so why should the 2nd. be different?

But beyond the Federal issue this “typically Seattle” action violates both the State constitution as well as State law which says only the State can write laws affecting firearms. That was accomplished to ensure that citizens exercising their Federal and State constitutional rights would not inadvertently violate a local law. But that would sure be a great way to make a gun owner into a criminal, wouldn’t it? Then that individual would be precluded from owning and legally carrying. Just like the real bad guys, right?

SCOTUS March 12, 2010 (1:00 pm)

McDonald v. Chicago–currently before the Supreme Court–will decide one of the central issues in this case; whether the Second Amendment applies to cities and states as well as to the Federal Government. This judge found that it did not–correctly–based on 9th Circuit Court of Appeals precedent. However, the McDonald case could overturn this 9th Circuit precedent.

And before you voice your wholehearted support of this decision, think about whether you would like your First or Fourth Amendment rights to be protected only from Federal actions–and not City or State actions.

Jeff March 12, 2010 (1:03 pm)

It seems like two separate challenges that were not really related. One was a federal challenge based on the 2nd Amendment, and this judge ruled that the city parks ban did not violate the second amendment. The other challenge was based on state law, and that judge ruled that the city parks ban was in conflict with state law. The city has to comply with both state and federal law, so either challenge would have been sufficient to overturn the ban.

SCOTUS March 12, 2010 (1:05 pm)

And before you go public with your wholehearted support of this decision, think about whether you would like your First or Fourth Amendment rights to be protected only from the Federal government–and not City or State governments.

SCOTUS March 12, 2010 (1:07 pm)

Jeff: Go to the times site and read the ruling. This was the federal court action, not the state one.

villageidiot March 12, 2010 (1:15 pm)

I wonder how much money went to that judges back pocket?

mark March 12, 2010 (1:21 pm)

I am sure it will be overturned, which is too bad, like 6 dead cops in one year isn’t enough to get the legislature to act. Maybe a few kids will give them the nudge to change the State Constitution.

SCOTUS March 12, 2010 (2:05 pm)

Mark: Are you suggesting that someone who is crazy enough to murder 6 police officers will be deterred by a $100 fine and being expelled from a City park?

mark March 12, 2010 (2:29 pm)

No. What I am saying is we need sensible gun control laws, including but not exclusive to no guns where children are present. 6 cops, all killed with guns that were originally bought legally but allowed to be used by either psychos, or convicted felons. Sensible gun control, not gun bans. There is a HUGE difference.

SCOTUS March 12, 2010 (2:58 pm)

People who are crazy enough to shoot and kill others are not deterred by fines or even imprisonment, even if the punishment is imposed under “sensible” laws. It bears repeating that the law only affects the behavior of law abiding citizens.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 12, 2010 (3:53 pm)

I REALLY wish that the people who support gun control laws, which in fact ONLY effect those of us who obey the law, would just come out from behind their mask and state their TRUE purpose. STOP hiding behind the shield of false pretenses and come right out and say it. Show your TRUE colors.
.
They believe that ANY gun ownership should be banned and ALL guns destroyed.
.
I would REALLY like one of these groups to take a FACTUAL look at gun crimes and compare how many have been committed by LEGAL versus ILLEGAL gun owners.
.
I believe that these groups would get a lot more support if they were demanding stiffer penalties for gun crimes committed by ILLEGAL gun owners and NOT by those of us who OBEY ALL THE LAWS FOR LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP.
.
An armed society is a polite society.
.
Blaming the gun for killing someone is like blaming the spoon for Rosie O’Donnell being fat.

E-WR

West Seattles Grimiest March 12, 2010 (5:02 pm)

“People who are crazy enough to shoot and kill others are not deterred by fines or even imprisonment, even if the punishment is imposed under “sensible” laws. It bears repeating that the law only affects the behavior of law abiding citizens.”

Well said.

GenHillOne March 12, 2010 (7:58 pm)

No hiding or false pretenses here – “They believe that ANY gun ownership should be banned and ALL guns destroyed.” – why yes, yes I do. Your point?
–
Making handguns completely illegal, except for the professionals, eliminates the need for that pesky law-abiding or thug determination.

kg March 12, 2010 (9:34 pm)

The ‘pro’s’ won’t need them if no one has them. I’ll agree to that, but since that won’t happen…

PineBuffalo March 12, 2010 (9:35 pm)

mark said:
.
“. . .including but not exclusive to no guns where children are present.”
.
What don’t you understand about the fact that thugs and gang bangers don’t give a rat’s rear end about who is in the line of fire when they choose to settle an offense to their honor? And that they don’t obtain their weapons through legal means?
.
To be truthful, as a caring parent, I go armed with a .357 whenever my children are in a public park or other venue where I have no control over who else wanders in with a head full of meth and a stolen weapon. I’ll protect my kids. If you choose to leave yours vulnerable, that’s your choice.
.
But I think you are dangerously naive.
,

JanS March 12, 2010 (9:56 pm)

I chose to not arm myself when I took my daughter to the park, or the pool, or school, or on vacation…and guess what? She’s 30, and fine, and I’m with GenHillOne. Maybe I’m wrong…maybe you’re wrong…who knows? It’s all just opinion, now, isn’t it? As parents we do what we think best. I’m not naive, nor am I stupid, nor do I believe that SCOTUS or other gun supporters above have the final word, have the inside info re: the 2nd amendment.

and Mr/Ms pine…we’re not dangerously naive either…those are buzz words that are meant to show that perhaps gun owners/supporters are smarter..that doesn’t wash with me…sorry.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 12, 2010 (10:05 pm)

GenHillOne said:
.
Making handguns completely illegal, except for the professionals, eliminates the need for that pesky law-abiding or thug determination.
.
What is your definition of a professional?
.
For 17 of my 22 years in the military I was in the top 5 scorers in pistol shooting. My scores NEVER went below 233. Does that make me a professsional? And NO I am NOT a police officer.
.
When will people LEARN that just because it is a law doesn’t mean EVERYONE will obey it? Laws, like locks, ONLY KEEP HONEST PEOPLE HONEST
.
Maurice Clemmons was NOT ALLOWED to own, carry or be around guns, yet THAT did not deter him. Neither did it deter Mumford. Yet that LAW did not stop those two from killing police officers.
.
If you REALLY want to do something about the gun problem then establish and enforce laws that makes those who have guns that are NOT supposed to carry them go to JAIL for YEARS. Make the sentence 10 years MANDATORY time added to whatever crime they committed, i.e. armed robbery gets the perp 3-5 years, but because he used an ILLEGALLY obtained gun add the 10 years so it now becomes 13-15 years MANDATORY. Remove the age resrition. The perp gets those 10 years NOT MATTER HOW OLD THEY ARE, and NOT in juvie. They do HARD TIME in the State Penn.
.
I also CHALLENGE ANYONE to prove to me that a gun killed someone. It is ALWAYS someone pulling the trigger.
.
Again…blaming the gun for killing someone is akin to blaming the fork or spoon because someone is fat.
.
E-WR

SCOTUS March 12, 2010 (11:46 pm)

JenS: Yes, that is the point. You “chose” not to exercise your rights. It does not follow that others should be forced to make the same choices that you did because it worked well for you. This is the beauty of a free society.

GenHillOne: An outright ban would work well, if it were possible to enforce. But it is not. We can legislate for the utopia we wish we had or we can legislate for the reality we do have. I prefer the latter, and I think the founders understood that we need to work with the latter, or the Bill of Rights would never have been drafted.

The other problem with your proposed ban is that the government gets to choose who are “professionals” worthy of gun ownership and the rest of society is relegated to second class citizen status. The Second Amendment is evidence of the founders’ belief that the right to keep and bear arms is an important civil right. Just because you haven’t used it lately–or have chosen not to–does not make the right any less important. The same logic would support banning free speech, voting rights, etc. because many people don’t exercise these rights.

And I’m not sure it’s totally paranoid to fear government oppression through (or supported by) disarming citizens. This has happened in relatively recent time–not just Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, but Jim Crow laws in the southern states, for example. Other instances of government oppression or attempted genocide were preceded by–or coupled with–gun bans. I’m not saying that is going to happen again here in the US anytime soon, but who knows what the future holds in the centuries to come? The Constitution is supposed to last forever (or at least as long as the republic), and prevent deprivation of civil rights before it happens.

I know these Second Amendment court decisions seem strange to you when you assume gun rights create violent crime (which is arguable), but the Bill of Rights was intended (and has been, for the most part, interpreted) to protect our rights from deprivation by bandwagon majorities pursuing the cause of the hour. Much like the First Amendment protects pornographers, the Fourth protects criminals, the Second Amendment may aid the proliferation of firearms. But as the saying goes, “freedom isn’t free.” What shocks me is that people care more about what goes on TV and their right to race around town in their dangerous, two-ton bullets (cars) than they do about their civil rights.

Please inform yourselves and think long and hard before you petition the government to restrict your rights–no matter how unimportant or irrelevant the particular right may seem to you right now (like the constitutional prohibition against forcing citizens to quarter soldiers, which I like though I’ve never invoked it!). Once you give these rights away, you will never get them back.

Thanks for your attention: Now go jump back on that bandwagon before it fills up!

JanS March 13, 2010 (4:02 am)

interesting reading…I think there will always be conflict on this…

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

skippydog March 13, 2010 (8:31 am)

Are you people even reading this? The City’s gun ban IS STILL INVALID. It was ruled illegal under state law and that decision still stands. It was been widely reported that this decision means the ban is back on the books and that is not correct. This decision was whether or not it could stand in light of the Federal Second Amendment. It does not invalidate the prior decision that the ban could not be enforced because it goes against State law.

mark March 13, 2010 (8:43 am)

wow, PineBuffalo, what park are you taking your kids to? Have you considered just avoiding the parks filled with meth heads and gang bangers? Do us all a favor, please, let us know what parks to avoid!!!

GenHillOne March 13, 2010 (8:51 am)

I’ll come back to read the lengthy posts because I’m feeling a little ADD this morning, but to clarify, my definition of professional is that you might need a handgun for your PROFESSION, as in job. Former profession doesn’t fall into that category for me.
–
Yes, ban still invalid because of state law. I’d like to see the state law changed and the newest ruling – the way I read it – says this isn’t a 2nd Amendment issue. I’m not naive enough to think a ban will keep the bad guys from carrying, just think it’s easier to enforce if no one, except for a very few, is supposed to have them. I’m also not naive enough to feel safer because someone MIGHT be there at just the exact moment, with perfect skills, to stop someone with ill intent. If those odds were good, we’d all win the lottery.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 13, 2010 (10:10 am)

I wonder if those that think ONLY those whose profession requires them to carry guns, should have guns realize that, that is the SAME reason Hitler used to confiscate guns in Germany in the 1930’s. That Kim Jong Ill is using that same reason in NK and the same laws appied in Rwanda, Niger…etc?
.
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work for me.
.
Chicago, Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles all have extremely strict gun laws. In Chicago it is ILLEGAL to OWN a gun within the city limits. Has the gun violence decreased even a little in those cities? NOT A BIT!
.
In fact it has ONLY gotten worse.
.
The MOST prolific killings in America these days have ALL occured in supposed “NO GUN ZONES” from Columbine to Va.Tech to last month in Tacoma. GUN FREE ZONES = KILLING FIELDS.
.
The problem IS NOT the gun. It is the lack of vision of naive people that think to remove the ability of LAW ABIDING citizens to own guns will solve the problem of gun violence.
.
I REALLY wish organizations and people like Cease Fire Washington and GenHillOne, Mark, JanS and any others that advocate a ban on guns would do a study on crimes committed with guns and if the perp was LEGALLY ALLOWED to own/carry that gun.
.
I will say it again; THE ONLY WAY TO DETER GUN CRIMES IS TO MAKE AND ENFORCE LAWS/SENTENCES THAT ARE LONG AND MANDATORY AND TACK THEM ON TO THE CRIME COMMITTED.
.
E-WR

JanS March 13, 2010 (11:05 am)

E-WR…are you willing to have your taxes raised to pay for all these long mandatory sentences in prison?

A serious question for you, for SCOTUS, etc. You state that gunfree zones = killing fields. How do you feel about parents and teachers being armed in schools and school zones?

Studies? Could we possibly have the results of your last study? Yours – not someone else’s…

Ex-Westwood Resident March 13, 2010 (2:14 pm)

Jan,

It is people like you that state that guns are the problem. I’m asking you to PROVE it.
.
PROVE it is LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS that are committing the crimes.
.
PROVE that gun control laws ACTUALLY affect crime.
.
PROVE that establishing strict laws for gun ownership ACTUALLY stops or hinders thugs (for lack of a better term) from getting guns and using them to commit crimes.
.
I have NO problem with ANYONE who has gone through ALL the procedures to get a CWP to carry a weapon ANYWHERE it is LEGAL to do so. Maybe if there was a teacher at Columbine or Va Tech that was armed the death toll would not have been so high.
.
How many are aware that peole DON’T NEED a license to carry a gun in Washington?
.
As long as you carry it in the open, NO LICENSE is required.
.
ANY and ALL so called Gun Control laws ONLY affect those that OBEY laws. WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!
.
As far as taxes go….I would rather pay more in taxes for longer prison terms for those that commit gun crimes then ANY aid to Illegal Immigrants. But since the “Bleeding Heart” liberals don’t know the difference between Legal Immigration and Illegal Immigration, much like they refuse to see the difference between LEGAL GUN OWNERS and ILLEGAL GUN OWNERS, I’ll have to pay for both.
.
Blaming the gun for killing someone is like blaming the fork or spoon because someone is fat.
.
Ted Kennedy killed more people with his car, than my guns have.
.
Gun Free Zones = Killing Fields
.
An Armed Society, is a Polite Society
.
If someone breaks in to your house, call for a pizza and the police, and see who gets there first.
.
I would rather have a gun and NEVER need to use it, than not have one because of the naive “rose-colored glass wearers” and need one.
.
E-WR

Roy in Canada March 13, 2010 (2:24 pm)

Mark, just what is your idea of “sensible” gun control?…This is a meaningless term, that can interpreted to mean anything to anybody…Chicago thinks a total ban on handguns is “common sense”…Other think that a total ban on ALL guns, except for police and military, is “common sense”….You have the same problem in the U.S., that we have here in Canada, incompetent judges who can`t/refuse to do their jobs….Judges have the belief that they are God, and they not to be questioned, or held accountable…You also have a very big problem that is too “politically incorrect” to talk about…And that`s black-on-black crime…There are other things to worry about in reducing crime than passing another useless, feel good law…..

JanS March 13, 2010 (3:43 pm)

E-wr…to clarify…show me where I stated that “guns are the problem”. ? No where in this thread did I say that. I don’t like guns, I never have. I think that to some men, guns are a terrific phallic, look at me, I’m a man icon. I said SOME. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, so I can’t say that about you. You don’t need a license to carry in WA? Perhaps we could start there. If that is technically true, then there are no illegal gun carriers, the way I see it. We need licensing, background checks, etc, before a gun can be purchased. “Law abiding” citizens should have no problem with that. You want a gun? You’ll have to wait 3 days, and you have to show ID, and gun sellers should be required to check first. Yes, we do not live in a perfect world, and there will be abusers. The young man who shot the young girl at Seattle Center during..hmm…folklife?..a few years ago had a CWP. That didn’t stop him. You may be perfectly OK, but that guy next to you may be a bit daft, and while it’s OK according to the law for him to carry, it’s not OK with his mental state.

Not all legally carrying people are good, fine, upstanding citizens.

And I shouldn’t have to prove any more than you have to, thank you very much. As I said earlier…it’s all more opinion than fact. Even the powers that be have a difficult time interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

Oh, and the question about the school zone was simply a curiosity question, since you feel that you should be able to carry wherever there are children. It’s been an issue with quite a few people. It was not meant to be argumentative. I really wanted to know how you feel about it. But, of course, you didn’t really answer it, except for the Columbine thing…if, if, if…

mark March 13, 2010 (4:20 pm)

Sensible gun control? ok. Here is a great example of sensible gun control. Right now, 3:13pm, March 13th, 2010, there are 72 guns for sale on the Little Nickle Magazine. All private party sales, none of which require any background check. In other words any criminal can buy a gun, and go and kill a cop (see 6 dead cops past few months)

Do you need more examples of sensible gun control?

mark March 13, 2010 (4:41 pm)

oops, it was 4:13, I would hate to have my facts wrong!!

ihateidiots March 13, 2010 (4:50 pm)

“Sensible gun control? ok. Here is a great example of sensible gun control. Right now, 3:13pm, March 13th, 2010, there are 72 guns for sale on the Little Nickle Magazine. All private party sales, none of which require any background check. In other words any criminal can buy a gun, and go and kill a cop (see 6 dead cops past few months)
–
“Do you need more examples of sensible gun control?”
–
–
I don’t know of one gun owner who would make a private party sale of his or her gun to the first person who asks to buy it. In fact, I’d go a step further to say that almost every gun owner I know would do everything in their power to prevent a transfer to a criminal or straw buyer. That said, I wouldn’t buy a gun from someone based on an ad in the paper, nor would I even consider posting that I own guns in the paper.

ihateidiots March 13, 2010 (4:52 pm)

Your 6 dead cops…how many of them were killed by someone already federally or locally prohibited from owning a gun?

Yeah…that’s what I thought…so gun control is going to do what to address the criminal element again?

mark March 13, 2010 (5:04 pm)

um, 4 cops killed my Maurice Clemons, convicted felon. Do they count?

ihateidiots March 13, 2010 (5:08 pm)

As a tragedy, yes, they count. They also count as the basis of my argument in that Maurice Clemons was already prohibited from gun ownership.

mark March 13, 2010 (5:16 pm)

Yes, he was, and he had NO PROBLEM buying a gun. Neither do any criminals or gang members. All they need to do is NOT buy one where mandatory background checks are done. They are well aware of all the loopholes (bro-in law is cop), no need to steal a gun, just go buy one. Clemons had no problem getting a gun and if there had been reasonable controls in place those cops might still be alive. No one says you can’t sell your gun, but right now there are NO LAWS in place telling you who you can or can’t sell to. We just have a difference of opinion, no problem, I just think buying a gun should be at least as difficult as opening a bank account…., right now its as tough as buying a bottle of soda (no ID required in private sales)

ihateidiots March 13, 2010 (5:34 pm)

Sorry, Mark, but you’re wrong about the loop-holes.
–
Visit http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html
–
Anyone who makes a sale to a person who they cannot reasonably expect to be a lawful citizen is also a criminal…that’s why my guns will never be sold in a news paper. Gun owners are a tight-knit group & there’s no reason why a lawful gun owner would need to buy or sell a gun through a newspaper. Most gun shops will buy & sell on consignment anyhow…and that comes with a NICS check. I still don’t see any reason why I should need to run a NICS check if I’m transferring a gun to a close friend or family member provided I know that those persons aren’t prohibited persons.

mark March 13, 2010 (6:12 pm)

Really? How would you know someone intends to commit a crime with a gun? Again, right now, ANYONE can buy a gun, in a private party sale. Period. I don’t know what the answer is, but its a fact, that any criminal can easily buy a gun. If you are ok with that, then we have a difference of opinion.

btw, you don’t need to “transfer” a gun to anyone, I wish we had a national gun and ammunition registry, but it will never happen. Its fun to rant and rave, but I know there are acceptable losses the gun lobby is ok with. They might shed a tear when someone is killed with a gun, but its within the acceptable loss ratios. Its sad, but its the way it is.

JanS March 13, 2010 (6:20 pm)

Maybe your group of friends are a tight knit group, but you can’t speak for all gun owners. And obviously there are many who have no problem advertising in a local rag, who will sell to whoever will buy, no questions asked. Now who’s being incredibly naive? If this were a perfect world, all transactions would be above board, and done the right way. We are far from perfect. And you can only speak for yourself. And redirect your hate to those idiots that will sell to anyone who reads the Little Nickel. That certainly doesn’t make me feel any safer.

Larry B March 14, 2010 (2:13 pm)

JanS:

Just because someone advertises an item in the Little Nickel or any other media does not mean they automatically sell to anyone NOR does advertising make them idiots. Your slip is showing!! Oh, and the reference to the phallic symbol….my my my! Just don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinions.

Mark, you said Clemmons had no trouble getting a gun (please explain your inside information) and also said he bought one. Can you be more explicit on how Clemmons obtained his gun?

Remember that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Example: Did you know that New York City actually had a process for obtaining a handgun permit. Yup, all you had to do was come down and fill out the form and plunk down a sizable sum of $ and wait. Oh, I forgot to mention that the application was only good for a year and there was no requirement that the City take action on the application. If you were a politico or friend of whomever then your application was processed. Otherwise, come back next year.

I know this will not be politically correct for the Seattle folks but a huge part of the problem in our society is that we tossed a number of citizens out of our institutions and, guess what, they are walking the streets commonly as “homeless people.” Remember the Seattle firefighter stabbed to death as he walked near Quest Field with his family? And just how many times have you heard the story about a violent act having been committed by someone who decided they were “well” and quit taking their anti-psychotic meds?

So, who is really responsible?

SCOTUS March 15, 2010 (12:09 pm)

JanS (and others): Guns seem scary to you because you are not familiar with them, and because they are a tool that you have not used before. This is understandable, and natural, with any powerful tool including cars, circular saws, etc. But GUNS ARE JUST TOOLS, plain and simple. It’s really silly to suggest that users of one tool or another (including guns) are psychopaths, or that it’s a “phallic” thing or that it gives its user a sense of power. These are comments I often hear from my friends and others who have no experience whatsover with guns, and it’s just plain silly. Those of us who do use guns (e.g. for sport) do not feel any such exhilarating sense of power or arousal when we use them. Shooting a gun is really no more or less exciting than driving a car or using any other tool. I suspect your ideas about guns and those who use them stem from (1) lack of exposure, and (2) the fact that all of your knowledge about firearms comes from Hollywood. This is unfortunate, especially when this short-sighted, sheltered worldview comes out in your political beliefs. Thank goodness voters in this area don’t condemn all activities with which they have limited experience (such as gay marriage), or Seattle would not be near as progressive, or as good of a place to live.

Larry B March 15, 2010 (11:10 pm)

KG wrote: “The ‘pro’s’ won’t need them if no one has them. I’ll agree to that, but since that won’t happen…”

To take that another step KG would tell us that we the law abiding public wouldn’t need guys if no one had them. In both cases this position is very naive!

My right to use deadly force is when I am in fear of my life. That can come from being attacked by a person with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a golf club, a brick or fists. I have absolutely no obligation to drop my gun and pick up a knife or bat to make my level of force equal to the criminal’s.

How many times lately has a cop fired his weapon at someone who has “attacked” the officer with a vehicle? Yup, feared for his/her life and used deadly force. Justified!

Axiom: Never bring a knife to a gunfight!

Sorry, comment time is over.