A bold challenge to Seattle's illegal gun law (UPDATED WITH VIDEO)

There are too many chilldren there. Why not challenge this law at Discovery Park or some other large public place, not some location where the average age is 12. Up until today, I didn't care about this law either way, but this guy seems stupid for picking this location. What an unfortunate distraction to the kids there tomorrow. Because of his stupid choice, I now hope this law stands up and he loses the right to bear arms.

You are missing the point of Mr. Warden's protest. He selected that location to demonstrate that he is not a threat to others just because he carries a concealed weapon. Thousands of people carry concealed weapons everyday without the intent to harm others. They just want to protect themselves. Those who wish to harm others will do so regardless of where they are or what the laws are. He is making a point that the gun ban is ridiculous. The only thing it does is infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals intending to harm others will not suddenly leave their guns at home just because Mayor Nickles told them to.

The NRA has already filed a lawsuit , about two weeks ago.

The only thing this fool who wants to defy the gun law in a place full of little kids can possibly accomplish is to get his name in the press (done) and eventually sue the City for harrassment, illegal detention, illegal restriction of his 2nd Amendment rights, etc.

Certainly we should be able to carry guns into high schools, middle schools, and grade schools if we can carry them into community centers. I can hear the argument now, "We need to send all the good kids to school with weapons so when the bad kids pull out *their* second amendment allowed weapons and start gunning down their fellow students the good kids can shoot back!"

...that he is being "deprived" of his rights (that means "harmed"...I think) with this law unlike the NRA. An NRA suit could be thrown out because they have not been "harmed" as a person by the law. I suspect Mr. Warden has a better chance of actually getting into court. I am no lawyer (hence the quote marks) but I think the Warden thing will be the defining case. Those of us with CPLs all await the result. Hey Dori, the mayor's name is spelled NICKELS..

You would do well to look at the law before you make your bold statements. The laws of our state are in fact more specific than the 2nd Ammendment. You would also do well to check and see what ages are legal to carry. When those of us that do so are carrying concealed you don't get paranoid do you? Would you prefer me to carry openly?

that the three police officers in the video Dori posted yeaterday will be there waiting to jump on him as he crosses that imaginary line.

Along with everybody else.

What's the actual point of concealing a weapon? To surprise somebody who assumes you don't have one?

If the actual purpose is for self protection, hang it out there loud and proud. Send the message, "Don't Tread on Me, I'll Blast A Hole in You!" That offers more protection than appearing like you might be unarmed, inviting an attack, and then winding up in a shoot out that you might or might not win. Why not deter the attack (if a gun is going to do so) in the first place?

I'm not offended at the sight of a gun. I'm more offended with people sneaking deadly stuff around unseen. If *nobody* could carry concealed, but everybody without a criminal record could carry, then the simple act of concealing (not carrying) a weapon would be a crime. We could assume anybody found sneaking around with a gun was up to no good, and respond accordingly.

If you are carrying a device into a crowded area and the only purpose of that device- if employed as intended- is to kill people then you should announce yourself so that others can make decisions about whether they want to remain in the same general area. I think the Second gives you the right to keep and bear arms; but there's room for discusssion whether bearing arms involves sneaking them around hidden under your clothing.

You are correct marginally. If you KNOW somebody is not armed that is an incentive for the "bad guys". If you think it is such a good idea to be unarmed please post a sign on your back and in your front yard indicating such. Also, please tell me how you are going to enforce your "no concealed carry law" to the bad guys. The device (firearm) as I perceive its use "as intended" is to deliver "stopping power". Killing is a possible side effect. I would not shoot to kill. I would shoot for center of mass. When the threat no longer exists, the weapon is stood down and possibly surrendered to law enforcement. I do not wish to ever get to that point.

An openly carried weapon is also a weapon that is vulnerable to be snatched. We have seen irresponsible carrying of weapons in some rallies as of late. Carrying a weapon in close quarters without direct control is stupid.

You asked, "How do we enforce no concealed carry with the bad guys"?

Lacking X ray vision, we would need to wait until they pass through a metal detector on the way into a school, courthouse, police station, airport, jail, or some other place where weapons are not allowed. Or until they get frisked for weapons during an arrest for some other charge. If it were legal to carry but not legal to conceal (there would be exceptions for people who needed to be deceptive- police detectives working undercover, etc)anybody caught concealing a weapon would be put in jail; maybe *before* they have a chance to use it.

If you carry a gun, it is your responsibility and yours alone to do so in a manner that it cannot be "snatched". It's hard to believe that a gun in a holster with a flap snapped in place is more likely to be snatched than one just jammed into the back of your pants where a clever thief could steal it from you unseen.....but I don't have any way to know that for a fact.

A move to everybody carrying openly might *promote* gun sales and increase the number in circulation. There is some merit to an argument that the crooks would have an easier time picking out an unarmed victim, so more people might decide to carry weapons around. Many advocates for the widest possible distribution of handguns insist that this would be the crucial step to actually making society safer. "Arm all the good guys, teach them how to shoot effectively, and every attempted rape, mugging, home invasion, etc will be resolved quickly, on the spot, and with no expense to taxpayers for a lengthy trial!" Unfortunately,many drunken arguments between spouses or friends will end just as quickly.

A sign in the front yard indicating whether or not there are guns in the house? That might backfire. Two crooks cruising the neighborhood primarily intent on stealing *guns* would be more likely to target a house advertising there were guns on the premises- after making sure that nobody was home, of course.