WA Gun Rights

As our nation goes down a path of passing gun control legislation, we have to stop and wonder if our representatives even understand what they are talking about.  So the question that gun owners are asking today is “Do these representatives even know what they are talking about?”

The answer to that is dubious right now, with with the comments of Rep. Diana DeGette at a meeting in Denver, CO. While participating in a Denver Post forum on gun control she began talking about how magazines are bullets and will decrease in numbers as people shoot them.  The video can be found here.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette is drawing national ridicule for an inaccurate statement she made Tuesday about magazines (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets,” She said.

She continuing that statement with “ the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, she number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

The comments she made drew a laugh from the audience.

According to Juliet Johnson, the spokesperson for Rep. DeGette, the congresswoman “misspoke.” She also told the Denver Post that “The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,”

So which is it? Clips can be reused as well, so they are not going to disappear as they are used.  So even with the correction that was issued from her office, the correction is also wrong.  So some are saying that it can be definitively state that Rep. DeGette has absolutely no idea what she is talking about when it comes to ammunition feeding devices for firearms.

When Rep. DeGette introduced a bill earlier this year to ban so called high capacity magazines.  Rep. DeGette makes the claim that what she calls high capacity magazines “have enabled high numbers of casualties in almost every recent mass shooting in American history.”

What her statement shows is the complete lack of knowledge about firearms, their parts and how they function.  Yet Rep. DeGette feels that she is qualified to try to pass legislation about something that she doesn’t even understand. Many online forums, from second amendment to hunting forums are discussing this very topic online right now.

Many are beginning to ask what else our elected officials have worked on, or passed in the way of restrictions without knowing anything about the topic.  Earlier this year there was general outrage over the warrantless search portion of the ban on so called “assault weapons.”  Senators Kine and Kohl-Welles claimed they didn’t even know that there was a provision in the bill that would allow law enforcement to come into your home to inspect your assault weapons without a warrant, or cause.

“I frankly should have vetted this more closely.” Senator Kohl-Welles told Danny Westneat for this article in the Seattle Times.  Even though Sen. Kohl-Welles sponsored the same bill, with the same language three other times in the past.

When we are subject to laws that lawmakers pass “on our behalf.” I one would venture a guess that they would either research the topic themselves, or have a staffer that does some research, and gives them relevant information.  But more often we are seeing that the opposite is true, especially with gun control.  Our elected officials have no idea what they are talking about, and yet we, the citizens, are the ones that will lose in the end.

Coverage of the tragedy unfolding in Aurora, CO as soon as can get to a computer. Follow me on twitter for coverage until then. http://twitter.com/wagunrights

I thought that I posed this a while back… But when I went to look for it tonight I found that it is not posted here.

So here it is…  There is an audio file after the description for your listening pleasure…

February 10, 2012 I was detained in my local Walmart after going to pick up my prescription that were ready. I walked in, past an officer that in their car and already there talking to someone else about something else on my way into the store.  I went in to the pharmacy, stood in line, sat down for a few while they finished up something. Then I checked out, and left the store. No one said anything, no one went running, I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary.  When I walked out there was an officer pulling up and getting out of his car. I took note and kept walking to my car. Then I heard this guy screaming “OFFICER! OFFICER! Over there!” He was pointing in my direction. I started my recorder and waited for contact because I didn’t want the officer to be able to use my plates against me, so I choose to stay away from my car.  Which is also why I choose to not “walk and talk” as suggested…

Click play and it will play the audio file of the encounter.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

One thing that the anti-gun movement seems to be pushing for on all fronts recently is the removal of state preemption (RCW 9.41.290). So let’s take a moment and take a look at what removal of state preemption would actually mean for the average law-abiding gun owner. First we must understand what state preemption is, and what it does for everyone in the state that is legally carrying a firearm.

No guns signs could crop up in a town near you…

State preemption was designed so that all the laws in the state regarding the carry of firearms were exactly the same from border to border. The intent behind the state preemption statute was to do away with a patchwork of gun laws across the state that it law-abiding gun owner would have to navigate through if they were traveling anywhere within the state. So what does this look like for the average gun owner? It looks like a patchwork of gun laws that would be nearly impossible to keep up with and to be able to follow each law and keep up with the laws of each city that you travel through on a daily basis.

Imagine trying to take a trip from Seattle to Ellensburg, you would pass through six different cities and two counties. Now imagine that you wanted to carry your firearm with you and make sure you stay within the law. Imagine having to research and understand the eight different statues just to make the two-hour drive from Seattle to Ellensburg. What you could also end up running into is local cities with a complete ban on handguns like San Francisco passed in 2005. This would mean that you would need to detour completely around that city, possibly adding hours to your trip just to comply with the law.

What this creates is a hardship on the average citizen that wishes to comply with the law. It does nothing to deter a criminal from using a gun. We already have state laws on the books that cover illegal use of a firearm; we also have statutes the cover unlawful carrying or handling of firearms. So how any municipality thinks that creating more laws is going to have a significant impact on gun crimes is beyond comprehension. Handgun bans have been proven to not be effective in actually cause’s violent crime rates to go up.

Looking at San Francisco’s crime data in 2006 there were 86 homicides in the city. That was one year after Proposition H was passed by voters banning all private handgun ownership within the city of San Francisco. In 2008 the ban was repealed by the courts affirming the rights of the citizens. In 2009 a year after the ban was struck down homicides were down by nearly half. While that evidence appears to be anecdotal; it also goes to show that there is a correlation between banning firearms out rights and crime rates. In 2003 and 2004 the two years prior to Proposition H homicide rates in the city of San Francisco were 69 and 88, respectively. In 2005 is when the rate spiked and there was 96 homicides that year, the high rate of homicides is maintained for all three years but the handgun ban was in place. Only dropping off when the courts repealed the handgun ban.

What we need to look at is enforcing the laws that we have on the on the books already, and not making more restrictive laws. Whether it is federal law, state law or even local ordinances the police and prosecutors need to enforce the law to the best of their ability. They need to stop allowing people to enter into plea agreements in order to keep their conviction rates up. Many times criminals are allowed to plead guilty to lesser crimes for reduced sentences. If a change in gun violence is the answer we are looking for, then we need to ask the right questions and work within the laws that we already have.

Rahwa Habte engaging in mock violence.

Recently the Town Hall Seattle held a public safety meeting with Seattle city leaders as the panel. On the panel was a young woman by the name of Rahwa Habte, and organizer for OneAmerica. OneAmerica is an immigrant empowerment group, and self-promotes being the largest immigrant rights group in Washington State. Rahwa Habte spent her time in the panel that night denouncing violence, all forms of violence.

So it would seem shocking to find a picture of her and someone with the twitter handle @selutitu mock sword fighting, and pretending to kill someone with a sword. This is rather shocking to find posted by someone claiming to denounce all violence. On her biography on her organizations website it states that “Rahwa has led, taken part in and supported numerous campaigns, actions and grassroots efforts to…end violence in all its forms.”

This seems to highlight the amount of hypocrisy that the anti-gun movement is willing to partake in. What is sad about this photo it that it glorifies violence, and make a mockery of people that have been killed. While some might claim that sword violence is not prevalent. A quick search reveals a several stories, such as actor Michael Brea killing his mother with a sword and a landlord that killed his tenant with a sword. So is this just harmless fun, or is it a troubling that someone against violence would think this is ok behavior to engage in? Or is this troubling behavior for someone who is looked up to in their community for answers? We already know it is deplorable behavior for someone that is such a “community leader” against violence.

An email has been sent to OneAmerica for their comments on their organizer’s behavior. As of this writing no reply has been received and the photos is still posted to her twitter account here.