Gun owners, including Garrett Bosworth, 16, center, of Yakima, Wash., pose for a selfie photo as they display their weapons in the upper gallery of the House chambers, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2015, at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash. The House was not in session when this photo was taken, and members of the group went to the gallery following a protest outside the Legislative building in opposition to Washington state's Initiative 594, which requires - with only a few exceptions - background checks on all gun sales and transfers. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
Local news reports
More than 200 gun rights activists, most of them carrying firearms, rallied on the steps of Washington’s Capitol on Thursday morning to protest the expansive background-check law state voters passed in November.
State legislators and other opponents of Initiative 594’s requirement of background checks on all gun sales and transfers voiced their belief that the new law unfairly infringes on their constitutional rights, and a handful of the protesters carried long guns into the public viewing gallery of the state House of Representatives just as the morning’s brief floor session ended.
A series of speakers urged the crowd outside the Capitol to work to build support to repeal Initiative 594, both by contacting their legislators and by lobbying their friends and relatives. Several I-594 opponents carried signs with messages including “Prosecute criminals not harass us” and “I will not comply” during the chilly morning rally.
“We’re not the bad guys, and they’re trying to make us the bad guys, but we let this happen,” said Adina Hicks, executive director of Protect Our Gun Rights Washington, one of several groups that organized the rally.
“Gun owners tend to be a live and let live kind of people,” Hicks said. “Can’t do that anymore.”
“This is a culture war, folks,” said Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen. “They don’t like what we do, and they want to control what we do.”
State Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, joined the rifle-brandishing protesters inside the Capitol and posed for pictures alongside them outside the House chamber. He declined an offer to accept a gun being handed to him without a background check. While outside, he enthusiastically told the crowd about several gun-rights bills he supports.
“Tyranny is not an option,” Shea said in a rising voice. “The right to bear arms is unalienable. It can’t be taken away by a majority vote. It can’t be taken away by the Legislature. It can’t be taken away by the Supreme Court. God gave us that.”
Hahahaha, tyranny. Requiring a background check on private sales is tyranny. Hahahaha
The writers of the constitution were not gods, they were fallible men. Very fallible.
ReplyDelete"Hahahaha, tyranny. Requiring a background check on private sales is tyranny. Hahahaha"
ReplyDeleteAs we've discussed here before Mike, this involves more than just private sales. And the attempt to include everything has resulted in a law that is not reasonably enforceable.
We'll see. I don't think 200 protesters makes it so, but we'll see.
Delete"I don't think 200 protesters makes it so, but we'll see"
DeleteThat's 200 protester this time. We discussed a previous event that had over 1,000 attending. And there is also a lawsuit in the works, and law enforcement has pretty much said its so vague that they wont be working it very hard until or unless its clarified.
There's actually sort of a similar event, albeit more low key taking place in Minnesota on the 26th to give gun rights supporters a chance to show that we haven't gone anywhere since last session and to give people a chance to meet their legislators. I'm planning on being there,
http://www.mngold.org/
This group hasn't been lazy. Recently some illegal questions got administratively added to the state's carry permit application and they got the questions removed in about 36 hours.
Crybaby gun nuts huh mike...who are the ones crying that they want everyone's Rights trampled by the Gov because they are scared of guns...certainly not the those on the pro Rights side
ReplyDeleteRequiring background checks is a far cry from trampling "everyone's rights."
Delete"Requiring background checks is a far cry from trampling "everyone's rights.".....Give me an example of trampled freedoms then Mike so I can tell if we are even living in the same dimension when it comes to understanding what freedom is because I dont think we are
DeleteAn example of trampling people's rights is when they rounded up all the Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Requiring background checks is nothing but an inconvenience, and one which would save lives.
DeleteI see both as egregious violations of the rights of Americans
DeleteOf course you do. Only a single-minded gun-rights fanatic would put those two in the same category.
DeleteMikeB: “Hahahaha, tyranny. Requiring a background check on private sales is tyranny. Hahahaha”
ReplyDeleteHow many times do we have to go over this? You keep downplaying what this law does. You know it not just about sales. You know the penalties are life-altering criminal charges. You bring up comparisons like seat belt laws, but would you consider it excessive if the law requires years in jail for not wearing their seat belt? Plus, your response to my specific criticisms of the harsh penalties for innocuous activities that are common to the gun owning culture is to say that it won’t be enforced. You mockingly say “you let me know when someone goes to prison for letting a friend handle their gun”, but you’ve also told me that I am correct in my assessment of the language:
MikeB: “I don't deny what you say about the law, I only deny your ridiculous predictions.”
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/colion-noir-how-i-594-will-destroy.html
And FYI, you grossly misunderstood what my “predictions” are.
So your main argument is that law enforcement and prosecutors won’t follow the letter of the law because they are not as sadistic as Bloomberg and the other gun control people who wrote, support, and fund the promotion of this law. Is that it? If you think that this law is so harsh that parts of it won’t be enforced at all, then don’t you think it is worth complaints and protests from gun owners?
"as sadistic as Bloomberg and the other gun control people who wrote, support, and fund the promotion of this law." No one is sadistic. The people behind this law want to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from being able to so easily get guns. That's all. The rest is your alarmist interpretations of what can also be included in the poorly written law. It's not a conspiracy to persecute poor unsuspecting gun owners in spite of all your efforts to portray it like that.
Delete“Alarmist Interpretations”? Last time we talked about this you said I was correct in my assessment of the language. Are you reverting again?
DeleteYou defend the architects of this bill by writing off the sadistic nature of the restrictions as being because of “poor wording”. Are these people so incompetent with the English language that they don’t realize that by adding “who is under eighteen years of age… for educational purposes” to the training exemption that it would be illegal to give an adult hands on training without an FFL present administering background checks on every transfer? They added this language, Mike. It’s not an oversight.
You know, if you agree that it is poorly written, how about we repeal it and you guys can get to work drafting a well written one. Does that sound fair? If a poorly written one managed to sneak by the Washington voters, you should have no problem passing one that is more sensible.
Delete" Are you reverting again?"
DeleteNo. I admitted your interpretation is literally valid, but it's alarmist and unrealistic.
Law shouldn't be interpreted literally? Oh, Mike...
DeleteJudges often have a wide area of discretion. Are you complaining about all those laws too, the ones that allow for judicial discretion?
DeleteJudges often have a wide area of discretion. Are you complaining about all those laws too, the ones that allow for judicial discretion?
DeleteCan you offer an example of some other law that allows such sweeping "judicial discretion" as to pose no obstacle whatsoever to sentencing someone to years in prison for something as innocuous as letting a friend momentarily handle a gun?
As TS has told you over, and over, and over again, the law does not have to be written this way. The vermin who chose that wording did so deliberately.
Excessive exaggeration is one of your favorite forms of lying.
Delete"no obstacle whatsoever to sentencing someone to years in prison for something as innocuous as letting a friend momentarily handle a gun"
Excessive exaggeration is one of your favorite forms of lying.
DeleteI don't have any "favorite forms of lying." Have you forgotten that you have yet to catch me in a single lie?
Where is the "exaggeration"--let alone "excessive exaggeration" (whatever that means--as opposed to "appropriate exaggeration"?) in my question (the one you're not answering)?
C'mon Mr. Dictionary. Excessive exaggeration is often called hyperbole. Appropriate exaggeration is just exaggeration. You love the hyperbolic bullshit, like this: ""NO obstacle whatsoever to sentencing someone to years in prison for something as innocuous as letting a friend MOMENTARILY HANDLE a gun""
DeleteYou love the hyperbolic bullshit, like this: ""NO obstacle whatsoever to sentencing someone to years in prison for something as innocuous as letting a friend MOMENTARILY HANDLE a gun""
DeleteNo exaggeration there, either "excessive" or not. What I said is absolutely true--the new Washington law does pose no obstacle whatsoever to a judge's imposition of a years-long sentence for letting a friend momentarily handle a gun.
There's probably a legal principle concerning the reasonable interpretation of laws. I don't know what it's called. Plus, judges always have discretion. That's the obstacle.
DeleteBut there's certainly no obstacle to your misinterpreting what laws really intend. So, carry on.
Plus, judges always have discretion. That's the obstacle.
DeleteUm, Mikeb? Judicial discretion is the exact opposite of an obstacle to the judge indulging whatever his/her whims happen to be with regard to the sentence.
Yeah, that's what judges do, they indulge their whims. You've got a sick world view, Kurt.
DeleteYeah, that's what judges do, they indulge their whims. You've got a sick world view, Kurt.
DeleteNoting that judges are no more immune than anyone else to the temptation to use their power to advance whatever agenda appeals to their ideology is indicative of a "sick world view" on my part?
Let's see here--judges are lawyers who then got into politics in order to get elected to the bench. Lawyer/politicians--yep, that's a group that must consist universally of paragons of moral virtue, right, Mikeb?
The old false argument that a few regulations on guns is an infringement on the 2nd A. Just garbage.
ReplyDeleteSo San, civil rights are just garbage to you?
ReplyDeleteThat's not what she said. Rights have limitations.
DeleteThat is what she said. I don't disagree rights have limitations and the limitations are in the Bill of Rights. However your limitations are not constitutional and that's the problem.
DeleteWho decides, you, me, the Supreme Court?
DeleteIt seems the supreme court is being called on more and more to tell those that are unconstitutionally restricting rights too far are told to back off. Heller is just one of those rulings. And with what is coming before the courts in the near future, the courts may have no other choice to rule in any way but the way the right is as written.
DeleteThe Constitution decides Mike.
The Supreme Court decides. Some people don't know that, especially idiot gun loons.
Delete"The Constitution decides Mike."
DeleteBrwahahahahahahahahahaha.
Pro gun people make a mistake pushing their guns in people's faces. It cements the idea that they are loony.
ReplyDeleteGuns at a health care town hall meeting? Guns and gas masks at a pro gun rally in a legislative body?
Maybe they should take a lesson from MLK and leave the guns at home while exercising their right to protest (address grievances) their government. The people chose MLK over the Black Panthers because the Black Panthers were always carrying guns, which people rightfully concluded was a sign of violence, not a sign of changing law within the process the Constitution gives us to change law.
"Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon."
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html
King did not want to leave his guns at home, he was forced to through violations of his rights starting with the need to apply for a permit to exercise his rights and second by racist law enforcement only to eager to trample a citizens rights by denying said permit...similar to the violations being suffered by those attempting to exercise their rights in shall issues areas of the country today
That's totally different than showing, using, or pronouncing guns as part of his movement and totally reasonable given the death threats against him and the way he finally died. Not sure why you even bring it up. It's not hypocritical and certainly you would not want to deny him the right of self protection given the serious death threats against him.
DeleteGeorge didn't bring it up Sammy, you did. And to leave your means of protection at home just makes your tools for protection useless. Bringing out in the open the tools for protection serves to the demand of using them for protecting oneself anywhere one has a right to be. Make people aware of it and law makers to serve the public instead of the criminal who doesn't care about prohibitive laws. I not sure why you would deny MLK the means for protection either, but he was denied and that's the point. And why should you want to deny ANYONE the same protection MLK deserved, is the point of these protests.
DeleteNo life is any less important than yours, no matter the standing one has in society. The ones that deserve to forfeit their lives are the ones that use their life to the detriment of others wrongly.
It took you more than a week to come up with that distortion? The issue was did MLK make guns a statement of his movement, which he did not. How fucking stupid are you?
Delete