Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Staadecker Releases Gun Safety Plan

Posted by on Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Commercial real estate broker Charlie Staadecker, whose bid for Seattle mayor suffered a crushing public relations blow when he failed to first clear his intentions with Dominic, has issued "A Simple, Realistic, Three-Point Plan for More Effective Gun Safety" (PDF). His three, simple, realistic points?

  1. Increased Funding for Early Detection of Violence-Prone, Mentally Unstable Individuals
  2. Requirement to Use Locked Containers or Gun Locks for Storage
  3. Require Permits, Waiting Periods, and Background Checks for ALL Firearm Purchases

Can't really argue with any of these points, although the first is really just a vague call to convene a panel to study the problem, and the latter two, as Staadecker acknowledges, would require changes to state law. Still, it's good to see the mayoral race being used to further the debate over gun safety.


Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
sperifera 1
Posted by sperifera on January 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM · Report this
Yesterday's Times coverage was pretty interesting.
In a phone conversation, he said he went too far when he said during the news conference that mentally ill people should be monitored.
“Monitor, I think, is too strong a word, because I don’t know what the experts would say.”
The main thing, he said, is finding a way to help people who have mental illnesses.
“I didn’t have specific guidelines,” he said. “I certainly didn’t want to come across that because you have a mental health, you’re on a registry. Is that one solution? Perhaps.”
How would he determine whether a mentally ill person should be included on the list?
Staadecker said: “If they were admitted to a mental-health hospital. … Actually, let me just think about this.”…
Posted by gloomy gus on January 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM · Report this
#1 is meaningless.
#2 is sensible.
#3 Background checks, just common sense. Waiting periods, a pain in the ass, but OK, not that big a deal. Permits? What do you have in mind, specifically?
Posted by Westside forever on January 23, 2013 at 1:14 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 5
Does the "Requirement to Use Locked Containers or Gun Locks for Storage" also include violating the 4th Amendment when gun owners homes are searched to ensure compliance?

Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 23, 2013 at 3:02 PM · Report this
It would probably only be enforced retroactively.
Once something happens with one of your guns then it is up to you to prove that you had correctly locked it.

The permit question is interesting, though.
Either they're free or falls into the realm of having to pay to exercise a Right.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 23, 2013 at 5:17 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 7
@6 - I'm against unreasonable searches (such as @5's paranoid scenario), but I'm for anything that gives the state power to jail a parent whose child dies due to unfettered access to a loaded gun. I don't give a shit if it was on the top shelf of the closet. Any motivated six-year-old can get at that. (Tell me you didn't look there for Christmas presents when you were a kid.)

It's a lot like laws against drunk driving. Breathalyzing a driver without any probable cause is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment, but the DUI laws provide means to severely punish a drunk driver when they kill someone or get pulled over for reckless driving, providing a strong incentive not to be so fucking stupid.

You'd think the possibility of your gun killing your kid would be enough of an incentive to lock it up, but obviously it's not. Just like the very real possibility of killing someone isn't a disincentive to idiots who drive drunk - but the thought of going to jail or losing their license is.

Likewise, a gun permit makes as much sense as driver's license. Unlike a driver's license, a gun permit should be free, but as with a driver's license, you should be denied a gun permit if you can't pass a test showing that you know how to safely own and use one, or have proven you don't know how by reckless use.

But I'm sure the NRA would oppose that, making a mockery of their supposed stance on gun safety, since the gun industry wouldn't be able to sell guns to incompetent fools.
Posted by Free Lunch on January 23, 2013 at 9:08 PM · Report this
@6, How is it any different than having to pay for the arms in the first place? Or having to pay for an FFL transfer fee. Or, having to pay for a place to assemble? (Yes, if your group is small enough, you can meet somewhere public for free, but if it is large enough to make a difference, you'll probably have to at least pay for a permit.) Last I checked, if you want to petition the government, you'll have to pay for some form of communication, be it paper, stamp, pen, or clothes and travel expenses..etc..etc.

In many states, you essentially have to pay to vote (Voter ID requirements). While I believe that is unconstitutional, various Voter ID requirements have been upheld in court.

My problem with #2, as @7 points out is there are already states that have laws requiring "safe" firearm storage, but these laws have little to no enforcement. The state I live in requires at least trigger locks on all firearms if a minor lives in the house. However, if a minor kills themselves or another, using your firearm which was not properly stored, the penalties are pretty minor. At a minimum I think you should be liable for involuntary manslaughter.
Posted by randoma on January 24, 2013 at 12:21 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy