Meet James Chung Hwang, a 24-year-old model citizen who has managed to rack up a dozen convictions for driving with a suspended license, one guilty plea for third-degree assault, several domestic violence convictions according to the on-line Seattle Post-Intelligencer, plus drug possession and malicious mischief beefs.
Mr. Hwang is a walking testament to the failure of gun control because he is back in jail again for an incident that occurred a week ago. He allegedly was involved in a road rage incident in south Seattle that involved (gasp!) a stolen handgun, according to court documents.
How the .45-caliber Springfield Armory semi-auto got into Hwang’s apparent posession (the gun was recovered "within lunging distance" from his stopped vehicle, according to a police report) is open to conjecture, but it’s a pretty safe bet that this handgun, which was reported stolen in Tacoma four years ago, was not obtained at a gun show, nor did the suspect stroll into a gun shop and buy it after passing a background check, nor did he get it through a straw purchase from any retailer now being sued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The gun -- a Springfield Arms 45-caliber semi-automatic -- was reported stolen from Tacoma in 2005.
Felons cannot legally own or possess firearms. Laws forbidding that were supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or so one would think if one subscribed to the gun prohibitionist philosophy of out-going ultra-Liberal Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. Hwang is living proof that people who shouldn’t have guns are going to get them, and that nothing – including gun bans on city park property that translate to bans on personal protection for law-abiding citizens and their families and especially their children – will prevent society’s losers from bringing them to such places, anyway. In this case, some dues will be paid because Hwang has been charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree by King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.
The P-I’s Casey McNerthney did a bang-up job detailing Hwang’s past. Hwang allegedly got involved in a road rage incident in which he pulled the gun from his trunk, where it was wrapped in a black T-shirt, according to witnesses, and then drove north on Rainier Avenue South for a few blocks before he was stopped by police. After that, his day went downhill fast.
For the edification of those unfamiliar with Seattle geography, Hwang’s misadventure began in close proximity to John C. Little Sr. Park and Othello Playground. As he drove north on Rainier, Hwang passed within a couple of blocks of Brighton Playfield and went right past Columbia Park. He was stopped about two minutes’ driving time from the huge Genesee Park and Playfield.
Hwang...has a criminal history that includes a conviction for third-degree assault, unlawful firearm possession, several domestic violence convictions, malicious mischief and drug possession.
Anybody want to guess the odds that if Hwang had wanted to visit any of these park facilities, he would have been discouraged by a sign alerting him to a ban on firearms?
Evidently Nickels thinks so.
A similar case developed in Clyde, Ohio a few years ago. After the Ohio Legislature adopted a state preemption and concealed carry statute in 2004, the City of Clyde immediately imposed a ban on concealed handguns in parks. Ohioans for Concealed Carry just as quickly challenged the ordinance. After a four-year court battle that cost the city and its taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the city and nullified the ordinance as unconstitutional. There should be a lesson in that for Seattleites who think this parks ban is going to prevent violent crime.
Another case now unfolding in Seattle offers perhaps a starker lesson. The second trial of Naveed Haq, the accused Jewish Federation gunman is underway. Haq is accused of shooting six women at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle offices in July 2006, killing 58-year-old Pamela Waechter, the organization’s campaign director.
The Tri-Cities man is accused of forcing his way into the Belltown offices of the federation by forcing his way through a security door behind Stumbo's then 14-year-old niece...
Haq legally purchased two handguns from two different Tri-Cities area retailers (the Wikipedia entry about this is in error, claiming that he bought the guns in Seattle), taking delivery of the second gun following the mandatory state waiting period for people who do not have a valid concealed pistol license. He then drove to Seattle after finding the Federation office on an Internet search and entered the building that also reportedly housed several other Jewish organizations, including the Washington State Jewish Historical Society, Jewish Education Council, and Jewish community newspaper, the JTNews. (Noticeably absent was an office for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.)
Now, pay attention: Haq gained entry through a security door by allegedly putting a gun to the back of a 14-year-old girl who was the niece of Cheryl Stumbo, one of the shooting victims, who worked in the Federation office. He forced the teen to use the intercom so that they could be “buzzed in” through the otherwise locked door. He then made his way up a stairwell, and quickly began shooting. In addition to Stumbo, the victims were Dayna Klein, Christina Rexroad, Layla Bush and Carol Goldman.
Here’s a question for Mayor Nickels and anyone else who supports the parks ban on legally carried handguns, as protected by state statute:
If a locked security door did not stop a determined gunman from committing a vicious, violent unconscionable attack on unarmed innocent women, just what in hell convinces you that a bunch of signs will do the trick?
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
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. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Comments
The problem with your logic is that drugs are also outlawed. Yet people get their hands on them. So should we not have any laws banning drugs? Speeding is illegal. But people continue to speed. So should we have no speeding limits? No; we have drug laws and the police and detectives investigate people suspected of using/selling them. Treat illegal gun ownership the same way. A sign in the park would function the same way trespassing signs do. Yes, a determined person will still trespass, but having a sign there gives you the legal right to call the authorities about it. Weren't you, as a kid, ever stopped by a neighbor who told you not to cross their land, "Didn't you see the sign?" At least they never called my parents about it.
Minky, where in the Constitution does it say that the government can steal yours and my money to enforce drug laws?
Criminals are going to get guns and use them for violence. With drugs being illegal there is a huge profit margin for selling them, making them desirable for criminals to sell.
Speeding tickets are simply for revenue, they don't solve any problem.
Another brainwashed sheeple that just wants to "call the authorities" to take care of something.
Grow a pair and be an individual.
-Stratispho
www.gunvoter.org
Minky misunderstands the whole purpose behind laws. They are not to stop people from doing anything. There is not a single law in the world that will "stop" someone from doing what he chooses.
They are instead created so that the state may have a mechanism for punishment after the fact. Now... the hope is that the threat of punishment is what actually stops the people... not the mere law written on a piece of paper.
Therefore you have a law against speeding… or taking drugs… or whatever.
The problem with THIS law is that bad people are not supposed to have guns anyway, so making a law that says “bad people can’t bring guns into the park” is so foolish of a law that they won’t make it. Instead, what they do is say, “everyone can’t bring a gun into the park” which is taking away the rights of the law-abiding with prior restraint – assuming that even good people with guns will do something bad with them.
Minky,
~The main problem with your logic, is that the “laws” are usually constructed in a manner that coincides with state and federal guidelines, and are designed to facilitate the incarceration of an active criminal. In the case of Seattle’s gun bans, this is in clear violation of the States preemption and will have no impact on the criminal element, yet has potential to turn good citizens into law breakers. You mention “illegal gun ownership” .. however, guns are not illegal to own (except by criminals that we have established will not obey this law). The only people that will be curtailed will be the legitimate citizens who would be your “on site” protectors during a violent incident. The police will arrive AFTER the criminal shoots people, and will look for the murderer. So back to logic, we should be very leery of any lower government entity that enacts laws that are clearly against the states preemption, and goes against federal constitution.
Continued ....
~ To claim otherwise would be akin to embracing a totalitarian protocol that will eventually consume your freedoms to speak, think, or have privacy of any sort. Your legitimate gun owners are not the ones to fear, they are the protectors of freedom, and it is us who have taken it upon ourselves to embrace the turmoil of keeping freedoms flame alive. We mean no ill intentions, and have only the soverenty of our state and nation to stay our side, as those of your kind have abandon us and the American ways.
Continued ....
~ To claim otherwise would be akin to embracing a totalitarian protocol that will eventually consume your freedoms to speak, think, or have privacy of any sort. Your legitimate gun owners are not the ones to fear, they are the protectors of freedom, and it is us who have taken it upon ourselves to embrace the turmoil of keeping freedoms flame alive. We mean no ill intentions, and have only the soverenty of our state and nation to stay our side, as those of your kind have abandon us and the American ways.
Minky -
It's your logic that is flawed. Shooting people with no good cause is also already illegal and properly so. Merely carrying a weapon should NOT be illegal, since they may be used defensively in the event a criminal decides to use them to commit an assault.
Actually, to carry the matter further, I have no problem with people possessing and using drugs as long as they don't harm others.
A sign in the park is not what any reasonable person would regard as an adequate preventive to assault of any kind. Since Seattle schools are headed toward graduating dolts with "D" averages, the average graduate a few years hence will be able to comprehend them anyway.
That major Nickels: what a genius.
Minky misunderstands how this "Rule" works in relation to the laws regarding speeding.
This is not the equivalent of "a law against speeding" it is the equivalent of a law against anybody driving on a particular stretch of road because somebody was speeding down it.
Because (in this case) one person did something while armed the assumption is that every armed person will do the same "Bad" thing. This is called "Prior Restraint" and what that does is makes rules against everybody doing something just because somebody might misbehave in some other way while doing the first thing. In the US we are not allowed to make laws like that.
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!