Not that anyone’s amused by the shootings. It’s the fallout that’s amusing – and oh, so predictable – in an infuriating kind of way. First, they blamed the guns. Now it’s “stand your ground” laws. The connection? None that I can see, really. Their solution: “stronger” gun laws that hardly affect the bad guys but make life a lot more difficult for legal and wannabe legal gun owners . . .

“(Washington CeaseFire President Ralph) Fascitelli recommends these solutions: Allow cities to create their own gun legislation which might be tougher than state laws:

Translation: create a patchwork of laws that are impossible for the ordinary gun owner to comply with or keep track of.

Make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to own a handgun with a first offense resulting in a mandatory 24 hours in jail;

Because even though 18-year-olds are legally adults, they really don’t have any need to defend themselves.

 Close the “gun show loophole” that creates a secondary market for weapons;

Seriously, how many guns are bought at gun shows from non-FFL holders? And how many actually end up being used in crimes?

Launch a public health campaign informing people that guns don’t make residents safer.

Any support for that statement, Ralph? Didn’t think so.

Luckily, quickly skimming the comments indicates that at least most people aren’t buying it. But restricting your Constitutional rights just isn’t enough for some people. Hubert Locke, Dean Emeritus of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, also finds it necessary to insult a large portion of the country in his anti-Stand Your Ground screed.

I was prepared to attribute the Stand Your Ground legislative madness to Florida’s unfortunate proximity to the Deep South and its cultural backwardness until I made the horrid discovery that Washington – where I spend the other half of my waking moments – has a Stand Your Ground law as well! So much for geo-political stereotyping!

But why stop at bigotry? Might as well add a little opinionated fortune-telling disguised as “common sense” into the mix.

More to the point, in the wave of the idiotic shootings that have plagued Seattle over the past several weeks, it’s only a matter of time before some trigger-happy lamebrain tries to invoke Washington’s Stand Your Ground law in his or her defence (sic).

In the rarefied air of academe, defending yourself from serious injury or death makes you a trigger-happy lamebrain. Happy Thursday, lamebrains!

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

38 COMMENTS

  1. How long have we been hearing, “it’s only a matter of time until someone goes nuts and abuses everything.” The only abuse I’ve seen is criminals taking advantage of gun laws that they don’t pay attention to. Anyone want to jump on the merit of gun free zones?

    • Funny listening to the antis. At the risk of dating myself, I remember when the reason used to lower the voting age from 21 was that at 18 you could go to war and die for a country you couldn’t vote for. Now it seems they want you to go and die for your country without being able to fight for it here!

  2. Actually, he’s not even correct. WA doesn’t explicitly have a “Stand Your Ground” law on the books to repeal. It’s documented via long standing court precedent, not via statute. From Dave Workman’s article here:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/trayvon-martin-case-indict-shooter-not-the-law-florida

    “Washington, on the other hand, has no “stand-your-ground” statute, but the principle is solidly enshrined in state court precedent dating back to at least 1917. Thanks to a bit of remarkably well-timed research by one of this column’s regular readers, Ken Grubb of Puyallup, it is clear to Washington courts that there is no duty to retreat from an attack that occurs anywhere one has a right to be, and most importantly, the attack must not have been provoked.

    Here’s what the court said in State v. Meyer in 1917 – explained in an insightful article that appeared in the University of Puget Sound Law Review (Vol. 6:237 – 1983, page 252) by Prof. John Q. La Fond – where the following important text from the ruling appears in a footnote:

    [T]he ancient doctrine of the common law, that the right of self-defense did not arise until every effort to escape had been resorted to, even to the point of retreating until an impassable barrier was reached, has been supplanted in many of the American states, including the state of Washington, by the more reasonable doctrine and the one more in keeping with the dictates of human nature, to the effect that, when one is feloniously assaulted in a place he has the right to be and is placed in danger, either real or apparent, of losing his life or of suffering great bodily harm at the hands of his assailant, he is not required to retreat or to endeavor to escape, but may stand his ground and repel force with force, even to taking the life of his assailant if necessary, or in good reason apparently necessary, for the preservation of his own life or to protect himself from great bodily harm.—State v. Meyer, 96 Wash. 257, 164 P. 926 (1917)”

    • It’s a very reasonable interpretation of our self defense law:

      RCW 9A.16.050
      Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

      Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

      (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

      (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

      No duty to retreat is mentioned, and you’re not required to be in your home. So while “stand your ground” is not in the actual wording of the statute, it’s pretty easy to see where the interpretation comes from.

      As a side note, I love the use of the word “slayer” in this statute.

      • True, and good point. I think Mr Workman’s argument is that there is nothing easily “repealed” as there might be in other states that explicitly have passed a “stand your ground” law.

  3. Dean Locke has just publically identified himself as a good person to rob/mug. He does not believe in self defence, he does not believe in gun ownership, and he has a decent paying job being a boss at a university. His house would be a good one to break into and the women folk in his family would be compliant rape victims. I don’t wish any of these things on him or his family, but at face value, that is what his comments identify him as. I’d bet the day after something bad happens to him or his family, he makes the earth shattering discovery that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” and his views will radically change.

    • Bontai Joe,

      I call you way out of bounds here.

      Please don’t suggest “that the women folk in his family would be compliant rape victims.” People have been resisting violent acts for thousands of years without firearms. Furthermore, some of his “womenfolk” might be young girls, without any expectation of having or using firearms for self defense.

      Let’s fight his ideas, not his family.

  4. Just throwing this out there, does anyone else ever think that maybe hate groups like Washington Cease Fire or the Brady campaign might pay people with no future (say something like, we’ll make sure your wife and kids never have to work again in their lives) to go on a killing spree or that the gun grabbers take one for the team and go shoot people to push their agenda?

    Really, I wouldn’t put it past them.

    • Honestly, that’s the first thing that popped into my mind today, but on the other hand Seattle has been setting itself up for this for quite awhile now. Chickens roosting, as it were.

      But yeah, it’s time to start looking at these extremists in the same light as PETA (i.e. anything for the cause) and prepare accordingly. I mean, why on earth would an anti-2A group ever conspire to commit murder? Why, indeed.

    • A lot of folks up here in Seattle espouse liberal politics, but I doubt anybody is that crazy.

      The shooter supposedly had mental issues. was kicked out of the cafe several times for aggressive/harassing behavior, and his family failed to get him help. Police say that he used two .45 cal handguns in the murders.

      So which family member was dumb enough to let him get a hold of 2 guns is the real question…

      • Actually, his family (father) complained that he could not get his son help because his son would not consent and the authorities would not hold him involuntarily.

  5. Time to make a donation to the Second Amendment Foundation. Gang members and a psychotic spree killer run rampant, so clearly the solution is to strip the regular citizen of self defense. Of course there’s no guarantee that the shooter could have been stopped if someone had been carrying in that cafe but it would have been a chance. A much better chance than a bunch of helpless, disarmed victims would ever have.

  6. “(Washington CeaseFire President Ralph) Fascitelli recommends these solutions: Allow cities to create their own gun legislation which might be tougher than state laws

    — Create laws that criminals wont abide by in the first place, and any would be mad man could ignore completely prior to a rampage.

    Make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to own a handgun with a first offense resulting in a mandatory 24 hours in jail;

    — 21, 18, male, female, 32, hut hut hike. Here in California(eye roll) we already have this law. It’s designed to increase the amount of charges a juvenile or young adult would be charged with if found in possession of a firearm. It’s a gotcha law. Chances are anyone found under the age of 21 in possession of a pistol did so by unlawfully carrying in the first place. It will be an issue when your 18yr old son finds himself in a DGU in your home when your out of town or asleep. That’s the only instance I could see this being a big deal. It really isn’t. I do think it would be more appropriate for a young adult to be familiar with firearms before they learn how to drink if you catch my drift. The two dont mix well.

    Close the “gun show loophole” that creates a secondary market for weapons;

    — Always missing facts and numbers. This is just typical Anti-Parrots. What loop hole? If you bought the damn gun illegally, you broke the law, same as you did when you bought that gun off some dude who removed the serial numbers. It’s just as illegal to steal a car, or screw a chicken, if you dont do it your well within your right to do so, if you do however, you’ve now become a criminal and have to own that. The loop hole is in the lack of store front accountability. Nothing more.

    Launch a public health campaign informing people that guns don’t make residents safer.

    — Did you know watering your lawn with used motor oil is good for the environment? I can see it now… *eye roll* Unless I put a round in the changer and disengage the safety, my firearm is a safe as can be. I could star at it for ages and it wouldn’t hurt a soul. This might as well be summed up as ‘Start a propaganda campaign under the guise of public safety’ ya know.. Do do that vu du that Berneys & Goebbels did so well. People buy that sh*t hook line and sinker. Best way to fix that, take as many n00bs to the range as possible and show them how fun and safe shooting can be.

    • Unless I put a round in the changer and disengage the safety, my firearm is a safe as can be.

      I was discussing firearm ownership / laws on reddit.com/r/guns yesterday and stumbled across a guy comparing merely having a gun in the house to having toxic chemicals and claiming that they both pose an equal risk. He couldn’t understand why it’s more likely to accidentally spill chemicals than to “accidentally” load a gun, “accidentally” turn off the safety, and then “accidentally” pull the trigger.

  7. I heard an article on the local radio station yesterday by some legal analyst concerning the Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and how they will likely have nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case. He said that if Zimmerman is telling the truth and was pinned down with nowhere to flee, then his actions would be covered under standard gun laws–the SYG law would not apply. If he went after Martin and maliciously killed him, then he could be convicted of murder, again subject to standard Florida gun laws–again, SYG would not be applicable. Admittedly, the actual events may be more complex and not so cut-and-dry as this, but we see so many people clamoring to rid the states of these SYG laws, trying to tie it to a case where it simply might not apply.

  8. If only it wasn’t so easy for criminals to get then this senseless tragedy could have been avoided! Let’s have those . For the Children!(tm)

  9. I live in Washington, Seattle has been slapped by the state at least once for trying this. There is a prevision in the state constitution not allowing a city to do exactly what they are trying to do. The only thing that will happen is the poor tax paying citizens of Seattle will have to pay AGAIN when the city get’s sued for violating the state constitution. I can cayy any firearm in any city of the state.

    • It’s a statute, not the state constitution. It’s your basic preemption law. And as far as I know, it’s just Washington CeaseFire doing their using wishful thinking. I don’t think the city will actually be trying anything after getting slapped down very clearly before.

    • I don’t think he’s ignorant. He knows the truth, but it isn’t in his interests to say the truth. He’s dishonest.

      “An honest but mistaken person, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest.”

  11. Make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to own a handgun with a first offense resulting in a mandatory 24 hours in jail;

    I am sort of lost on this one, it used to be that you had to be 21 to actually own the gun, but you could shoot your parent’s at any age. Indiana at least. So… if they have a law not letting people under 21 owning a gun, it should still be legal to use an older person’s gun.

    • Incorrect, I got my first gun and my gun permit at the age of 18, they given to me by my father who was a procecuter at the time

  12. Close the “gun show loophole” that creates a secondary market for weapons;

    Really by and large a non-problem. The Antis cry on this one all the time. The much larger problem is the stolen guns and guns which were loaned out by friends and relatives to quasi-criminal elements. Closing the loophole solves none of the last problems.

  13. “(Washington CeaseFire President Ralph) Fascitelli recommends these solutions: Allow cities to create their own gun legislation which might be tougher than state laws:

    The Liberal MAIG people would love this one, especially with their sheep constituents.

    On flip side, can towns pass laws which are looser than the State and Federal laws?

    • Local cops can choose to not enforce state/federal regulations, but that tends to result in less funding. It’s how the federal government gets around state rights–we’ll give you all this federal money, but you have to do this and that.

      • And that’s why any self-respecting state would refuse the money.

        But since the states are run by politicians, the money will never be turned down.

  14. Seattle’s a great place for criminals. The city’s “hug a thug” social welfare treatment of criminals, a mayor that likes to build bike paths but not jail cells, a grandstanding city council, and a police force deep in the depths of a passive aggressive hissy fit over a DOJ investigation into excessive use of force.

    Combine that with local media and talk radio that does everything it can to convince citizens that their own horrible bloody deaths by homicidal violence are imminent, and you have hysterics bordering on insanity.

    Then everyone combines into the perfect stew of non-nonsensical, idiotic lashing out at targets of convenience, incapable of realizing that this has all happened before, and will happen again, and again, regardless, with an extraordinarily tiny chance of it happening to them in any case.

    Yes, it’s wet the bed and shit the pants time in Seattle, where the panacea of safety in all things is still thought to be achievable via leftist politics and hippie culture.

    • Jails are handled by the county, not the city. It would be a ridiculous duplication of effort to try to build and maintain another set of facilities somewhere in Seattle when King County is already running a system of jails both in and out of Seattle. So the mayor really has nothing to do with how many jail cells there are.

    • The MSM in conjunction with several “pet special interest groups” in Seattle have been trying to discredit for their own purposes, the Seattle Police Dept. now for several years. Their revolving dance card reads .. are either not fast enough to respond with little effect, respond too quickly & too harshly, don’t understand the communities pagan values systems, are not protecting business & tax payers, etc. etc. etc. Eric Holder & The Just Us dept. recently piled on with their “instructions for change” . I don’t envy their position or endorse 100% of their actions but they are always the thin blue line between the pagan zombie madness & the rest of us ..

  15. Launch a public health campaign informing people that guns don’t make residents safer.

    I am sure the criminal elements will take this to heart and disarm immediately.

  16. Isn’t that dude in the photo the fish butcher at Pike’s Fish Market in Seattle who guts and disembowels live fish?

  17. An excerpt of a nicely written response to the incident by Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2018325763_is_it_time_for_gun_control.html?cmpid=2628

    “Regarding the other shootings, yesterday’s Seattle Times had the above-the-fold headline, “Cops: Guns, not gangs, are issue.” It quotes a police officer saying, “A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun.” That is tautological. It is a kind of knee-jerk statement by someone who doesn’t know why this is happening, but who is under pressure to say something. It is really meaningless.

    The interesting questions about gun control are, first, how much control will courts permit under the Second Amendment, and second, whether more restrictions on law-abiding people would limit the actions of criminals. My guess is that the restrictions that gun opponents could actually get passed, and approved by the courts, would do little good, and that the restrictions that would work–banning the sale of ammunition and reload supplies–have no chance of being passed or being accepted by the courts.

    I think we live with guns and occasionally worry about them. If this leaves you feeling at a disadvantage, Lynne, maybe you need to get one.”

    • Reading the comments on that pissed me off for the whole day. So much ignorance. Yeah, so a guy who should have been committed years ago finally lost it and went on the spree that his family had been expecting and the knee jerk response from a lot of those people is to strip the people of their access to tools for self defense. Disgusting.

  18. Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Why hasn’t anyone blamed SPD for not protecting them? Oh wait- they have no responsibility to protect you. Be prepared.

Comments are closed.