Gun grabbers continuously inform us that they do not want to ban guns, they just want to make them safer. And, no, they do not always want to grab them with legislation, because that looks really bad politically. So, as usual, they’ll enact legislation that makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to have a firearm for protection, rather than going after the criminal
Gun violence can be reduced, but cities and counties will have to lead
I’m heartbroken, and frankly, I’m angry. You probably are too.
Guns are used to kill men, women and children at tragic rates here in King County and across our nation. Yet our national and state leaders continue to sit on their hands and do nothing. It’s unconscionable.
This comes from Joe McDermott, chair of the Metropolitan King County Council and a member of the King County Board of Health. Perhaps he missed that murder and attempted murder are still illegal, yet people still commit those crimes. And that it’s mostly not lawful gun owners who use firearms to commit crimes, but, hey, if they went after criminals, they might be called racists and such, told that they are violating the Constitution by their Leftwing constituents, because they seem to have a soft spot for criminals.
That’s why on Tuesday, I’m introducing three pieces of legislation to ensure King County is doing its part to help stop these tragedies.
We’re calling it the King County Gun Safety Action Plan. In my role as Metropolitan King County Council chair and a member of the King County Board of Health, I’m kicking off this effort by introducing these initiatives that have the potential to save lives.
First, I propose that public safety warning signs be posted at any place of firearm sale or discharge in King County, which will articulate the very real and significant risks to health and life inherent with firearm ownership. These signs will also provide immediate contact information for suicide-prevention and mental-health resources for individuals who might be in crisis. Once passed by the Board of Health, signs will be placed at the entrances and purchase counters of every shooting range and store selling guns in King County.
The same people have meltdowns over any sort of requirements that abortion providers have the same medical standards as a veterinarian office. And, while the part about suicide is helpful, the signs are going to end up with holes in them. The second part is the most concerning
I also propose a county ordinance requiring firearm owners to securely store their guns at all times — whether at home, in a car or anywhere else. Gun ownership is a significant responsibility. And ensuring that your gun doesn’t end up in the hands of someone who shouldn’t have it — a child, someone in a moment of crisis or domestic abuse — is the least that we should require.
It is a cynical and dangerous twist of logic that the NRA, which promotes responsible gun ownership, is suing Seattle for its recent safe-storage law. The fact is that 43 percent of King County gun owners admit to storing their firearms unlocked. We cannot wait to enact this basic, common sense requirement.
Read that again in bold. At all times. At home, car, or anywhere else. This seems to suggest that even if you are carrying a firearm openly or concealed, it has to be secured. If you’re carrying a rifle or shotgun while hunting it must be secured. What, exactly, would be the point of carrying the weapon if you must have a trigger lock on it?
The draft legislation has not been released in full, but the website for these “make it harder for law abiding citizens” gun grabbers and news articles state that “All gun owners would be required to securely store their firearms and ammunition at all times on all premises.” This would make firearms for self defense at home and out in public worthless.
Is it any wonder that the NRA and gun groups are suing?
The third proposal, when you read between the lines at the article, seems to be a way to indoctrinate kids to be anti-gun. The gun grabbers website also notes that one of the things they want to do if the state preemption law is repealed would be to “Ban semi-automatic, high velocity weapons: Ban the sale and possession of semi-automatic, high velocity weapons.” There’s no definition of that, so, would that include a 9mm handgun? What about a .22? I purchase standard Winchester ammo for my Walther P22, which will fire at around 818mph. The speed of sound is around 761mph. Would that make my P22 a high velocity weapon?
And criminals won’t give up their weapons. This just makes criminals of people who lawfully purchased a firearm.
Other such proposed policies state that the firearm must be secured while NOT in control of the owner. The NRA (National Russia Association) always obscures that provision.
Isn’t it good policy to have your firearms locked up at home if you’re not at home? Keeping them out of the sight and reach of burglars, a despondent grandparent or a curious tween? When you’re home you can still keep it locked and loaded to shoot all the Black felons and illegal Mexicans breaking down your doors, and to accidentally shoot a neighbor.
Seems like reasonable gun control.
No. If you keep a firearm in your home for protection (one of those 9th Amendment rights you guys hate), locking it up seems counter-productive.
And, if NOT in control of the owner, unless it’s being fixed, it would almost certainly be stolen.
Hey, you mean Seattle might actually arrest a criminal?
Tubular, man.
PS I think the 9th Circus (which seems a whole lot less applicable now that Trump is appointing appellate court judges in carload lots) took care of this one anyway.