First it was Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat suggesting that firearms ownership should be regulated like driving and car ownership, and now the newspaper’s editorial page has blamed the “Second Amendment crowd” for “some responsibility” in the shooting of two Pierce County sheriffs’ deputies.
The editorial also mentions the slaying of four Lakewood police officers, a vicious crime perpetrated by a career thug who got leniency from a governor and at least one Pierce County judge. There is nothing in the Times editorial about how two dead gunmen – David Crable and Maurice Clemmons – were able to skate through the court system when they should have been behind bars.
It’s easier to demonize the “Second Amendment crowd,” because that sort of editorial bigotry is gleefully acceptable by far too many in the Times’ reading audience.
The Times argues that “sensible gun legislation should be welcome in Olympia” without clearly defining what that means. Are we talking about registration of guns, or licensing of gun owners? That seems to be where Westneat was headed.
Every time a state lawmaker attempts to tighten a gun rule or change a law, the Second Amendment crowd goes bonkers. They bear some responsibility for what is happening because of a never-give-an-inch stance on gun policy.--Seattle Times editorial (12-24)
Perhaps we are discussing bans on so-called “assault weapons.” The problem with that argument is that neither Clemmons nor Crable used a rifle. They both shot all of their victims with handguns; Clemmons used a six-shot revolver and a stolen 9mm pistol, and maybe even a gun he took from the officer who shot him while Crable used an unidentified handgun.
Could the Times be arguing for a limit on the number or type of firearms someone can own? After all, reporters Jennifer Sullivan and Maureen O’Hagan (Should two female reporters of Irish heritage be allowed to work the same story? How’s that for editorial bigotry?) focus their Thursday morning article on Crable’s so-called “weapons cache.” They list guns known to belong to Crable from an earlier incident to include the following: “Two 30.06 rifles, a .223 Bushmaster rifle, an AK47 remake, a sniper rifle, a .357 revolver, and a Glock 27, among others.”
I have already sent an e-mail to Sullivan and O’Hagan, asking them to define this mysterious “sniper rifle” a little more specifically.
Maybe “sensible laws” would create more “gun free zones,” but last night’s standoff at a rural Virginia post office shows that people intent on committing crimes ignore that prohibition, just like they have ignored the gun-free zone designations at public schools and shopping malls. My esteemed colleague David Codrea writes about that incident here.
From all of these deplorable crimes, including the Halloween slaying of Seattle Police Officer Tim Brenton, the Seattle Times should have learned one thing: Gun control laws, no matter how well intentioned, do not prevent bad people from committing crimes with firearms.
The weapons were listed in a court document filed after the arrest: Two 30.06 rifles, a .223 Bushmaster rifle, an AK47 remake, a sniper rifle, a .357 revolver, and a Glock 27, among others. --Seattle Times
Three liberal anti-gun Democrats have announced their plan to introduce legislation next month in Olympia that would ban so-called “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” as if that is going to stop gang bangers and other outlaws from using such firearms in crimes. I wrote about that here, in a column that revealed how bogus such legislation would be, since rifles were used in only two of the homicides recorded in 2008, and nationally, they account for a tiny percentage of all murders.
The Times editorial clings to the now-debunked philosophy that more guns cause more crime, a premise I wrote about here that new data on murder rates and firearms transaction background checks has just blown out of the water. Murder dropped by a remarkable ten percent during the first half of 2009, a period which saw gun sales skyrocket; sales that specifically involved semiautomatic sport-utility rifles and semi-auto pistols.
Newspaper editorials and impotent “feel-good” gun ban legislation provide good fodder for water cooler and internet debate, but they don’t provide a solution to violent crime.
People like Clemmons and Crable belong behind bars, while the case of accused cop-killer Christopher Monfort prove that there is no way to prevent people with no criminal background from suddenly erupting.
The Times would have us believe that undefined “sensible” gun laws will do the trick, when they haven’t worked so far to stop determined people from killing one another.
Here’s a definition even the Times should understand: Insanity – trying the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
UPDATE: I got a reply back from O'Hagan, who seems like a very forthright reporter, explaining that she simply reported what was in the police report. That's as honest as it gets. I contacted Det. Ed Troyer, the much-overworked Pierce County Sheriff's information officer for some elaboration, and he said the ATF is handling all of the firearms stuff, doing gun traces to establish their origin. Troyer has had a brutal month, and our thoughts are with his department, and his Pierce County colleagues.
More from Gun Rights Examiners
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 | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
For more info: Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.
Comments
Chapter 9.41 RCW
Firearms and dangerous weapons
Complete Chapter | RCW Dispositions
RCW Sections
9.41.010 Terms defined.
9.41.040 Unlawful possession of firearms -- Ownership, possession by certain persons--Penalties.
9.41.042 Children -- Permissible firearm possession.
9.41.045 Possession by offenders.
9.41.047 Restoration of possession rights.
9.41.050 Carrying firearms.
9.41.060 Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.
9.41.070 Concealed pistol license -- Application -- Fee -- Renewal.
9.41.073 Concealed pistol license--Reciprocity.
9.41.075 Concealed pistol license -- Revocation.
9.41.080 Delivery to ineligible persons.
9.41.090 Dealer deliveries regulated -- Hold on delivery.
9.41.094 Waiver of confidentiality.
9.41.097 Supplying information on persons purchasing pistols or applying for concealed pistol licenses.
9.41.0975 Officials and agencies -- Immunity, writ of mandamus.
9.41.098 Forfeiture of firearms -- Disposition -- Co
Of course when you don't live in Washington, and flunked the General's history class, you get a diploma from the WEA!
"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."
George Washington, Letter to his niece, Harriet Washington (30 October 1791)
I'd be willing to entertain some 'sensible' gun laws when gun grabbers are willing to entertain laws requiring violent offenders to submit to amputation of their hands.
Impressions being what they are, from the approach Mr. Westneat has taken in his article, one might be inclined to infer that he’s volitionally chosen to avoid his own moral obligation and shirk his duty as an American citizen to provide himself with arms for defense.
Had he assumed this solemn duty, he’d know that in order to maintain a status as law-abiding Citizens--millions of Americans have already submitted to being treated like common criminals, passed tests, supplied fingerprints, paid fees, in many instances 'registered' firearms...all in order to receive 'permission' from government to ‘legally’ exercise a right older than the Nation itself.
If it is indeed true that he hasn't fulfilled his personal duty--he’s thus assumed the position as but another unarmed victim-in-waiting.
Curious indeed as to how a person could so value their own opinion, but be so foolish as to relegate the worth of their entire life to no more than the cost of a single bullet.
Oh well...
Every media outlet has reported the run on guns and ammunition since the nomination of Obama yet I have yet to read anywhere, anyone implying that there has been any increase in the number of incidents of gun violence. Could it just be that legal gun owners are not the cause of gun violence? And if gun violence is decreasing could it be the arming of law-abiding citizens contributing to that end?
Danny Westneat says
“But rights aren't unlimited. There's nothing that bars gun registration. Or testing. Or, say, letting police track guns, with licensing or the use of microchips.”
He’s sure about that?
Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
Danny Westneat says
"We need to ask ourselves how we support people like that, (cops)how we back them, if they are going to stand in our stead, how we help them protect us."
Those who provide arms for their own defense are already doing their part, how 'bout you Danny?
Few circumstances make a LEO's job any easier than to arrive on a crime scene to find an ex-con face down taking a permanent dirt-nap and a shaken homeowner stating he or she was in fear for their life.
Merry Christmas Everyone,
and for those who haven’t had to already…
may you never be forced to fire a shot in self-defense.
A lawbidding gun owner is only a danger to one thing. The government that tries to take his freedoms and rights away. A criminal with a gun is a danger to everyone. He creates the need for more government to deal with him. Maybe the government and the criminals are in this together?
Since the basis of an actual crime is intentional violation of a person's 'rights'--which of the two are the greater threat?
A perp with a GUN or a legislator with a PEN?
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create...."
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819, spent the winter at Valley Forge, with George.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator if the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness. How momentous that trust is, we may learn from the instructions of the founder of modern philosophy:
"No man," says Bacon, "can by care-taking, as the Scripture saith, add a cubit to his stature in this little model of a man's body; but, in the great frame of kingdoms and commonwealths, it is in the power of princes or estates to add amplitude and greatness to their kingdoms. For, by introducing such ordinances, constitutions, and customs, as are wise, they may sow greatness to their posterity and successors. But these things are commonly not observed, but left to take their chance."
If guns are forbidden, this would provide the same situation we find with illegal drugs. Illegal drugs have become one of the bigger industries. Thus would go the way of guns.
Regulation does not mean prohibition. Of course guns should be regulated. The gun lobby and extremists like the author always act as if there guns are being taken away when all that is being asked is sensible regulations and a gun policy that works.
"Extremists like the author....?"
Rogue Examiner said:
"Regulation does not mean prohibition. Of course guns should be regulated. The gun lobby and extremists like the author always act as if there guns are being taken away when all that is being asked is sensible regulations and a gun policy that works."
It may seem that way to younger folks or those with short memories, but the history of "sensible regulations" has always involved the gun rights folks giving up another part of what the gun ban folks left us with after our last round of "sensible regulations". At some point, even a complete fool sees the pattern. Their idea of "sensible regulations" is a moving target that will not be satisfied until all law abiding citizens are disarmed. How many rounds of this do you expect us to sit still for? Do you take us for complete idiots?
So our response has become, in the words of the late Charlton Heston, "From my cold dead fingers!" Or as his predecessor, Leonidas of Sparta said 5000 years ago, "Molon Labe!"
Rogue Examiner says Dave Workman is an extremist. Perhaps so, but I would remind Rogue Examiner that the people who took up arms against their own government in 1775 were extremists that made this country possible. Read the writings and speaches by the likes of Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry and tell me they were not extremists! I would be more than happy for someone to think I was as extreme as they were in the defense of liberty, and I would be willing to bet Dave Workman would say the same. In the words of the late Barry Goldwater, Senator from Arizona: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!"
If Dave Workman is an extremist, then so was Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. I'd call that a complement to be counted in that number any day.
Dave--Thanks for another great article calling out the gun banner lies. The new proposed "assault weapon" ban, the fact that they never "get" it (the truth), and the fact that they NEVER quit proves that there is no middle ground, no compromise with the lies and the liars of gun control.
I believe that should be Rouge Examiner, if I were to say something as monumentally stupid and as historically inaccurate as he did, my face would certainly be red, as his should be. So ROUGE EXAMINER it is.
That, to me, appears to be perfectly acceptable sensible regulation of his right to call himself something. We don't want to take his name, we just want to regulate it, for now. We'll be back later for more sensible regulation.
Thanks a bunch, Straightarrow! I read your post while drinking a soda. I laughed so hard I now have Pepsi coming out of my nose. Quite painful in fact!
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!