Seattle gunman had a concealed weapon permit even though his family knew he was mentally troubled

[Cali_Democrat]

SEATTLE - The gunman accused of killing five people in cold blood Wednesday had a concealed weapon permit even though he was becoming noticeably more volatile over time, his father said in an interview with KOMO News.

Walt Stawicki, the father of accused killer Ian Stawicki, says he knew his son was troubled, but there was nothing the family could do to get the concealed carry permit revoked.

"The response to us was, there's nothing we can do, he's not a threat to himself or others, or we haven't had a report of it, or we haven't had to pick him up - call us when its worse," Walt Stawicki said in a Thursday morning interview with KOMO Newsradio.

"And now it's too late - much worse now, six people are dead."

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Family-Seattle-killer-had-a-concealed-weapon-permit-155978205.html

[Booster]

1. I smell a justifiable lawsuit in the works against Seattle. When my 87 yr old mother was diagnosed

with dementia, I emailed the DMV in Texas and told them they should revoke her license. They basically responded with this same thing. Thank God she stopped driving on her own, but I felt it was totally unfair to other motorists who were risking their lives if they happened to be on the same road at the wrong time.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Agreed

The family members of those killed should bring a lawsuit.

[X_Digger]

3. Due process is a bitch, idnit?

If his family thought he was a danger to himself or others, they should have petitioned the court for a psychiatric hold and evaluation.

Short of some due process, government doesn't get to infringe peoples' rights.

[safeinOhio]

6. I don't think that CCWs are considered a right

anymore than a drivers license is by any court in this country. A gun in the home may be, but not a CCW.

[X_Digger]

11. Any other licenses you'd like the government to be able to repeal on a whim?

How about a cop keeping your driver's license.. since it's not a right..
How about a plumber's certification.. since it's not a right..
How about a bar certification.. since it's not a right..

If you want to nit-pick the difference between a liberty and a right, feel free.

"..nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

"..or deprived of his standing in any other way, ..., except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

[opiate69]

14. seriously???

How about a cop keeping your driver's license.. since it's not a right..
How about a plumber's certification.. since it's not a right..
How about a bar certification.. since it's not a right..

(hint: those exact scenarios happen all the time)

[X_Digger]

27. WIth due process, yes..

Or do you think that the state can revoke any of these on a whim?!?

[opiate69]

33. A couple things...

1. I don`t see anyone here (except you) talking about taking a CCWP from anyone without due process.

2. Police routinely confiscate drivers licenses without any due process, usually on suspicion of DUI.

[ellisonz]

34. +1000

[X_Digger]

35. 1. That's what the article in the OP is about..

.. lamenting the fact that the person's license wasn't revoked.

And 2. Police have to have an articulable reason to do so- reasonable suspicion-- a due process burden. Police then have to go before a judge and swear out a warrant charging the person with DUI. At which point, due process is met, and the license is suspended pending adjudication.

Due process, it's what's for dinner.

[opiate69]

37. Wrong again..

The article seemed to be clearly lamenting the fact that there simply was no due process availble to this man`s family. Or at the very least that they did try to go through the proper process but the regulations in place did not allow for revocation of his CCWP. So, since you seem to be so enamored with due process, is it safe to assume you`ll come down in favor of stricter regulations which would prevent mentally unstable citizens from obtaining or keeping a CCWP?

[X_Digger]

44. That's the way I read it..

.. that due process prevented revocation of his license. (And the lamentation of that fact.)

I am a strong defender of due process. People's rights, privileges, licenses, and possessions should be protected from government confiscation / infringement without due process. Because the case where you emotionally agree with the action today will be followed by one you abhor tomorrow.

I am against removing more rights from people who have not been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others. The mentally ill are more often the victim of violent crime than the perpetrator, by a huge margin.

But in your proposed legislation, what would be the standard? A family member just claims that a person is 'mentally unstable'? Obviously it would have to be less than the current standard, otherwise we'd be in the same place. So.. what, get a psychiatrist to claim that a person is mentally unstable? What kind of hearing would take place- something similar to current competency hearings? Gee, we already have various processes in place in states to do just that.

[safeinOhio]

16. So, a blind man has the right to a

CCW and a drivers license?

In most states a cop can take your driver's license on the spot if he thinks you have been drinking.

Plumber's certification requires test and training. It can be revoked.


While I will agree that there are rights to owning and keeping a gun in the home. A CCW is issued by a state and it's regulations. They may differ, or not even issue them.

[X_Digger]

28. Yes, licenses can be revoked..

A cop can keep your license pending revocation proceedings. Articulable criteria followed by an administrative process (due process).

How you got from there to a blind man is anybody's guess.

[rustydog]

22. Not too many people are killed with plumbers tools, license or not.

Something has to be done about the explosion of gun violence. I know, I know I know; Guns don't kill people, people kill people...Ya'll need another catchphraseIt is getting old, and so are the huge number of MURDER VICTIMS

[X_Digger]

29. What 'explosion of gun violence' would that be?

You do know that all crime, including gun crime, is down to rates not seen since the 60's, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
[div class='excerpt']The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010
......
Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2009 as in 1968, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1964. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1973, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.

[Ikonoklast]

13. The families of those dead people will be happy to hear this.

Thank Dog mentally ill people have the right to carry a deadly weapon on their person.

The courts will not intervene even after being asked to if the person exhibited no threatening behavior to himself or others, they will only act after the fact.

Families used to ask the courts to hospitalize a family member and get them declared incompetent so that they could get at his assets, so courts nowadays err on the extreme side of caution.

The family can petition all they want, the courts will not even consider it until the ill person acts in some way deemed dangerous.

It is not against the law to be mentally ill in this country.

And they get to buy and carry firearms.

It is a Catch-22 situation.

[X_Digger]

30. So how would you recommend breaking out of that catch-22? (Assuming you would make a change.)

I support both legs of that cycle, even if they occasionally combine to have disastrous results. Without an adjudication or other due process, I wouldn't support removing someone's firearms, driver's license, or other license.

[rustydog]

23. It's a little harder than that buckaroo! In Wa state you can't just run to a judge and have

a family member committed. there is a processyou have to follow in WA, it involves a lot to prevent people being wrongly sent to psych facilities. Although family were concerned, they did make contact and were told the "problem" wasn't serious enough to pull the CCW permit. The father said his son's prsonality changed and he angered easily, but he was never violent (until this horrible fateful day).

Why do people need to "carry" to protect themselves from all the others who feel they need to "carry?"
When does this stupid macho crap stop?

[Swede Atlanta]

4. License to carry a MAN-KILLING weapon should be more than....

signing up for a card at the A&P. The 2nd amendment nuts want you to believe that nothing like the Seattle incident could happen from any of their members. They are wrong. The reality is we lavish praise and honor on those carrying these weapons but want to run away when they do something bad.

It cannot be both ways...own up Sharon Engel for this crime. You perpetuated it. You own it. I suggest you spend 20 years with him every day and night with you. I'm sure he will find plenty of uses for his "weapon" on you.

[slackmaster]

32. Effective use of hyperbole is not your strong suit, Swede Atlanta. Here are the actual requirements

...to get a concealed weapons permit in the state of Washington:

How to get your license: Concealed pistol license
Requirements

You must meet all of the following requirements to get a concealed pistol license (RCW 9.41.070):

Be 21 years of age or older at time of application.
Be a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien with permanent resident card (green card).
Have no pending trial, appeal, or sentencing on a charge that would prohibit you from having a license.
Have no outstanding warrants for any charge, from any court.
Have no court order or injunction against possessing a firearm.
Have never been adjudicated mentally defective or incompetent to manage your own affairs.
Have never been committed to a mental institution.
Have no felony convictions, or adjudications for a felony offense, in this state or elsewhere. “Felony” means any felony offense under the laws of Washington, or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense under the laws of Washington.
Within the past year, haven’t been an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotics, or any other controlled substance.
Haven’t been convicted of 3 or more violations of Washington’s firearms laws within any 5-year period.
Haven’t been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
Aren’t currently subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child, an intimate partner, or the child of an intimate partner.
Have never renounced your United States citizenship.
Have no convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another:
Assault IV
Coercion
Stalking
Reckless Endangerment
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence

The applicant must also pay a non-refundable fee, submit a set of fingerprints to a law enforcement agency, and consent to a background check that can take up to 30 days to complete for a Washington resident.

Source: http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faconcealreq.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Did he have a driver's license even though his family knew he was mentally troubled?

[Cali_Democrat]

8. I don't know

Why don't you ask them.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. If this helps -- rhetorical question, n. - A question to which no answer is expected

[apocalypsehow]

10. Cars, when used as designed, aren't built to murder & maim other human beings. Guns, however...

Thus your phony rhetorical question is diversionary nonsense.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. You misunderstand. And you changed the subject.

Using your logic:
Concealed weapon permits, when used as designed, aren't built to murder & maim other human beings.

Concealed weapon permits are not guns.

[apocalypsehow]

19. I did not misunderstand and, actually, I prevented you from changing the subject by highlighting

the absurdity of that position by counter-example.

But nice try.

You really should work harder at this before you post, and encounter embarrassment.

[apocalypsehow]

7. Yet another "law-abiding gun owner" - right up until the second he wasn't. And a concealed weapons

permit holder! A bonus "law-abider"!

Now, I've been told in the Gungeon time and time and dreary time again that no concealed weapons permit holder anywhere has ever committed a crime ever - that that sort of thing simply doesn't happen. I'm sure this is just an outlier....( )


Edit: typo.

[X_Digger]

9. If you've been told that, perhaps you can quote it..

Or is that just another straw-man that you just demolished?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. More likely than not, just another straw-man.

[apocalypsehow]

21. LOL - more likely than not, just another stroll down tombstone alley, is what we have here.

"Member since: Thu Dec 8, 2011, 03:02 AM
Number of posts: 1,371
Number of posts, last 90 days: 611
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 391 posts in the last 90 days (64% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 27 posts in the last 90 days (4% of total posts)"


You betcha, I reckon.

[Union Scribe]

25. "4% of total posts"

What an obsessed person! 4%!

[apocalypsehow]

20. This is where I miss my friend Iverglas - who would've corrected you on your misunderstanding and

misapplication of the term "straw-man" (Sic) all the while pointing out how you "pro gun progressives" tend to appropriate phrases, terms, logical forms of debate you don't really understand from people/posters you're trying very hard to emulate, in service of your cause.

Actually, that last is something I would tend to point out: your fumbling around with the concept of what an "straw-man" (Sic) is strikes this long-term and honest observer as actually the most poignant tribute to an antagonist not one of your "regulars" in the Gungeon were ever able to best on the facts, or the cogency of her analysis.

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, even if your imitations are pale, weak, and insipid forms of the original intellect that repeatedly bested you all, post after post, for ten long years.

On edit: the cogency of her analysis. Which is an important pronoun to add as I highly suspect that much of the raging and wailing and gnashing of teeth about Iverglas from our "pro gun progressives" were centered in their notions that a little lady's place was at the hearth cooking dinner, not calling out obvious (and some not so obvious, though it would take calipers to make certain) troll's in DU's gun forum.

[Union Scribe]

24. Zed's dead

She's gone, get over it.

[X_Digger]

26. You knocked down a position that nobody actually has endorsed.. classic straw man.

That is, unless you can actually quote *someone* *somewhere* here saying that.

I'll wait.

[apocalypsehow]

36. No, I did not. Here's the text of the original reply:

"Yet another "law-abiding gun owner" - right up until the second he wasn't. And a concealed weapons

View profile

Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 08:12 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
permit holder! A bonus "law-abider"!

Now, I've been told in the Gungeon time and time and dreary time again that no concealed weapons permit holder anywhere has ever committed a crime ever - that that sort of thing simply doesn't happen. I'm sure this is just an outlier...."

No "knocked down...position" of anything anybody has "endorsed," no classic straw man (nice to see you finally learned how to spell it, BTW); not the slightest resemblance to anything you have asserted.

In point of fact, you simply don't know what a straw man is, or how it applies to any given situation. You go right ahead and keep on "waiting" - I'll keep laughing.

[X_Digger]

39. So.. who has told you "no concealed weapons permit holder anywhere has ever committed a crime ever"?

Please, just one post..

Keep laughing, you're only making yourself look foolish.

[apocalypsehow]

41. Uh-huh. In the meantime, keep studying up on logical fallacies you know nothing about.

Perhaps next time you'll actually be able to spot one, as opposed to pretending you have. It helps.

[X_Digger]

46. So.. nada? Zilch? Zero?

Still waiting..

[X_Digger]

52. Just one.. find one person saying..

"no concealed weapons permit holder anywhere has ever committed a crime ever"

[apocalypsehow]

54. "Just one.." Another dodge; more obfuscation. Typical. n/t.

[X_Digger]

59. So you admit your claim was bullshit?

I mean, if you've been told it "time and dreary time again" -- you should be able to provide just once instance.

[apocalypsehow]

38. In the meantime, while we're waiting for you to gather your scattered wits about you, why don't

you address that actual facts of this story: another "law abiding gun owner" kills with an handgun he had a permit to tote around. You seem anxious to avoid talking about the article linked in this OP, thus the diversionary non-sense about a "straw man" that doesn't exist.

Discuss the article, please, not your phantasms grasping at logical fallacies that you can't recognize having, obviously, not the education to do so. Thanks.

[X_Digger]

40. What facts would you like me to address?

That not having been adjudicated mentally defective (the federal standard) or a danger to himself or others (Washington state), the state government could not revoke his permit?

That is as it should be. Governments don't get to abrogate your rights or revoke licenses without due process.

[apocalypsehow]

42. The facts of the story - which you are desperate to avoid doing. Another asshole with a gun,

I mean to say another "law abiding gun owner" with a freakin' permit to tote it around, even, has gone off and committed acts of homicide. He should not have had that gun, or the "right" to carry it. Those are the facts you refuse to address, instead falling back on discussions of logical fallacies you are not educated enough to detect or understand, homilies about "due process" which you are similarly unequipped, intellectually, to understand.

I want a discussion about what anonymous pseudo-scholar "X_Digger" would do about guys with gun permits who wander around killing people - as discussed in the article linked.

Don't change the subject; don't pretend you've spotted logical fallacies somewhere; don't talk to me about "due process; ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND IN THE OP. Nothing else. Talk about what this story is about, in other words. Can you do that? Or is that just a bit too burdensome for your mental processes?

[X_Digger]

45. I discussed the content of the article. If you want to go on a rant about something else..

.. feel free.

It's called being on-topic.

Just a reminder of the OP..

Walt Stawicki, the father of accused killer Ian Stawicki, says he knew his son was troubled, but there was nothing the family could do to get the concealed carry permit revoked.

"The response to us was, there's nothing we can do, he's not a threat to himself or others, or we haven't had a report of it, or we haven't had to pick him up - call us when its worse," Walt Stawicki said in a Thursday morning interview with KOMO Newsradio.

The story is about the father thinking his son was troubled, but not a demonstrated danger to himself or others, and because of that, the state had no grounds to revoke his permit.

[apocalypsehow]

48. No, you did not. Still waiting: five people dead, pistol-toter with a silly "permit" responsible.

The state should not be issuing permits of this kind to civilians period, without extensive mental screening and background checks, and only for occupational cause, like a security guard, conveyor of large amounts of cash, diamonds, etc., etc.

In civilized societies, people don't walk around with pistols perched in their pants without a damn good reason. States that issue such "permits" are catering to barbaric impulses, and a large segment of assholes.

[X_Digger]

50. That's a different topic. Feel free to start an OP.

Nowhere does the article talk about requiring a mental screening or changing the permitting process to only be occupational in nature.

That may be where you want to take it, but that's not the topic of the article in the OP

[apocalypsehow]

51. Oh, good grief - it's PRECISELY the "topic." This is more silly dodging and diversion. Typical. n/t.

[X_Digger]

53. I'll be happy to discuss those issues, in an OP about it.

Feel free to link your new OP here.

[apocalypsehow]

56. No, THIS is the OP about it. You are simply uninterested in grappling with the unpleasant facts of

an OP that highlights the fact that folks shouldn't be allowed to wander around with Phallic Replacement Devices perched in their pants without damn good reasons - and occupational ones, at that. Those facts are irrefutable, so I'm not surprised you are not interested in discussing it.

[X_Digger]

58. No, THIS OP is about the state's inability to revoke a person's license sans due process.

Gentle reminder..

Walt Stawicki, the father of accused killer Ian Stawicki, says he knew his son was troubled, but there was nothing the family could do to get the concealed carry permit revoked.

"The response to us was, there's nothing we can do, he's not a threat to himself or others, or we haven't had a report of it, or we haven't had to pick him up - call us when its worse," Walt Stawicki said in a Thursday morning interview with KOMO Newsradio.

[bongbong]

12. We need MORE guns!

If everybody had lots of guns, this guy could've been stopped!

Remember to arm the fetuses too, to prevent abortions.

[SecurityManager]

31. How many concealed weapon permit owners DO NOT kill people?

I do not just to be clear!

If the father knew his son was troubled there could have been steps taken other than looking to revoke a piece of paper.

Even if he got it revoked the man was obviously disturbed and just the revocation more than likely would have sent him on a spree.

I am not naive enough to think revoking a piece of paper will have the owner toss all his or her weapons.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. I think you are missing the main point here.

The guy should not have been issued a CCW in the first place. The fact that CCW laws are so relaxed nationwide is disturbing.

Sure, of course not everyone who holds a CCW will use it to murder someone. We all know that. But we also know that instances like this blow a huge hole in the argument that gun violence only occurs at the hands of people who have guns illegally, and that no one who legally owns and carries a gun would ever use it except as a very last resort in self-defense.

[slackmaster]

49. Clearly the murders would not have happened if the assailant had never been issued a CCW permit

He would have been AFRAID to carry the gun because he would be taking a risk of getting in TROUBLE.

[joeybee12]

55. Hey, what's a few dead bodies as long as we're free!!!

Free to misinterpret the second amendment, that is, that does not and never was intended to give private citizens absolute right to guns.

[apocalypsehow]

57. Spot-on analysis of the situation. n/t.

[fascisthunter]

60. nobody could have seen something like this coming