My good friend Josh Feit at The Stranger reports today
Given that the Capitol Hill murders and the Jewish Federation shootings rocked Seattle last year, and came back to haunt us in all the local Year in Review wrap ups, it shouldn't be surprising that one bill in play is legislation to close the gun show loophole.Feit later acknowledges in the comments that:
I do not believe either Haq or Huff got the guns by exploiting the gun show loophole.I don't know whether or not there are any better arguments for closing the "gun show loophole", but it's not a good sign when somebody leads with a non sequitur.
Andrew's Dad recently wrote about the "gun show loophole" and about Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, the driving force behind the proposed legislation.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 03, 2007 04:52 PM | Email ThisKerlikowske and political expediency for gun control is just a fashionable knee-jerk.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 3, 2007 05:12 PMIf dis law gets passed, come see me at de $600,000 toilet by Pikes Place Market, I knows a guy who can get yous what ever yous need in the way of "personal protection."
Forgetaboutit
It's not the Gun stupid....Hello in there....Knock Knock!
Posted by: GS on January 3, 2007 05:18 PMI would prefer that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske direct his efforts toward auto thefts, break ins, and other crime here in Seattle.
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on January 3, 2007 05:27 PMYou see, the majority of the public know little to nothing about guns, their rights or how they are a necessity of life for many of those that have them, but they usually vote against guns. With the majority being afraid, they think that if they outlaw guns, it will be a whole lot safer for everyone. Think about where the highest death rate from gun killings in this nation is?it?s Washington DC, our wonderful capital that outlaws guns.
What will make you feel safer in this world? Does having to wait 10 or more minutes for the police to arrive at your home make you safer? Or is having the ability to stop the perpetrator(s) within the first 10-60 seconds more important to you? Personally, I prefer the latter.
Also remember that guns don?t kill, criminals do. When your guns are gone, who will always have guns? The criminals will and you won?t have any means to defend yourself or your families!
Now think about how many people that cars kill?and we haven?t outlawed them.
Dan B
_______________________________________________________________________
Washington's Anti-Gun Lobby Both Disingenuous and Inventive
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?9050aa68-88ac-4b85-9ca8-fbc1c93f61f7
Washington's Anti-Gun Lobby Both Disingenuous and Inventive
By Joe Waldron, 12/30/2006 12:01:13 AM
Remembering victims of violent crime is a commendable gesture, so long as it doesn't become a publicity stunt.
Deplorably, that?s what the organizers of this years annual bulb planting at Green Lake Park did recently, with questionable statistics and one outright fabrication.
Washington CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli used the event to lament the 600 victims of gun violence in Washington State during the past year. He also engaged in some fear mongering about .50-caliber rifles, and a mythical gun show loophole for which gun control extremists have blamed everything but the sinking of the Lusitania.
First, define gun violence. Six hundred people did not die in Washington during the past year as a result of robberies, domestic disputes, gang shootings or outright murder. About 75 percent of the people whom CeaseFire considers victims of gun violence were suicides. For a number of reasons, the Evergreen State suffers from a suicide rate above the national average, while the homicide rate is well below the national average. Others were accident victims.
Remarkably, many people who advocate assisted suicide draw the political line when the act involves a firearm. On the nonsense scale, that equals support of a woman?s right to choose abortion, while opposing that same woman?s right to purchase and carry a gun with which to defend herself and her children against an abusive ex-husband, former boyfriend or random stalker.
Is a thug shot and killed by police or a private citizen also one of CeaseFires victims of gun violence? Fascitellis inflated gun violence victims statistic includes death by legal intervention (i.e. self-defense shootings and other justifiable homicides).
The panacea to end all this gun violence invariably centers on banning .50-caliber rifles and closing non-existent gun show loopholes. Two high-profile Seattle shootings this year, the Capitol Hill massacre in March and Julys shooting at the Jewish Federation, have fueled the debate.
In neither case did the gunman get his firearms from a gun show. Accused Jewish Center gunman Naveed Haq bought his handguns at retail in the Tri-Cities area after passing a background check and going through the states mandatory waiting period. Deceased gunman Kyle Huff brought his firearms from Montana, where they were bought at retail gun shops. There is no evidence suggesting that either man ever set foot in a gun show, here or anywhere else.
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske also wants to lobby against gun shows, as if that might be where his stolen 9mm Glock will one day show up for sale, no questions asked.
Teen gang bangers don?t get their firearms from gun shops, gun shows or any other legitimate source. So one must ask why CeaseFire is so obsessed with putting gun shows essentially out of business. According to a Justice Department survey of convicted armed criminals, less than one percent of these people got their guns from a gun show.
That fact is deliberately ignored, while on another level the debate over .50-caliber rifles fact has been discarded by Fascitelli. Quoted by a Seattle newspaper, he asserted that someone could buy a .50-caliber assault weapon with titanium bullets powerful enough to bring down an airliner.
There?s no such thing as a titanium bullet for the .50-caliber rifle, or any other firearm. Sounds sinister, but they don?t exist. The only titanium bullet I know of is a ball point pen. Besides, there has never been a jetliner shot down with a .50-caliber rifle.
To his credit, Kerlikowske did point to one possible explanation for a rise in crime during the past year: The release of a large number of prison inmates who have finished their sentences. But Kerlikowske knows there are already ample federal and state laws against felons owning or possessing firearms. We do not need more laws that only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to address that problem.
Nobody condones firearm crime, most assuredly not the million-plus citizens in this state who own guns, and the 240,000 who are legally licensed to carry concealed handguns for their own protection.
Laws supported by the likes of Washington CeaseFire would ultimately disarm honest citizens, while doing nothing to keep armed criminals off the streets. Its time to ask these people just whose side they?re on.
Joe Waldron is executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Bellevue (www.ccrkba.org) and president of the Washington Arms Collectors.
You see, the majority of the public know little to nothing about guns, their rights or how they are a necessity of life for many of those that have them, but they usually vote against guns. With the majority being afraid, they think that if they outlaw guns, it will be a whole lot safer for everyone. Think about where the highest death rate from gun killings in this nation is?it?s Washington DC, our wonderful capital that outlaws guns.
What will make you feel safer in this world? Does having to wait 10 or more minutes for the police to arrive at your home make you safer? Or is having the ability to stop the perpetrator(s) within the first 10-60 seconds more important to you? Personally, I prefer the latter.
Also remember that guns don?t kill, criminals do. When your guns are gone, who will always have guns? The criminals will and you won?t have any means to defend yourself or your families!
Now think about how many people that cars kill?and we haven?t outlawed them.
Dan B
_______________________________________________________________________
Washington's Anti-Gun Lobby Both Disingenuous and Inventive
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?9050aa68-88ac-4b85-9ca8-fbc1c93f61f7
Washington's Anti-Gun Lobby Both Disingenuous and Inventive
By Joe Waldron, 12/30/2006 12:01:13 AM
Remembering victims of violent crime is a commendable gesture, so long as it doesn't become a publicity stunt.
Deplorably, that?s what the organizers of this years annual bulb planting at Green Lake Park did recently, with questionable statistics and one outright fabrication.
Washington CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli used the event to lament the 600 victims of gun violence in Washington State during the past year. He also engaged in some fear mongering about .50-caliber rifles, and a mythical gun show loophole for which gun control extremists have blamed everything but the sinking of the Lusitania.
First, define gun violence. Six hundred people did not die in Washington during the past year as a result of robberies, domestic disputes, gang shootings or outright murder. About 75 percent of the people whom CeaseFire considers victims of gun violence were suicides. For a number of reasons, the Evergreen State suffers from a suicide rate above the national average, while the homicide rate is well below the national average. Others were accident victims.
Remarkably, many people who advocate assisted suicide draw the political line when the act involves a firearm. On the nonsense scale, that equals support of a woman?s right to choose abortion, while opposing that same woman?s right to purchase and carry a gun with which to defend herself and her children against an abusive ex-husband, former boyfriend or random stalker.
Is a thug shot and killed by police or a private citizen also one of CeaseFires victims of gun violence? Fascitellis inflated gun violence victims statistic includes death by legal intervention (i.e. self-defense shootings and other justifiable homicides).
The panacea to end all this gun violence invariably centers on banning .50-caliber rifles and closing non-existent gun show loopholes. Two high-profile Seattle shootings this year, the Capitol Hill massacre in March and Julys shooting at the Jewish Federation, have fueled the debate.
In neither case did the gunman get his firearms from a gun show. Accused Jewish Center gunman Naveed Haq bought his handguns at retail in the Tri-Cities area after passing a background check and going through the states mandatory waiting period. Deceased gunman Kyle Huff brought his firearms from Montana, where they were bought at retail gun shops. There is no evidence suggesting that either man ever set foot in a gun show, here or anywhere else.
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske also wants to lobby against gun shows, as if that might be where his stolen 9mm Glock will one day show up for sale, no questions asked.
Teen gang bangers don?t get their firearms from gun shops, gun shows or any other legitimate source. So one must ask why CeaseFire is so obsessed with putting gun shows essentially out of business. According to a Justice Department survey of convicted armed criminals, less than one percent of these people got their guns from a gun show.
That fact is deliberately ignored, while on another level the debate over .50-caliber rifles fact has been discarded by Fascitelli. Quoted by a Seattle newspaper, he asserted that someone could buy a .50-caliber assault weapon with titanium bullets powerful enough to bring down an airliner.
There?s no such thing as a titanium bullet for the .50-caliber rifle, or any other firearm. Sounds sinister, but they don?t exist. The only titanium bullet I know of is a ball point pen. Besides, there has never been a jetliner shot down with a .50-caliber rifle.
To his credit, Kerlikowske did point to one possible explanation for a rise in crime during the past year: The release of a large number of prison inmates who have finished their sentences. But Kerlikowske knows there are already ample federal and state laws against felons owning or possessing firearms. We do not need more laws that only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to address that problem.
Nobody condones firearm crime, most assuredly not the million-plus citizens in this state who own guns, and the 240,000 who are legally licensed to carry concealed handguns for their own protection.
Laws supported by the likes of Washington CeaseFire would ultimately disarm honest citizens, while doing nothing to keep armed criminals off the streets. Its time to ask these people just whose side they?re on.
Joe Waldron is executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Bellevue (www.ccrkba.org) and president of the Washington Arms Collectors.
That is it, a private citizen selling his personal property, a gun, to another private citizen while at a gun show. If they leave the show and cross the street to complete the transaction, that is no longer the gun show loophole.
Here is the best explanation:
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/loophole.html
U.S. Constituotion, Second Amendment:
Amendment II: Right to bear arms
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.
State of Washington Constitution, Article 1, Section 24:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
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.
Kerlikowske's personal actions in handling guns haven't supported his ambitious intentions.
For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place, Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
Posted by: AndrewsDad on January 3, 2007 07:23 PMIf CFW really wanted to do help pass a law that might actually have an impact, they'd support something along the lines of Florida's 10/20/Life sentence enhancement law.
Possess a gun while committing a crime: +10 years
Fire a gun while committing a crime: +20 years
Shoot someone while committing a crime: Life in prison.
It wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns, probably wouldn't stop them from using them, but it would sure keep the convicted ones out of circulation a lot longer.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on January 3, 2007 08:01 PMTHERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!
THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!
THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!
And now:
The laws governing selling of guns are
EXACTLY THE SAME at gun shows
as they are everywhere else!
The laws governing selling of guns are
EXACTLY THE SAME at gun shows
as they are everywhere else!
The laws governing selling of guns are
EXACTLY THE SAME at gun shows
as they are everywhere else!
No charge for this brief educational moment. :-)
Are you saying that Washington state law has no firearm enhancements at all? (Genuine quesion, I don't know the answer myself.)
This is a loser, Dems. Stop now.
Posted by: DJ on January 3, 2007 09:56 PMMaybe it is the same 2%???
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no
safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Posted by: Hinton on January 3, 2007 11:42 PMAssuming that when the constitution was written, the word militia was used consistently this would refer to the National Guard or police departments. The reference to 'the people' means not under federal juristiction. This is distinct from citizens, which are not mentioned, just militia. Even Judge Bork acknowledged this.
Also, within the normal construct of a sentence, the context of the sentence is set at the beginning - "Well regulated...", which, of course, the National Guard and Police are.
The amendment also does not specify for what purpose or what type of arms are permitted, meaning that there are no restrictions. I therefore should be able to have flame-throwers, tanks, or nuclear devices, which I think most people would find unreasonable. The 'Well regulated...' portion controls that.
All this being said, is a different issue of whether guns should or should not be legal (ie legislated).
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 4, 2007 08:09 AMDoes this mean that we had a national guard when the Amendment was written? That certainly is news as the "National Guard" did not even come into existence until quite some time later after the Amendment was written. Police have nothing to do with the federal government and when the Amendment was written there was no federal police force.
Can you point out ANY other Amendments that guarantee anything except personal rights reserved to the people?
Your rewriting history to make your points just as many liberals do.
The second Amendment is an individual right just like all of the other amendments.
Posted by: Cliff on January 4, 2007 08:49 AMBut even without that, you failed to address the more plain wording of the State Constitution:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired,...
How many laws do we have that actually impair The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself?
What about just enforcing the laws that are out there NOW?
Passing these assinine laws is a way for a pol to "be seen to be doing something".
Worse, it disarms the citizens who are most likely to be law abiding in the first place. The crims will never obey these laws by definition.
The pols want the citizenry disarmed, they know they are becoming more and more the lords and masters of a new feudal society and once there is no check or balance on them, they can force their will with absolutely no consequence to themselves since they control the men with guns (cops, etc.).
I thought the left/dims/liberals had learned this lesson, but I suppose I should not me surprised [spit].
Posted by: fox3 on January 4, 2007 09:20 AMThe 10th amendment is also a generic right as opposed to a personal right. I also did not say that the people do not have a right to form well regulated militias. You do not seem to object to the well regulated portion as that was not disputed in your response.
The point is that these malitia (police) have nothing to do with the federal government, and the 2nd amendment protects the people of the states from the federal government being able to prevent these malitia being armed. The states did/do not want the federal government to have too much power, which is also the point of the 10th amendment. The states being armed was seen as a way to protect the states from an oppressive federal government, as the monarchy was imposing at the time.
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Read Amar's stuff. It's pretty persuasive. Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind.
Posted by: DJ on January 4, 2007 09:41 AMAnd as far as the latest law, I agree that adding yet another law is absurd. It is the politicians' ploy of attempting to show activity and concern. I would think that it would be better to repeal all gun laws all together and replace them with a consistent single point of reference law, which would include the law of banning certain felons from possessing firearms.
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 4, 2007 09:51 AMThe U.S. Constitution consistently throughout refers to 3 different entities.
1. The United States Government or it's constituant parts.
2. The states
3. The people.
Everywhere throughout the constitution, it recognizes the United States and the states to have POWERS. Only the people have RIGHTS.
The phrase "the right of the people" is used in 3 of the 10 amendments comprising the bill of rights. The first amendment refers to the "right of the people peaceably to assemble". The second amendment refers to the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". The fourth amendment refers to the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures".
You can't define that phrase to mean one thing in one place and something else everywhere else. Only in the forth amendment is the right of the people limited by reasonableness.
If the second amendment meant what refisionists would tell you if would have been worded something like the following:
"Congress shall pass no law restricting the power of the states to maintain a malitia".
Posted by: RBW on January 4, 2007 10:02 AMSadly, some people don't see it this way.
Also: THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE!
Posted by: Jack Burton on January 4, 2007 10:05 AMThere is also a fourth entity mentioned more than once, and that is a militia. Can someone explain what the context of the sentence refers to - "A well regulated Militia"? Where does the regulation come in, and who is the militia. If you say we all are, then there are no citizens and we are all fair game in any conflict, which I doubt was the intent.
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 4, 2007 10:23 AMAt the time of the writing of the constitution the militia was defined as all able bodied men between the ages of something like 18 and 45. The term "well regulated" actually meant well trained in the vernacular of the time, not restricted by regulations as we now understand it. In order to illustrate the concept of the framers intent, let me re-phrase part of the first amendment into the language of the second amendment.
"A well educated electorate being being necessary to the operation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed"
From that would you argue that only a collective of registered voters with at least a high school diploma have a right to keep and read books? That is a well educated electorate.
I believe that the militia law is still in the U.S. Code but I'd have to do a little research to search it out for you.
There are many writings by the framers of the constitution such as the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers that clearly indicate that they intended each citizen to have a right to personal firearms. I'll leave you with one quote.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- - Cesare Beccaria (Quoted by Thomas Jefferson)
Of course you will defend him for that because he is a Republican so you have to support him regardless of how poorly he might perform in office.
No wonder Republicans saw the results they did in 2006.
Posted by: Fred on January 4, 2007 11:07 AMThis article by Amar should give you a flavor of the debate over the Second Amendment and of his interpretation of how the 14th Amendment matters:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/articles/lcp65dSpring2002p103.htm
Granted, Prof. Amar doesn't think there's anything constitutionally wrong with reasonable restrictions on gun rights. But he can't deny that our Constitution's authors intended to protect gun ownership as a fundamental right.
Posted by: DJ on January 4, 2007 12:09 PM(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
b) The classes of the militia are --
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Many of the states at the time of the Ratification had similar language in their state militia laws. In most of these states, the citizen/militiaman was expected to provide his own rifle and equipment, and to be present for drills (training), with said rifle and equipment, as specified by law, generally once a year.
Now, that translates to the 2A barring the Fedgov from stopping citizens from having arms consistent with militia use-i.e., military small arms. (As an aside, this means that ownership of weapons like M16s and AK-47s-military rifles-are protected, while double barrel bird hunting shotguns might not be.) This, logically, should be one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" which Sec 1 of the 14th Amendment bars states from abridging. (SCOTUS has held that this applies to all other amendments, but has avoided ruling on the Second in this area, at least since Cruikshank. Having it apply to every amendment except the Second would seem highly illogical.)
But I think SouthernRoots has it right that the state constitution's RKBA clause would be the first restriction on any such laws. Why involve the Feds if you don't have to?
Second Amendment info:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
Militia Act text:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC34
It "allows" nothing, it is as in all amendments reserving specific rights to the people. At the time the Amendment was added the people were the militia.....and still are constitutionally.
Right said Fred stated:
"The 10th amendment is also a generic right as opposed to a personal right."
So...."or to the people" is not an individual right?
Right said Fred stated:
"I also did not say that the people do not have a right to form well regulated militias. You do not seem to object to the well regulated portion as that was not disputed in your response."
It is to allow for "a well regulated militia" this militia consisting of people for who the rights were reserved for.
You cannot take away what was the intent made at the time of the writing of these amendments by introducing things that came much later in our history. At the time of writing of the 2nd Amendment we had an army of the people, our only standing army the continental army was less than 10 years old at the acceptance of the bill of rights, we had no national guard and many areas of the country were literally frontier with no police force whatsoever. The concept that the second Amendment is speaking of a national guard or other organized sanctioned militia instead of to the real militia, the people, is a ludicrous concept that is a figment of the liberal conciousness.
Right said Fred stated:
"The point is that these malitia (police) have nothing to do with the federal government, and the 2nd amendment protects the people of the states from the federal government being able to prevent these malitia being armed."
Exactly. But that still does not mean that the right reserved is for state militia or national guard. It is a right reserved to the people. Unless maybe you are reading a different constitution?
Posted by: Cliff on January 4, 2007 01:39 PM