victim of jewish center shooting wants tighter gun control

[sgxnk]

the WA state constitution is unambiguous...

"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. "

clear enough...

we live in a democratic republic. any state is free (and most do) to recognize even more extensive and/or less ambiguous rights than the federal constitution does (but contrarily, none can take away any right recognized under the federal constitution).

here is her take... (see below). i sympathize with her being victimized but i would suggest that denying civil rights to WA state residents, that are guaranteed by the WA state constitutional is both unconstitutional and not a solution.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44989.htm


SEATTLE - A woman wounded in last month's deadly shooting rampage at Seattle's Jewish Federation offices says she hopes the attack helps the public and lawmakers see a need for tighter gun control laws.

"How and why the murderer who invaded my workplace a couple of weeks ago was able to legally acquire two semiautomatic weapons in our state is still a very disturbing mystery to me," Dayna Klein, 37, said Thursday, seated next to her husband at a news conference in a downtown hotel.

Klein said she met with former President Bill Clinton last week while in New York, discussed both gun control and workplace safety with him and was encouraged by the conversation.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. So did Rep. Carol McCarthy after her husband, Denis and her

son, Kevin, were shot on the Long Island Railroad by a deranged man armed to the teeth. And what has changed since 1993?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson

[sgxnk]

4. the laws of NY state

are very very different from WA state

WA state, as the constitution clearly enumerates recognizes a strong, unambiguous PERSONAL self defense right to bear arms.

NY state is one of the most restrictive states on firearms in the country

that was my point about this being a democratic republic. you can pick your state, but you live under the constitution of your home state

WA is unambiguous and offers VERY strong gun rights, as well as one of the strongest rights to self defense in the nation i might add

some attorneys argue that VAWA violates the WA state constitution even

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Agreed. However . . .

what I was trying to state was that all the laws don't necessarily hinder or stop the unlawful use of firearms. Their procurement may be curtailed, that's all. All the laws do is punish after-the-fact of injury or death. My point: Gun control does not literally stop the unlawful assault on people by means of pistols, rifles, etc.

[sgxnk]

7. yes

i am very against gun control. i agree with your point that (i think this is what u are saying) even if the constitution allowed it (in WA at least. the COTUSA issue is a seperate one), it would not be good policy to restrict gun rights.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. I don't know how it could be "good" policy if it is basically

ineffective in protecting the safety of potential victims. That's all.

[sgxnk]

15. well

imo, gun control is bad policy. for a host of reasons.

i don't think gun control is good policy because it IS ineffective in protecting potential victims, and for numerous other reasons.

i also think that even *if* it was good policy, it's still blatantly unconstitutional (in WA state inarguably)

[benEzra]

18. A single 9mm pistol is "armed to the teeth"? (n/t)

[DemFromMem]

2. Boy you're walking into the firing line...

Sorry for the bad pun. But I'll bet 90% of the people at DU are favor of gun control. And I'd be the first to raise my hand as one of those people.

[sgxnk]

5. that's fine but it's a constitiutonal right, not subject to policy prefere

but being in favor of gun control as a POLICY issue does not mean one invalidates the constitution of the state of WA. one's policy preferences cannot take preference over civil rights protections. you can't invalidate a constitutional right because you think that right is a bad policy

if you are for strong gun control in WA state, then one would necessarily need to amend the WA constitution to TAKE AWAY CIVIL RIGHTS (the right to bear arms in personal defense)

remind you of a certain REPUBLICAN (and many democrats) plan to pass an amendment in re: gay marriage?

one;'s policy stance is independant of what the constitution says.

[sandnsea]

14. Right to bear doesn't mean lack of regulation

There can be a fair line drawn between the right to have a gun for self protection - and what gun you can have, what circumstances you can have it under, and how you buy it. You can't carry a gun into a school and you have to have a background check. Bam. Regulations. The idea that there's a gun free for all in Washington State is blown right out of the water. And unless you think people should be driving around with rocket launchers in the back of their pickups, you support sensible gun regulation too.

[sgxnk]

16. i support

"sensible gun regulation" much as i support "sensible regulation" of any other constitutional right

i certainly think that, in many cases, this right is trampled on.

but no i do not think the 2nd amendment means unfettered access to all guns by all people

i certainly think it includes handguns for concealed carry though

[DemFromMem]

22. Be careful what you wish for

How about doing away with the FDA? How about we scrap the EPA? We limit rights in this country left and right when we determine that there is an overriding public safety consideration. Most other western democracies don't have the gun worship culture we have and realize that guns endanger public safety and should be tightly regulated.

[benEzra]

19. Depends on what you mean by the term, but don't count on it...

This poll was posted in General Discussion, not the Gungeon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1689245

If by "gun control" you mean legislating 19th-century-fogey stock styling for civilian rifles and shotguns, and mandating Civil-War-era capacity limits, then I do NOT support it. If you mean enforcing the laws against criminals obtaining and using guns, then I'm all for it.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[catmother]

3. my husband and i own several guns, but we believe in gun

control. the brady bill has stopped a lot of people who shouldn't own guns from getting them. i think they can still be obtained at a gun show.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. How has Brady helped?

[catmother]

10. background checks. both my husband and i had to have

background checks before we purchased our guns.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. There were already mandatory (at least where I lived)

[w4rma]

12. The Brady Bill hasn't been law for a couple of years now.

And good riddance to it, btw. It didn't do anything worthwhile except anger most of the gun owners in America.

[benEzra]

21. The Brady law (background check) is still law...

it was the much-hated 1994 restrictions on rifle handgrips that stick out that expired in 2004 (and I agree, good riddance).

[benEzra]

20. The Brady law applies to dealer sales anywhere...

but most states do allow private sales, and may or may not require a check. My state (NC) requires background checks for all private handgun sales, but not private sales of rifles and shotguns.

[CrushTheDLC]

13. There should be a common sense approach to gun control.

1) If you have a criminal record, you do not own guns.
2) If you have a history of mental illness, you do not own guns.

Other than that, there is nothing wrong with law abiding sane adults owning a reasonable number of firearms, should they choose to do so. A five day waiting period is more than reasonable, not only for the purposes of a background check, but also to allow the buyer a "cooling off" period, should their reasons for wanting a gun in the first place lead to circumstances that they might regret later, from a prison cell. (I've been in that situation, and in the end I was thankful that I didn't have a gun on the premises, for exactly that reason.)

Gun shows and private sellers should NOT be exempted from background checks. This is probably how most criminals and insane people buy their weapons in the first place. The Columbine high school murderers are a great example of this.

Under this common sense approach, Naveed Afzal Haq, who was known to be bi-polar, would have not been able to purchase a weapon. Nor would Buford Furrow, who shot up the Jewish day care in Los Angeles a few years ago and killed an Asian American letter carrier as he was fleeing the scene. Furrow was a convicted felon, who had also been institutionalized in the state mental hospital, AND he was known to have worked as a "security guard" at the Aryan Nations NAZI compound in Hayden Lake Idaho. There's three good reasons why he should never be allowed to LOOK at a gun, let alone own one. Yet he was found with an arsenal of weapons which could have stocked the local National Guard armory.

Close the gun show "loopholes", enforce background checks and keep the guns away from criminals and psychos. That's more than reasonable.

[sgxnk]

17. not imo

merely being bipolar should not mean one does not have access to guns

i agree with you about the convicted felon thing, but imo this should only apply to violent felons. i don't think somebody who shoplifted $300 stereo, or who was convicted of tax fraud should be prohibitd from carrying. case law disagree with me on that one.

back to the bipolar thing. bipolar disease should not be a disqualifier. in WA state it most definitely is not. people keep bringing up the fact that this guy was "mentally ill" and that he had bpd as some sort of mitigating factor, or even stronger (some have said it's a failure of the mental health system that he committed this, which is absurd). there are literally MILLIONS of people with bpd. they are upstanding members of our society. bpd is not an excuse to commit murder, (let alone a preplanned execution/kidnap murder). nor is it, or should it be a disqualifier for the right to carry firearms.

i absolutely disagree with closing the gun show "loophole". this is no more a "loophole" in gun regulation than the govt. allowing blogs (citizen journalism) is a "loophole" in the 1st amendment.

most of all, i 100% disagree with the waiting period. people who are victims of domestic violence, threats, etc. should not have to 'cool off' before purchasing a firearm to protect themselves. until the govt. finds some way to impose "cooling off" periods on criminals, i will be against them for citizens

i am most disturbed by the "if you have a mental illness" you should not be allowed to carry a gun. this is a terrible idea imo.


this is what the RCW says

"Competency shall not be determined or withdrawn by operation of, or under the provisions of this chapter. Except as chapter 9.41 RCW may limit the right of a person to purchase or possess a firearm or to qualify for a concealed pistol license, no person shall be presumed incompetent or lose any civil rights as a consequence of receiving evaluation or treatment for mental disorder, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or certification or commitment pursuant to this chapter or any prior laws of this state dealing with mental illness. Any person who leaves a public or private agency following evaluation or treatment for mental disorder shall be given a written statement setting forth the substance of this section."

the law does provide a mental illness prohibition under VERY specific criteria (and its FAR FAR FAR more than merely having bpd) as outlined here

"After having previously been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment under RCW 71.05.320, 71.34.090, chapter 10.77 RCW, or equivalent statutes of another jurisdiction, unless his or her right to possess a firearm has been restored as provided in RCW 9.41.047;"

that makes sense to me. merely prohibiting access based on bpd or any "mental illness' imo is a blatant violation of constitutional rights. and the WA law agrees with me on that one fwiw