It seems that issuing temporary restraining orders to elections officials is just one more good thing coming out of Pierce County. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is reporting:
Last week, the Pierce County Council passed Ordinance #2004-72S, creating a Firearms Advisory Commission that will make recommendations to the Council on firearm-related issues. This is an important new addition, as the Council has been actively passing "no-shooting" ordinances lately. The new Commission will be made up of seven County residents, at least three of whom will represent local shooting groups, and will be charged with reviewing all existing County restrictions for appropriateness and will provide input to the Council on future proposals. Special recognition for their tremendous efforts in securing passage of this ordinance go out to Pierce County Council member Dick Muri (R), and NRA member and activist Allen Hodges.It is "politically correct" to disapprove of the N.R.A. - yet this levelheaded action illustrates the kind of work in which they are involved. On the other hand, the progressive Left Wing wants to completely ban handgun ownership, in vain pursuit of a panacea approach, as we have seen recently in San Francisco - as outlined in N.R.A.-I.L.A. reports, in the San Francisco Chronicle, and as analyzed this week on Rosenblog.
Full disclosure: I am a N.R.A. "life member" - though support reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - and find that the many laws constituting the status quo work to maintain a constitutionally 'well-ordered' society. However, I would support study of requirement for handgun owners to qualify for and maintain a 'concealed weapon carry permit' in order to own handguns. In the state of Washington, this largely consists of an application background check (verification of felony-free status) and fingerprinting into the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) database. I personally find this system to be more of an honor than a burden. But let us be clear: the anti-gun forces out there are not interested in reasonable compromise - and give the N.R.A. no call to reach out, so long as cities like San Francisco and Washington, DC encourage violent criminals with ham-handed attempts at prohibition. It did not work with alcohol in the 1920's - except to foster the rise of organized crime. Think what that would mean regarding black markets for handguns - versus a responsible approach based on compromise and consensus? As the N.R.A. states:
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wants to ban guns in the city! This week, the Supervisors submitted a proposal to the Department of Elections that will ask residents of San Francisco to vote next year on a proposed gun ban that would strip law-abiding citizens of their Constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The measure would abrogate the right of any citizen to own a handgun for any reason. Only law enforcement officers, members of the military, and security guards would be allowed to possess them. The measure would also completely ban the sale, manufacture, and distribution of all handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses. If passed next November, city residents would be forced to surrender their firearms within 90 days.According to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly (Dist.-6), "The hope is...that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it."
In 1982, San Francisco enacted a similar ordinance which also purported to ban all handguns. That measure, with the help of NRA and its members, was eventually struck down.
Ironically, Washington, D.C., a city that effectively bans the right to self defense with a firearm, has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the nation. As such, San Francisco officials would be remiss to use the District of Columbia's gun-ban experience as a model.
According to the anti-gunners' logic, if gun bans worked, Washington, D.C. would be one of the safest cities in America. In reality, the District holds the notorious distinction of being the murder capital of the United States.
As for the District's draconian gun ban, on September 29, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act--" legislation that seeks to restore the right of self-protection to law-abiding citizens of Washington, D.C. HR 3193, was introduced by Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), and passed on a bi-partisan vote of 250-171. The bill is the House companion to Senate bill S. 1414, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
The citizens of Tacoma (and all of Pierce County) have gone through a horrible period, of grief and soul searching since the April, 2003 tragic death of Crystal Brame at the cowardly hands of her husband - the Tacoma Police Chief. It has been a time of great reform in that department for almost two years now - as outlined by the Tacoma News Tribune. One might have expected the Pierce County Council to politically 'duck and cover' on any issue related to responsible citizen oversight and input regarding firearms use there. Responsible government officials - not always an oxymoron in Pierce County. See you at the Puyallup gun show - I'm in the market for a nice Rossi twelve gauge - those Rossi's are straight shooters.
Posted by P. Scott Cummins at December 17, 2004 10:56 PM | Email This
WHAT IS GOING ON?
Posted by: KittyBurglar on December 18, 2004 01:59 AMIf CG wins the right to occupy the governor's mansion until 2009, get ready for lots more in the way of gun control and tax increases, particularly with the D's in firm control of the legislature.
What fun...
Posted by: Kevin S on December 18, 2004 02:15 AMDoes anybody know? Anybody have a synopsis?
Posted by: KittyBurglar on December 18, 2004 05:00 AMUsing that logic, couldn't we outlaw abortion in, say, Utah or Alabama? I mean, it wouldn't be taking away the abortion rights of people anywhere else.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on December 18, 2004 05:08 AMHere in Pierce, we have a growing and gentrifying big city. Lot's of nice affordable homes. Lots of land and water to play on and in and a really great view of Rainier.
And there's still some sanity politically. Good news like Ladenberg's scandal will soon have even the bad guys like him out of office.
On a down note, we are passing all kinds of crazy environmentalist wetlands legislation that is really harming property owner's rights to build. So there is always work to do.
But compared to Ukraine County where there is no shame at all in recanvassing every ballot to produce a win for Gregoire in an obviously partisan election office, this county is more like Grant or Lincoln county.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 18, 2004 09:28 AMIt's no wonder WA 'pubs don't get much attention, help or sympathy from 'pubs throughout the rest of the country. You're a bunch of stuck-up little twits.
Posted by: KittyBurglar on December 18, 2004 02:46 PMI suspect if you actually had been reading this site, (and yes dear, you DO have to refresh your page when you come onto the site to get the latest updates and also when you click on the comments), you'd have all the information you need (plus some!)
Posted by: Cheryl on December 18, 2004 03:41 PMYou are expected to read around a bit. Here are some links for you.
http://www.soundpolitics.com
http://horsesass.org
http://timothygoddard.com/blog
http://pullonsupermanscape.typepad.com/pull_on_supermans_cape/
"With all counties in Washington reporting - except King County - Rossi's recount margin has slipped to 8 votes - 3.74% below expectations - should the ratio between votes have been the same as the machine recount."
That's it, in a nutshell, and all that I've been looking for since I began POLITELY asking the question as to a summary status from this forum beginning on THURSDAY.
My experience on this site with my simple question is akin to asking a stranger on the street for the time and being told I should go build a clock.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Cheryl, and, yep, I know how to update the page (else my posts on this thread wouldn't even be on this thread because I wouldn't have seen it in the first place) and, yep, I've been reading this site periodically since sometime shortly after the first recount began.
Posted by: KittyBurglar on December 19, 2004 01:33 AMFirst of all the county will have to stick to state law now and state law has preemption on firearms.
The 4 seats talked about will have to be from citizens in unicorporated parts of the county and they must have a Washington Hunters Safety course or other National Course for even being on the board.
Areas will not be shut down do to complaints from citizens now, that do not understand firearms, even if they do not like the noise.
This ordinance stresses state law to be followed which has not happended in the past. I lost 300 acreas two years ago to duck hunting that the County thought it was dangerous. Now the county knows that common sense and existing state law is the better route and this year that area was turned into a shotgun area.
This ordinace, being over six pages long, uses common sense, existing state law, pro tects private property rights, and still ensures public safety, unlike the past. This ordinance was supported by many sportsmen groups that have been in the past ignored and was suported by the county council in a 6-0 vote.
It will stay this way for years to come now that we have 4 republicans on the council also. The ordinace also instructs that any existing no shooting zone that does not meet state law will be repealed.
Posted by: Allen Hodges on December 19, 2004 10:02 PM