It did not take long after Thursday’s mass shooting in a West Seattle neighborhood for anti-gun extremists to exploit the crime by attacking the Second Amendment, and/or the National Rifle Association.
It seems almost par for the course. The section following the Seattle Times’ in-depth report tells the tale, as do some of the remarks following the equally-detailed first report by the on-line Seattle Post-Intelligencer. To the credit of a few readers, however, they quickly noted now tacky it is to use this kind of tragic event to bolster a political agenda. Both news agencies, incidentally, should be applauded for their coverage. It is gripping, and holds the readers' interest.
It is really nothing new. Readers will recall how quickly anti-gunners blamed the NRA for the shooting and double homicide at Lake Sammamish State Park in July. This column discussed that here, and noted with some surprise how long it took Washington CeaseFire to join in the exploitation here.
Four people are dead, including the shooter, and police are piecing together what happened. There are some unanswered questions. What is known is that two guns have been recovered, a 9mm and.25-caliber. There are reports of an argument at the home on Wednesday.
Police arrived a short time later, as did the shooter's husband, who charged past police and ran into the house, according to Travis Rowland, who was about a block away when the gunfire erupted.
There were more gunshots from inside the house, according to Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb. The husband came back out; he had not been shot. He told police his wife had shot herself.
Anti-gun hostility seems to have intensified since the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling — affirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right — and this year’s ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which applies the Second Amendment protection of that civil right to state and local governments.
This hostility takes many forms, and one of the more insidious appears to be happening right now in Madison, Wisconsin, where authorities have charged five men with disorderly conduct because they were openly carrying sidearms at a restaurant. According to State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, that’s perfectly legal, and since Wisconsin is one of two states holding out on the adoption of a concealed carry statute, it is essentially the only way for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry a firearm for personal protection.
A woman patron apparently called police, contending that even though the five men were acting normally “people who shoot up restaurants also look calm before it happens.” Evidently, this woman is an expert on mass shootings in restaurants, so perhaps the police should hire her as a consultant.
Madison police apparently choose disregard the attorney general’s advice, choosing instead to “discourage” open carriers. Wisconsin Open Carry activists are furious. There is a legal battle royal brewing. Having advised some police friends about this situation, this column got back some rather interesting reactions.
Said one guy: “That story sickens me and I have been a police officer for 34 years now. When police departments start manufacturing law for political purposes, the whole profession suffers. If there is a lawsuit filed, let me know where to contribute. This has to stop... So now perfectly law-abiding citizens can be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct just because they make someone nearby feel uneasy? Gee, I am 6'6" and 300 lbs. I must be a walking disorderly charge.”
And another observed, “I really have a problem when it is in the constitution and they ignore it. I don’t care what the issue is. I hope they get hammered for it.”
In a bizarre way, this makes perfect sense. If gun prohibitionists can blame the existence of a civil right, and an organization that protects this right, for the horrible acts of an individual, then why can’t police routinely violate that civil right and seek charges against citizens who exercise that right?
Washington State has a rather active Open Carry movement. They are gathering in Vancouver this Saturday, Sept. 25 for a picnic, and apparently to show support for a guy whose open carry got him in trouble with the law down there.
Here in San Francisco, where this column is now covering the 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference sponsored by Bellevue’s Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, this question no doubt will come up.
Meanwhile, Seattle homicide detectives will be doing their jobs in West Seattle, no doubt carefully stepping around the blood, while others all-too-gleefully dance in it.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE by clicking on the link above
And Don’t forget to visit:
VISIT THESE GUN RIGHTS EXAMINERS ON-LINE:
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
ALSO VISIT:
‘Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time’
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
READ:
America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age
These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns
Comments
The oldest lie I know of aside from the One in the Bible is the statement that if you do away with Guns you will do away with crime.
I have but one Question in responce to this mentality,
Question: where did Cain get the Gun he Killed Able With?
The first thing that a gun prohibitionist will do when alarmed by seeing an armed citizen is: drum roll please... call another person with a gun. This second person with a gun is known as a "police officer".
Dave, is there anything you can do about the new persistent banner ads for HGTV and Chase at the bottom of the screen? They appear to have an "X" to make the go away, but that just makes them expand full screen, it's very annoying and will drive me away from your site if they continue. I can't even read this article becase the banner is so annoying.
Jason, I just clicked the X and the ad closed.
This is advertising, it pays the freight for Examiner.
That ad always goes away when I click on the X on the left too but you have to do it before the timer times out. Otherwise it will expand. You can still close it then though.
Dave, I understand the need for advertising, but when it gets in the way of the content it is self defeating. Not sure I'm doing wrong, but repeated attempts at clicking the X only result in the ad opening and going full screen. The fact that there is a timer on it is also insidious. This sort of agressive advertising will keep me away from what is otherwise a great site. Please ask your ad folks if there is another way to deliver these ads.
Figured out what I was doing "wrong", the ad is designed with deception in mind. Clicking directly on the "X" does nothing. However hovering the mouse at the extreme right edge of the "X" causes a "Close" button to slide out from under the "X". Clicking that closes the ad.
I totally get the need for advertising, I even work for a company that is funded in part by online advertising. However these new ads here are far too annoying, agressive, and deceptive in their mechanics. We see these things from time to time, some agency experimenting with a new form of delivery. When they go too far, as I believe they have in this case, they need to be told, because they will ultimately drive people away if they continue.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!