Friday, March 9, 2012

On the Seattle Ruling....

If you look at the Seattle Times article this morning, or Workman's column yesterday, there's a teeny tiny point we've missed thus far in our celebrations.

Mayor McGinn & City Attorney Holmes have effectively sworn a blood feud against WA pre-emption - that happy little provision in WA law that means that we don't have a patchwork quilt of petty anti-gun fiefdoms (you know, like NYC) with the laws changing every time you cross a city or county boundary.

Both McGinn and Holmes issued statements after Thursday's ruling saying the city would ask the 2013 Legislature to give cities the authority to restrict gun use in public places.

"A park is no place for a gun," McGinn said. - Seattle Times, March 8 of 2012

The 2012 election is IMPORTANT, and not just for un-electing the Obamanation. As gun-owners we desperately need folks to *vote for* (candidates) to run against known hostiles like State Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles.

With the "oomph" the radical Seattle (D) Caucus already wields, allowing them to hold both Houses of the legislature with McGinn and Holmes on the war path seems a bad choice.

Similarly, we have a critically important Governors race coming up this fall that we could lose big in...

It's not paranoia when they announce they really are out to get us...


Old NFO said...

Excellent point, and I can't help but wonder if this stuff is getting down played in the media on purpose?

Phssthpok said...

See also: (Official Misconduct) (Coercion) (Definitions)

Why are these people not in jail?

Perhaps it would be a viable tactic to point out such failings to the legislature during any ensuing debates on such attempted legislation?

Gay_Cynic said...

Gah. I hate this new comment format.

That said, let us examine current political reality in WA, grim as it is.

1) Both houses of the Legislature and the Governors seat are (D).

2) King County Government is (D).

3) City of Seattle is relentlessly (D)

The very notion of prosecuting a (D) for official acts that are wrongful is foreign to the local political genome. If we can change condition (1) perhaps we can modify title 9.41 to include the hair and fangs exhibited by the new Florida law.

Phssthpok said...

No...we don't want to open 9.41 up to modification (just yet). It's not perfect, but if we open that door it could quite possibly slam shut in the wrong direction.

What is needed, as you intimated, is something similar to the new Florida statute which is actually a codification of CIVIL remedy (with TEETH) that citizens may take since it is generally recognized that government *will not* police it's own.

Either that or an addition to 9A that provides for citizens to bring criminal charges themselves, rather than expecting the bully to keep his toady in check.