Posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:59 AM PDT by StevenB
Illegal Immigration Counter Protesters Detained
The topic of discussion on the Bryan Suits radio show on 570 KVI earlier this evening was a call by a Seattle area citizen, Eric, who called to say that while thousands of illegal immigrants marched a couple of feet away, 5 United States citizens, he being one of the 5, who should be covered by all of the constitutional amendments, including the 1st and 2nd, were detained by the Seattle Police Department for over 2 hours because... well hard to say really. The reason for Caller Eric's call into the show was, surprise, surprise, the medias total lack of coverage of what should be a fairly big story. U.S. Citizens constitutional rights infringed in order to protect illegal aliens non existent right to hold a protest march.
Now I am a regular listener of the Bryan Suits show, as you should be, especially if you, like me, are in the male 35-64 year old demographic, and as Bryan can testify, I am also a regular emailer, but did not catch every single minute of the show since the 5pm to 8pm time slot is right in that end of the work day - drive home - eat dinner time window so I may have missed out on some of the conversation but here is a recap as best as I can recall. Full disclosure on my part requires that I state my Father is a 25 year retired Seattle Police Officer and I may or may not own a gun, try breaking into my house and you may or may not get an answer right then and there.
It all started with a 911 call from someone the police say was not part of the march claiming that there was a group of people with signs opposed to the marchers who were armed. The caller said he saw a gun holster sticking out from a partly open jacket. The police responded to the call and found the counter protesters and asked if any of them had weapons and sure enough, 3 of the 5 had guns and one had a switchblade or some sort of knife. Caller Eric said he was the one counter protester that did not have a weapon. At that point they were cuffed and taken to the West precinct where they spent the next 2 plus hours being detained until the march was over. The problem is they had not violated the law as the 3 with guns had valid concealed carry permits and as best as I can tell while switchblades appear to be illegal, there was no mention of the person carrying the knife being arrested or charged with a crime.
A Seattle Police officer, who called himself Steve, called into the show to give his version of the events. While for the most part, the stories matched, Office Steve's main point was they felt they were doing the appropriate thing in order to potentially avoid a violent situation and needed to take the people to the station in order to do a proper investigation. As Bryan Suits said, it was kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the police but he, along with myself, kept asking under what authority were these people detained and why did it take over 2 hours to finish the investigation and let them leave? Bryan's conclusion, as was mine was it seems fairly obvious that the message from the police hierarchy was to hold these people until the march was over. One thing that bothered me about the conversation with Officer Steve was how Suits had to explain to him it is legal to openly carry a firearm. In the State of Washington you must have a concealed carry permit to have a concealed weapon but not to openly carry. Officer Steve made a comment that implied he thought since the holster was partly visible, that was in some way a violation of the law since the weapon was no longer concealed, which is not the case.
Later a female caller gave Bryan a ring and said she was one of the counter protesters who was packing heat. The first question from Bryan was in effect, what were you thinking bringing a gun into a situation like that even though you are totally within your rights to do so? Her response was she always has her gun with her, expect in bars and other "gun free zones" or as I like to call them, "potential sitting duck shooting galleries". She mentioned that the gun was in her purse and they told the officers when they first asked about the weapons that they had valid permits for them. She said once at the station they were told they would be released once the march was over which contradicted what Office Steve said about it just taking that long to finish the investigation and there was no intent to simply hold them until the march was over.
Now last I checked, United States Citizens have a 1st amendment right to free speech and even in Seattle we have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms and it sure seems to me like those and potentially others were violated. I do know one thing, if I were one of the Seattle 5, I would "lawyer up" and have filed a lawsuit against the City yesterday, because as I emailed Bryan, until the city gets hit with a lawsuit and pays a big judgment, expect this kind of thing to keep on happening. My one question of any city official is when did POTENTIALLY preventing a violent situation supersede our constitutional rights?
Thursday on the Bryan Suits show, where you can listen to live over the internet by going here, the hope is someone from the City will be on to discuss this topic in further detail. Also, its Led Zeppelin Thursday, so get your request in early.
If anyone has any additional information, clarification or corrections, please post them in the comments and I will update accordingly.
Bush is a globalist internationalist. He's in the CFR.
He is no conservative, nor is he a patriot. One cannot be a member of the CFR and be a true American.
No
It is enough for me - that does not make me less of a patriot that you - that just means we have a policy disagreement. Especially since I am all for the U.S. government arresting and executing anyone guilty of "treason" - we probably have different definitions of that word too. As for "true Americans", I'd bet I could find at least one CFR member who even you were thinking was a "true American" - as for "when is availing yourself of your own God-given rights incitement to riot?" I would note that you cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre for exactly that reason. Any more questions?
They weren't acting as "vigilantes" either. They were carrying firearms as is there Right. You'll go to any length to stretch out the absurdity of your statements won't you? Anything but admit you are wrong on this one.
I didn't say they were vigilantes - luckily the police got there in time - why did they get reports of people carrying weapons though?
yep. they need to lawyer up and file suits for violation of their civil rights immediately.
Lawfully carring a firearm is not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Thanks for creating a straw-man argument.
I don't care how many CFR members you name. They hold allegience to a One World Government, not the United States of America. I think the CFR and TLC should be declared subversive organizations and outlawed, along with the UN. Yes, I do believe in America first, last, and always. I could care less about the rest of the world, except for their money and that they stay out of our way.
You seem to think the cops were right here.
This is why I think your "thinking", (if you can call it that), is faulty.....no correct that, is completely wrong-headed.
Read the article. Annonymous tip.
Why "luckily"? They were just standing there holding their signs. If your beloved illegals were as peaceful as you say they are, then there wouldn't have been any problems.
Outright LIE.
Your anti-gun bleating not withstanding, just stop making crap up as you go along. "Brandishing" would actually require blatantly displaying the gun, most definitions actually require it being removed from the holster or purposefully shown in an attempt to intimidate.
Not the case here.
Not being a LEO in Washington, I can't even begin to guess why the caller was not ID'd. Since you seem to be good at pulling facts out of your hat, why don't you make something up and post it as fact to explain this....
And no. I don't think they should have their permits yanked. If there was a citable offense that had taken place, they would have been cited before being released from the police station. If anything, I think it is a travesty that permits are even required. I am a full 2A advocate and feel that Alaska style carry laws are the ONLY ones that a even remotely Constitutional.
We will have to agree to disagree then. Unless you were there, neither of us KNOW whether it was purposefully shown in an attempt to intimidate. Barring any further information to the contrary, however, I will side with the police on this one. Also, I think YOU are the one assuming it was an "anonymous" caller - from the story, it seems that the police know exactly who it is - at least enough to know he / she was "not part of the march".
Actually, spotting it under an open jacket is what the caller claimed. Not that is was brandished or done in a purposefully threatening manner according to the article posted. If you have other information to the contrary, post a link. Same goes for the identity of the caller.
Otherwise, just stop making it up as you go. I mean really, you are embarassing yourself...
I think I've quoted all the information (not "making it up") I have so far - and obviously I don't think I've embarrased myself - have a nice day though and Happy Cinco de Mayo!
Hehhe... Happy 556 day from an AR-15 fan. ;-)
A nuke would be considered artillery, not arms. There is no limit on arms per the 2nd Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.