Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Seattle Legislators Propose Gun Control. Plus Brand New Seattle Rep. Jamie Pedersen Files His First Bill

1

Looks like Mr. Savage was right about Mr. Pedersen after all. Weasel!

Posted by EXTC | January 3, 2007 2:35 PM
2

As I've said here on Slog many times, plurality voting for directors desparately needs to be modified. Finally, a politician with the balls to do it!

Posted by Sean | January 3, 2007 2:53 PM
3


Is it a bad tweak or a good tweak? Warren Buffet has done some great writing on the incompetence of corporate boards...

Posted by tweaker | January 3, 2007 2:56 PM
4

Plurality voting is a *burning* necessity! Second only to flag burning. What's with you people.

Posted by Jonathan | January 3, 2007 3:00 PM
5

Is it a bad or good tweak? I don't know, but let's not split hairs. The important thing is that Jamie has the courage to modify it.

Posted by Sean | January 3, 2007 3:01 PM
6

Three cheers for Jack Abramoff's favorite Representative!

Posted by DOUG. | January 3, 2007 3:06 PM
7

I am presently trying to figure out if it's a good tweak or a bad tweak. Pedersen's co-sponsor is a Republican, Rep. Jay Rodne (R-5) from East Central King County. I've called his office too, to get a beat on what this bill does exactly.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 3, 2007 3:06 PM
8

Eric Pettigrew from the 37th ROCKS! I would vote for him in the next Govenor's race in a heart beat. Let's get someone in office who has compassion for the people and can still take care of business!

Eric Pettigrew has my vote.

Posted by Ranger Stranger | January 3, 2007 3:19 PM
9

Just out of curiosity, how did Naveed Haq and Kyle Huff obtain their guns? By exploiting the "gun show loophole", or some other way?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | January 3, 2007 3:33 PM
10

Stefan, are you saying you think people should be able to get guns at gun shows from non-licensed dealers and without background checks? I hope that's not what you're saying? Is that what you're saying?

What are you, a terrorist hugger? You're either with us or you're against us, man.

I do not believe either Haq or Huff got the guns by exploiting the gun show loophole. It's on Seattle's agenda because SPD chief Gil K. put it there. You got something against the chief?

Stefan, you're with the terrorists and against the cops. This is not good for your GOP cred.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 3, 2007 3:43 PM
11

1) "Given that the Capitol Hill murders and the Jewish Federation shootings rocked Seattle last year ... it shouldn’t be surprising that one bill in play is legislation to close the gun show loophole. "

2) "I do not believe either Haq or Huff got the guns by exploiting the gun show loophole. "

thanks.


Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | January 3, 2007 4:00 PM
12

And your answers to my questions? Thanks in advance.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 3, 2007 4:05 PM
13

So if the gun show loophole is closed, people will get guns from private parties in an underground economy, without licenses for sellers and without background checks -- just like they do already. So what is this legislation supposed to accomplish that will effect positive change?

Your answer to my question? Thanks in advance.

Posted by ivan | January 3, 2007 4:13 PM
14

Hey Stefan, as long as you're answering questions, here's one more:

Did you vote for George W Bush in 2000? How about 2004?

Posted by Sean | January 3, 2007 4:13 PM
15

Ivan, closing the gun show loophole isn't about the absolute prevention of gun sales to crooks. It is about making it more difficult, cutting down on the easy access.

Right now, if I'm a crook and want unregistered guns, I can easily drive to any gun show on any weekend with a bag of cash, and walk out with a whole truckload of guns. No wait, not ID, no hassle.

If the gun show loophole is closed, will I still be able to buy guns through a private party? Sure. But it will be harder to do, and take more time and effort and money. It will make it almost impossible to get any quantity of guns quickly.

Shark, Haq and Huff may not have acquired their guns from a gun show, but that does not change the fact that lots of guns used in lots of crimes are bought at gun shows. And that eliminating this easy source of weapons would cut down on gun violence. Your point is pointless.

Posted by SDA in SEA | January 3, 2007 4:36 PM
16

The *fact* that eliminating this easy source of weapons would cut down on gun violence? The FACT?

Believe that if you want. Events will determine whose point is pointless. The FACT is that gun control has been, and will be, as unenforceable as laws that prohibited alcohol, and that prohibit marijuana and abortions.

Posted by ivan | January 3, 2007 4:59 PM
17

As I predicted - here in SLOG - the gun show loophole will be closed.

And the al-Qaeda training manual actually points out gun shows are the best way to get weapons in the US and even have anti-tank weapons for sale that can be used to down airplanes (how to use them I won't tell you, but it's fairly simple if you understand combat).

Geesh, Ivan, you don't support arming Pat Robertson's flock, do you?

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2007 5:01 PM
18

oh, and plurality voting can be both good and bad. depends on the definition - if it requires a basic 50 percent plus 1 vote for board members, it's good. If it involves modifications like letting them gang up votes to save bad directors (e.g. nine-member board, you get nine votes per share, you cast all nine for one or more) then it's bad.

devil's in the details.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 3, 2007 5:04 PM
19

At the Olympia AP conference today, Senate Majority Leader, Lisa Brown (D), dodged a question about the loophole bill by saying that people in her district, Spokane, could easily go to Idaho to purchase firearms. I think this toothless sentiment is what they call "reaching out across the isle."

Posted by Brian | January 3, 2007 5:11 PM
20

Ivan, when you claim that gun control laws are no more or less enforceable than laws prohibiting alcohol, marijuana, and abortion, are you making an argument for gun control?

Because in each of these cases, prohibition has had a *dramatic* impact on the prevalence and availability of the item in question. By your own logic, gun control is quite effective.

Also, what could you possibly have *against* closing this loophole? Do you believe that felons should be able to legally obtain a gun?

Posted by Sean | January 3, 2007 5:19 PM
21

If there are good reasons for closing the gun show loophole, you'll have better chance of convincing me if you come up with examples of notorious criminals who used guns actually procured through the gun show loophole.

But since this seems to be non-sequitur day here at the Slog, I voted for George W Bush in 2004, but not in 2000.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | January 3, 2007 5:22 PM
22

So, Stefan, you were a Nader Raider?

Posted by N in Seattle | January 3, 2007 6:50 PM
23

Sean, Do I believe that felons should be able to leagally obtain a gun? Taht depends. If they have had their gun rights restored, then yes, they should and can legally obtain a gun. If they have not, then gun show or not, they CANNOT legally obtain a gun.

An NIJ study conducted in Dec of 1997 found that only 2% of criminal guns come from shows. Even Handgun Control Inc found that only 2 out of 48 major city Police Chiefs said that gun show sales were an important problem in their city.

You will hear that 25%-50% of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed (a Handgun Control Inc favorite stat)...but that figure is including ALL vendors, not just vendors selling firearms. These would include those selling knives, clothing, holsters, ammunition, ect.

Federal law ALREADY requires that anyone who is in the BUSINESS of selling firearms has to be a licensed dealer...so the unlicensed gun seller is rare..even at gun shows.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story. The fact is that gun shows are under the same laws as any firearm sales. If you sell guns for a living, you have to do background checks. If you sell the occasional weapon, you do not. This is true if you sell it at a show, at your house or out of the trunk of your car.

Posted by drw | January 3, 2007 7:10 PM
24

Stefan: "I voted for George W Bush in 2004, but not in 2000."

I'm curious - have you done any reflecting on what this decision says about your political judgment? Ever get the suspicion that political opinion may not be your strongest suit? Ever consider spending more time at the day job or with the family?

Or are you still in the denial stage?

Posted by Sean | January 3, 2007 9:24 PM
25

besides, most of us have our pre-loophole guns buried beneath a tree in a nearby park, so they can't be traced to us ... or found in a search of the premises.

basic guerrilla tactics 101 ... something the Bushies never grokked.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 4, 2007 12:53 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).