WA Anti-Gunners Reveal Plans

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave Workman

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
423
Location
Washington state
We in the Evergreen State are going to have an interesting Leg. session in January.


http://www.jew-ish.com/index.php?/stories/item/763


Limelight: Washington Ceasefire
Re-calibrating gun control
font size:


By Daniel Levisohn
This upcoming weekend, employees of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle will quietly commemorate the one-year anniversary of the shooting at its downtown office building.

For Seattle’s Jewish community, July 28, 2006 was a traumatizing introduction to gun violence, both in the scale of the attack and in the alleged shooter’s anti-Semitic motivations. But, even as the shooting was premeditated with the goal of killing Jews, looking back it is also clear the event created waves outside of the Jewish community. For starters, several of the women shot that day were not Jewish, but had intertwined their lives with Jewish causes. Many non-Jewish organizations also came to the Federation’s aid. In a year scarred again and again by the indiscriminate murder of innocent people at the hands of men with guns, the shooting linked Seattle’s Jews to other victimized communities. From the Capitol Hill Massacre to the murder of young Amish schoolchildren to the rampage at Virginia Tech, America’s senseless tolerance of guns was on full display. Taken together, the bloodbaths should have provided a timeline of evidence that our nation’s gun laws need to change — fast.

Sadly, transforming the United States of American is a process that is often frustratingly slow. In Washington State, a hope emerged that an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature might actually make guns more difficult for dangerous people to acquire by passing a plug to the gun-show loophole — a hope driven by so much common sense, it is almost comical that such a law was not passed and remains a political dream.

Washington Ceasefire is the organization that should be leading the effort to tighten Washington’s gun laws, but in the last few years its own leadership says it has “struggled in the wilderness.” But at a fundraiser on Tuesday, July 17 at the Big Picture, they made a show of beginning to change that. They’ve brought in a new board and a new executive director, Kristen Comer, a young lawyer originally from Spokane who has worked on the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. They’ve also taken the first steps to revamp their strategy. Comer said that within five years we will see a reduction in the number of firearm deaths in Washington.

Jew-ish spoke with Comer a few days before the fundraiser.



Jew-ish: A lot of people thought that in 2007 the legislature might actually get something done about gun violence. Can you talk a bit about what happened?
K.C.: I think last year it was traditionally the things that make it difficult. A lot of the time there is not enough political will. The people in the legislature are concerned their constituencies will be upset with them if they enact certain types of gun-control measures, and oftentimes on the other side of the issue their voices are much louder than those who are on our side of the issue.
But I think the tide is changing specifically after the shooting at Virginia Tech. People are realizing there are many loopholes in our laws right now and there are many ways to prevent senseless acts of violence.

Jew-ish: How active was Jewish community on this issue?

K.C.: We certainly worked quite a bit with the Seattle chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women. When we had our committee hearing for the gun-show loophole legislation, I know there were many members of the Jewish community who came to Olympia and showed their support for the legislation. I know it’s also still on the radar screen of the Jewish community as an issue that is important and as an issue to address.

Jew-ish: Is Washington Ceasefire changing its plans for this upcoming year?

K.C.: We are trying to recalibrate the organization right now because we are in the middle of a change. Our organization going forward is going to have a foundation based upon three different organizational categories: One is a legal component. That will include any sort of legal research to better define what sort of legislation would pass muster and be least likely to be challenged constitutionally in Washington State. We are doing our homework on that front. We are also doing legal research into policy areas we think might be successful that we haven’t considered before. For example, we are looking at how we might influence policy not only at the state level but on a local level as well. In Seattle or Spokane or wherever it might be.

Jew-ish: Is there more leeway to work locally?

K.C.: That’s part of what we are looking at right now. We have created a legal committee that is staffed with several talented attorneys and we have them doing research right now to figure out what our best alternatives will be.

One of the other prongs is the legislative portion. That is really undefined right now. I think we will probably try to close the gun-show loophole again. But our legislative agenda isn’t set yet for next year. We are going to be meeting with some of our allies in the legislator over the next couple of months to better define what our goals will be is ’08 and ’09 after the elections have occurred.

The third part is our learnedness component, and that’s just getting back to the facts. We know the facts are in our favor. We know that in the United Sates we have the weakest gun laws and the highest rates of gun ownership, and we also have the highest rate of gun violence of any industrialized nation. And we know we can change that. We are going to look at the facts, and try to take the issue into a more credible arena: this is what we know, and this is why gun violence is important to you as an individual person.

Jew-ish: Has Washington Ceasefire focused on the gun-show loophole because the organization feels it is politically achievable or because it thinks it would have a big impact?

K.C.: I was not here when the organization set that as its primary legislative ambition. So I can’t speak as to why that specific policy choice was chosen over many others. But what I do know is that on the face of it seems like a very sensible regulation. If you are purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer and you have to undergo a background check, the same should be true when you are purchasing firearms at a gun show. There are many loopholes. It is just one in the many loopholes we have when enforcing the laws.

Jew-ish: Is there evidence that a significant portion of firearm violence comes through the gun-show loophole?

K.C.: The facts are very, very mixed and that is part of what we are pushing for this learnedness component of our new mission going forward. I know the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] put out a study a few years ago that showed that a significant portion of gun purchases at gun shows turn up later in crimes. It’s an easy way for people who can’t buy guns to show up and buy guns without a check.

Jew-ish: Is there anything else you want to tell our readers?

K.C.: We feel there is a lot of really good momentum going in our direction and we think in the next couple of years this issue is going to change. We think that Virginia Tech was shocking to people and rightfully so. And [the House of Representatives] just passed its first major peace of what people are calling gun-control legislation last month. It was the first bill they passed in probably 10 years, since the assault weapons ban, so actually 13 years. So that’s very encouraging. We feel that that sort of momentum will trickle down to the state and local level. And we have a strong mayor and police chief who really believe in our cause, too.
 
This portion particularly annoys me:
Jew-ish: Is there evidence that a significant portion of firearm violence comes through the gun-show loophole?

K.C.: The facts are very, very mixed and that is part of what we are pushing for this learnedness component of our new mission going forward. I know the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] put out a study a few years ago that showed that a significant portion of gun purchases at gun shows turn up later in crimes. It’s an easy way for people who can’t buy guns to show up and buy guns without a check.
... inasmuch as at the only real gunshows in Washington -- the Washington Arms Collectors shows -- you must be a member, having to undergo the NCIC and possess a WA CPL -- to buy/sell firearms at the shows ...

It's pathetic that this person (and she's the group's new executive director?)requires so much additional education on how things work in this state. Of course, she is an attorney ...
 
The gunshows I've been to in Spokane are a joke, old hunting rifles or totally overpriced romanian AK's etcetera...

Still I have no problem with people running gun shows, and I do not think that anyone should infringe on anyones ability to sell or buy at a gun show... I just don't purchase at them myself.

We don't need anymore laws, we need enforcement of existing laws...
 
Misguided fools. Their entrenched "progressive" beliefs make them unable to look at the facts clearly. You can't stop the random "Cho event" without creating an oppressive police state. You can, however, reduce violence by focusing on criminal control rather than gun control, something that seems to be beyond the ken of these types, maybe because it would mean stepping into politically incorrect waters.
 
Is there evidence that a significant portion of firearm violence comes through the gun-show loophole?

What a stupid, misleading question! No matter how you answer it, you must agree that you can buy violence!

My work on this thread is done.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

...such as the creation of the "gun-free, unfettered-access-to-victims" zones that supposed "gun control" laws do in fact create. Infringe a right and that is what you get.
 
:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::D
Really interesting how the PC twists this issue.
As as Christian and a proud zionist (supporter of the state of Israel and its existence). , if Jews have not learned the lessons of history when it comes to dissarmament, then we are all in trouble. :scrutiny:
but then again, most of the sheeple, regardless of religioous affiliation, don't know much about American history and the Constitution.
so really, the answer to these types of events is always the same.
" guns are evil, blame these events on inanimate objects, take personal responsibility out of the equation. " As Sigmund Freud so nicely said.
"Fear of inanimate objects is a form of dementia".
 
Blame it on inanimate objects because if you really looked at the facts you'd have to challenge your own ingrained beliefs and speak some uncomfortable truths about values and culture in America.
 
I'm guessing that if the school-shooters and the Jewish Center shooters couldn't get guns, they would resort to bombs and possibly kill many more people.
 
Silver Bullet said:
I'm guessing that if the school-shooters and the Jewish Center shooters couldn't get guns, they would resort to bombs and possibly kill many more people.

Should the lefties finally manage to ban all civillian guns, they will immediately move on to banning household chemicals and restricting the availability of fertilizers. The banning never stops.

I bet that if you travel forward in time, about one or two hundred years should do, you will find the lefties of the future crying their hearts out about why the right wing lunatics of the future wont agree to rectrict the access to screwdrivers and can openers, as they are convinced that many lives could be saved that way.

Stupidity is the basic human condition.
 
they can look at changing laws at the local level all they want, but you'd think that since this lady in an attorney, she would know the meaning of the word "PREEMTION".

bills like "assault weapons" bans, .50 cal bans etc are always introduced every year. they never get anywhere. they usually don't even make it out of committee bucause its known that there just isn't the support to pass them. there's always a gung-ho Dem that makes the token effort every year anyway.

in this state at least, Ceasefire is no threat.

Bobby
 
from our WA 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, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. "

"shall not be impaired"!!!!!
 
Well, last year they managed to get one of their bills (the gunshow bill, IIRC) routed to the Seattle-dominated Labor & Commerce committee, instead of through the Judiciary committee, whose Dem members are much more rural, where firearms laws usually go.

The good news is that the '08 session is a short session, and that the DemCong leadership, at least, knows gun control is a political loser and try to keep it at arms' length.

Now, some good quotes from one of my favorite blogs, The Smallest Minority:
No gun-control strategy with any chance of surviving the political process would have a significant effect on overall gun violence or crime, (Harvard Law Professor Mark) Tushnet believes. To say so publicly would be the boldest and most honest stand that a major politician or candidate could take, he adds. -Lawyers, Guns, and Money, Harvard Law Review, Summer 2007

Another quote, with no links, from a 1983 study titled Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in Americaby James Wright and Peter Rossi:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare. (3) Most of the firearms involved in crime are cheap Saturday Night Specials, for which no legitimate use or need exists. (4) Many families acquire such a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime. (6) Most of the public also believes this and has favored stricter gun control laws for as long as anyone has asked the question. (7) Only the gun lobby prevents us from embarking on the road to a safer and more civilized society.

The more deeply we have explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. We wonder, first, given the number of firearms presently available in the United States, whether the time to "do something" about them has not long since passed. If we take the highest plausible value for the total number of gun incidents in any given year - 1,000,000 - and the lowest plausible value for the total number of firearms now in private hands - 100,000,000 - we see rather quickly that the guns now owned exceed the annual incident count by a factor of at least 100. This means that the existing stock is adequate to supply all conceivable criminal purposes for at least the entire next century, even if the worldwide manufacture of new guns were halted today and if each presently owned firearm were used criminally once and only once. Short of an outright house-to-house search and seizure mission, just how are we going to achieve some significant reduction in the number of firearms available?
 
They know well enough to stay away... but in staying away, they affected my ability to lawfully posses a firearm for defense.

I've been a lawful, law abiding resident of WA for over 7 years, a legal immigrant.

I currently have Cathy Mc-Morris Rogers office looking into a way for me to get my Alien Firearms License replaced...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top