Seattle Weekly writer/editor Nina Shapiro is at it again in her “Daily Weekly” blog, demanding that the Legislature do something in the wake of a sixth law enforcement death since Oct. 31.
Five of those officers, including the only female police officer killed in the line of duty anywhere in the country during 2009, were murdered with handguns. The sixth, Seattle officer Timothy Brenton, was killed with a Kel Tec sport-utility rifle, fitted with an after-market magazine. That particular firearm does not fit any known description of an "assault rifle" except that somebody in the Seattle Police Department called it an "assault rifle" and anti-gunners, including Shapiro, landed on that like flies on horse puckey.
You would think that if ever there was a political climate favorable for gun control legislation, it would be here. With the state reeling from the third police killing in two months, legislators surely feel the need to do something. A proposed assault weapons ban, to be introduced in the coming legislative session, would seem like a place to start.—Nina Shapiro
And what is Shapiro’s solution to these slayings? Ban so-called “assault weapons.” Why is that her solution? Because it is the "solution" (make that panacea) offered up by Washington CeaseFire, an organization claiming some 6,000 members – as opposed to the estimated 90,000 National Rifle Association members in Washington, 15,000 members of the Washington Arms Collectors, thousands of members and supporters of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Foundation, and an estimated 1-million-plus gun owners, including some 240,000 citizens licensed to carry concealed firearms.
Let's agree to get together with Gov. Christine Gregoire in the same room to see how we can work together to reduce the number of deaths here instate. The NRA is welcome to bring along any other elected state official of its choosing. We'll put in writing the right of law-abiding citizens to own handguns and nonmilitary hunting rifles, providing we work together to save lives.—Ralph Fascitelli, 2006 Washington
Shapiro has been giving ample ink to Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli, a New England transplant with an agenda. He wants “common-sense” gun laws adopted in Washington State, which already has effective statutes against murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape, firearms possession by convicted felons and the criminally insane, firearms possession at schools, in courtrooms, prisons, jails, mental institutions and several other places. Washington is home to the original state preemption statute which has become a model for several other states.
Fascitelli is the guy who proposed, back in April 2006 that gun owners come to the table and allow him to “put in writing the right of law-abiding citizens to own handguns and nonmilitary hunting rifles.” That translates to giving up their existing right to own semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, which are used by tens of thousands of Evergreen State residents for competitive target shooting, predator control and hunting, varmint hunting, recreational shooting and home defense.
Besides, gun owners know they have the right to own handguns and rifles, and it is constitutionally protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution. Of what possible use would it be to write that down again? Washington CeaseFire has no authority to negotiate civil rights.
Why is it that when the gun prohibitionist lobby invites gun owners to sit down and negotiate, they never bring anything to the table other than expectations that gun owners will give up some of their rights?
9. Support proposed common-sense firearm legislation by contacting your elected officials and attending legislative hearings.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously noted, “Never waste a good crisis.” That has been repeated over the years by Bill and Hillary Clinton and others now in the Obama administration, all of them devout anti-gunners. I predicted some weeks ago in this space, following another Shapiro column, that Fascitelli would exploit these police killings to push his gun prohibitionist agenda. As Shapiro continually whines, he can’t seem to get any traction in Olympia.
Washington CeaseFire’s website calls upon citizens to “Support proposed common-sense firearm legislation” without defining what that is.
The question has been asked here before, without an answer. As the year draws to a close, perhaps instead of requesting a definition, maybe gun owners should demand one.
Would CeaseFire’s “common-sense” gun law package include any or all of the following?
· Registration of firearms and licensing of gun owners;
· A ban on semi-automatic sport-utility rifles;
· Repeal of state preemption, allowing cities and counties to set their own laws;
· A limit on the number of firearms someone can own;
· Repeal of the state’s concealed carry statute;
· Ban firearms use by anyone under age 16;
· Prohibit open carry of firearms.
You can contact Washington CeaseFire here.
You can contact Nina Shapiro here.
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: Second Amendment Foundation. National Rifle Association. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities.
Comments
In NO PLACE of the U.S. Constitution —Article, Section, Paragraph/Clause— is there ~any~ enumerated power for the United States to regulate the exercise of individual rights.
.
Further, in light of the 14th Article of Amendment which applies the ~entire~ Constitution to the several states, AND by dint of that amendment's Section 1, all the People are now citizens of BOTH their state of residence AND the United States.
.
Since the People are now citizens of BOTH entities, then the U.S. Constitution being superior applies =everywhere= the United States has legal authority.
.
Since the U.S. Constitution now applies universally to all of the People, then the states have NO legal ability to legislate over that matter of firearms, inasmuch as the Second Article of Amendment declares that it shall NOT be infringed.
.
Buttressing that segment of law is the state of Washington's own Constitution.
.
End of story.
I tried submitting a question to WashingtonCeaseFire but their site returns an error. This happened a few months ago also.
Perhaps they are not concerned with what we citizens have to say. Perhaps they dislike the 1st amendment as much as they dislike the 2nd...
Our founding father's knew that a population without arms of any kind would be enslaved. My grand father immigrated here from Sweden in 1907 and he preached to me that the United States Constitution was the greatest piece of workmanship known to mankind and THAT no one should EVER amend it as it was and is still good enough to govern by.
My grandfather feared those who wanted CHANGE where change was not needed.
Common Sense. A recent class I attended examined this catch phrase. The examination was outside the scope of constitutional issues (i.e. not about gun laws) Unanimously, the class agreed that there can be no such thing as "common sense." It doesn't exist and can't exist. People never have a common viewpoint. Viewpoints are as diverse as the faces of the people themselves. People do not generate the same outcomes to the inputs they receive. If two people look at a book, one might say the cover is red, the other may say the color is chartreuse. That being said, the term common-sense makes about as much sense as the term "jumbo-shrimp" or "political intelligence." We need to make this catch phrase known for it ridiculousness and likewise the politicians that use it.
I have to ask what credentials Shapiro has to be laying claim to "common sense", I also must ask what credentials all those on her side of the issue have "common sense". I find it impossible to believe any of them even have a nodding acquaintance with "common sense".
Sounds like an ad hominem attack so far, doesn't it? But it's not. Here's why. We have well more that twenty thousand gun control laws in this nation. Each and every one is a failure at controlling crime of any kind. Just how the Hell are we supposed to believe that people, who have had more than twenty thousand chances to enact "common sense" laws that have a positive effect on crime through gun control legislation and have failed miserably each and every time to accomplish even a scintilla of their stated goal, have any facility whatever with the exercise of "common sense"?
Ask them that question, PLEASE.
Yet they believe they should get one more chance? I don't think so!
I DO support "reasonable gun law!"
The most reasonable one of all being the Second Amendment as originally intended. That is commonsense.
Keep swinging Dave. You've got them on the ropes.
We do have Common Sense, explained to perfection a couple years back!
Common Sense
[1776]
Introduction
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.
In the
Exactly where did General Washington, go to school at?
DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
JULY 6, 1775 1
[Since the colonial governors had taken steps to prevent the assemblies from naming delegates to the Second Continental Congress, the representatives to that body were chosen by irregular conventions. For this reason the Second Continental Congress was, from the beginning, an extra-legal, if not a revolutionary, assembly rather than a constitutionally authorized gathering. While it took steps to defend the colonies, it did not gather in a mood to declare immediate independence. To clarify its position, Congress adopted the Declaration reproduced below. The first draft is said to have been written by John Rutledge, but no copy of it has been found (for a brief sketch of the life of Rutledge see p. 258). An early draft of this document, written by Jefferson, proved too strong for the committee (Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774
This is your Education System In Washington?
The University of Washington, leaving your children behind for generations!
"In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.
With a humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the calamities of civil war.
By order of Congress,
JOHN HANCOCK,
President
Attested,
CHARLES THOMS
Thomas Paine Continues, COMMON SENSE!
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your Testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience, because the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, "when a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him;" is very unwisely chosen on your part; because it amounts to a proof, that the king's ways (whom y
"What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson, explaining Christine Gregouir to perfection, natural manure.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind of the multitude is left at random, and feeling no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal; there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The tories
If we would address the problems in our society that make people feel afraid, we could address the gun issue at the same time.
But since our own government is no longer answering to "We the People", we must always keep a grip on our weapons incase we ever have to march on Washington someday and take back what was ours to begin with.
Were we to ever give up those weapons, we'll be fighting the powers that be like the Palestinians do.
With rock and slingshots.
x
"xexon says:
If we would address the problems in our society that make people feel afraid, we could address the gun issue at the same time."
1. I can't speak for others. Whenever I try, Straightarrow slaps me around a bit. I hate it when he's right. But I can say, for myself, of the many guns I own (can't remember how many, certainly more than I need, less than I want, and more than we can afford per my wife), none of them were bought because I was "afraid". I don't have car insurance because I am afraid I'll have an accident. I don't have life insurance because I'm afraid I'll die. I don't have a gun because I'm afraid of criminals or my government. I have all of those things, and more, because I choose to be as prepared as I can be for all of those "bumps in the road" that life throws at all of us. Others know that they can safely depend on me because they know that I am prepared to depend on myself.
2. There is no "gun issue" that needs to be "addressed".
I don't particularly remember "slapping you around a bit", but if I have done so I would like to state two things, ok,ok, one of them is just a brag. If I have done so, I must be way smarter than I thought myself. (that's the brag). Two, I find you and I much more in alignment in the philosophy of liberty than in discord. I respect your acumen on this issue. Though, I do think I am better at identifying our allies and recognizing those who sell us out.
Math, was not my strong suit evidently. It appears I can't count as high as three. Three, if I have done so, please be assured there was nothing personal in it, and I apologize if I ever let it appear so.
Article 3 Washington State Constitution???
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
When your Governor, has no clue, explained by this months Supreme Court Opinions?
State v. Jesus Valdez
State v. Harrington
State v. Magee
Where your police officers also, don't have a clue, in regards to law, fact, or the English Language, as taught by Patty Murray's WEA, taking the gun away, would be the last thing any person would do with any critical thinking skills!
These cases, show the incompentance best, imbeciles would be the best term for the Lawman, Prosecutior, Judges, all the way to the appelate court, and the Chief Executive, and AAA, Attorney General???
One of the best examples, the Tacoma Police Chief David Brame, Judge Jury and Executioner, all wrapped up in a crown victor
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
The Expert in shooting George III's Cops!
Ex-police chief resigns from team when asked about Boise scandal
Don Pierce ()
Thomas Clouse and Mike Prager
Staff writers
July 28, 2006
The outside investigation into the Spokane Police Department's controversial handling of two high-profile cases will be conducted by a law enforcement service group from Olympia and a Kentucky-based consulting firm.
But a lead member of the review team, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Executive Director Don Pierce, withdrew Thursday after questions arose over the circumstances surrounding his 2004 departure from the Boise Police Department.
Spokane Mayor Dennis Hession said he didn't know that Pierce resigned under pressure from his job as Boise police chief following a mayoral corruption scandal. Pierce had overseen an initial investigation that found no criminal wrongdoing by former Boise Mayor Brent Coles, who later pleaded guilty to misusing public funds after the Idaho Attorney General's office took o
And back when Don Pierce, was Bellingham Police Chief, he got hauled down to that United States District Court, like his favorite Sheriff, up in Whatcom County, Bill Elfo, imported from Dixie, and also shown best in the Federal District Court with President Grants Ku Klux Act of 1871, law for reform of the democratic party!
Just go review Don Pierce, and his 1st Ammendment Case, paying with taxdollars for being cluless about the 1st Amendment of 1791?
Just make the cluless chief of the chiefs, and of course then wonder why there linemen are all being shot, George Washington or General Grant would have Shot Don Pierce, before sunrise!
5.5 Million Jury Verdict largest in Skagit County History
Love that Association of Police Chiefs, just make sure your clueless, like the Chief of the Washington State Patrol!
On April 28, 2009, a Skagit County jury awarded 5.5 million dollars to the victim of a drunk driver against the drunk driver, the Washington State Patrol, and a local probation department.
Hailey French was injured in a head-on collision with a drunk driver who had been released from a prior drunk driving arrest by a state trooper one hour and 39 minutes previously. Instead of booking the drunk driver into jail or impounding her car, the trooper drove her home, gave her back her keys, and admonished her not to drive again "until she sobered up." Instead the drunk driver called a taxi, returned to her car, got back on the road, and crossed the center line hitting Hailey French head-on.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Discussing the drunks of the Washington State Patrol!
No. 03—710
GERALD DEVENPECK, et al., PETITIONERS v.
JEROME ANTHONY ALFORD
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[December 13, 2004]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not “closely related” to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest.
"What is ‘common-sense’ firearm legislation?"
Example: "A perfectly good firearm shall not be left out in the rain"
Example II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
You mentioned "Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli, a New England transplant with an agenda.". Funny I attended the 7th district court of appeals hearing for the McDonald v. Chicago case(the upcoming Scotus case) and the Attorney for the city's side of the argument suggested during the hearing, "That if people in the Chicago area felt their rights were restricted by Chicago's ban... They could move elsewhere". Perhaps Fascitelli should have moved to Chicago with its bans rather than a free state like Washington. I can't wait until a zip code is no longer a determining factor on what rights yo have as a US Citizen.
I propose a dual approach to negotiations. First, we constitutional enthusiasts define the term "reasonable gun law." We, as the social group most affected, have this right. Look at any government empowerment program for an example. Second, we use linkage. If they get A, we get B. I would accept one-gun-a-month if it applied to otherwise restriction-free automatic weapons. I could deal with ammo purchase restrictions on criminals if it meant ammo subsidies for everyone else. And so forth. How about a little quid pro quo?
Yes thank you Chicago! Just like the intellegent Attorney from Washington State, who explained to perfection the Chicago Police Department!365 U.S. 167
Monroe v. Pape
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 39 Argued: November 8, 1960 --- Decided: February 20, 1961
Under R.S. § 1979, derived from § 1 of the "Ku Klux Act" of April 20, 1871, petitioners...The Ku Klux Act grew out of a message sent to Congress by President Grant on March 23, 1871, reading:
"A condition of affairs now exists in some States of the Union rendering life and property insecure and [365 U.S. 167, 173] the carrying of the mails and the collection of the revenue dangerous. The proof that such a condition of affairs exists in some localities is now before the Senate. That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities I do not doubt; that the power of the Executive of the United States, acting within the limits of existing laws,
User13---You missed the most important point in the article:"Washington CeaseFire has no authority to negotiate civil rights."---You're also forgetting a couple of other truths:#1-No gun control has ever or ever will affect or prevent crime. To "negotiate" with gun banners is to give credibility to their premise and lie that it will.#2-Gun banners are liars in other ways: they never quit and there is no end to their war on Second Amendment rights. Therefor there is no middle ground, no compromise with them. Their agenda is to disarm everyone.#3-All gun control laws are unconstitutional and therefor illegal. To "negotiate" infringements to the Second Amendment is to repudiate that fact.#4-NEVER negotiate with terrorists!!
And the ACT to Enforce the 14th Amendment, from
President Grant, the Ku Klux Act of 1871, and the NRA, of 1871, after the Union Army, went home with their Union Issued Assault Rifle!
Olympia? Confused about reality, before Statehood in 1889, and the Union Army!
The National Rifle Association of America, or NRA, is an American non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization which lists as its goals the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States. It was established in 1871 in New York by William Conant Church and George Wood Wingate as the American Rifle Association; its first President was former Senator and famous Civil War Union Army General Ambrose Burnside.[2] President of the United States Ulysses S. Grant served as the NRA's eighth President[3] and General Philip H. Sheridan as its ninth.
CONCERNING THE CORNELIAN LAW RELATING TO ASSASSINS AND POISONERS.
1. Marcianus, Institutes, Book XIV.
Under the Cornelian Law relating to Assassins and Poisoners, anyone who kills a man; or through whose malice a fire has originated; or who has gone about armed for the purpose of killing someone or committing theft; or who, being a magistrate, or presiding in a criminal case, enables false testimony to be given by which an innocent person may be prosecuted, or convicted, is liable.
(1) He also is liable who prepares poison, and administers it for the purpose of killing a man; or who, with malicious intent gives false testimony, by means of which anyone may be sentenced to death in a criminal prosecution; or any magistrate or judge who accepts money in consideration of causing someone to be accused of a crime.
(2) Anyone who has committed homicide is punished without taking into account the legal condition of the person who was killed.
Unchanged since Justinian
January 9. 1776
Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense appears in today's session of the Continental Congress.
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!