Seattle ramps up plans to strengthen gun control laws
SEATTLE -- The city of Seattle is ramping up plans to get hundreds of thousands of signatures to change state law all in an effort to strengthen gun control.
The Seattle City Council wants to decide the fate of firearms at the local level. State law says the city can't, but from the council president to the chief of police, nearly every city leader wants something to change.
In the often slow-moving debate over gun control, big changes take small steps. And the first step for Seattle was a meeting on Wednesday.
Seattle City Council member Bruce Harrell is leading the charge to gather signatures to change state law and let cities decide how best to control guns.
"I think you can see how overreaching it is. I mean, it's a clear preemption," he said.
The council has hinted that it wants to bolster gun-shop reporting, potentially restrict high capacity magazines and start databases to track purchases.
Even Seattle Police Chief John Diaz supports a number of the reforms.
"We would like to stop access to felons having weapons, to mentally-ill individuals having weapons, to kids having access to weapons," he said.
The problem is the law at the state level and in Congress.
"In the past, we haven't had the votes in Olympia or Washington, D.C.," said the city's legislative director Craig Engelking. "The votes are just simply not there."
On the national level, Pres. Barack Obama has made the first overtures to drastically restrict firearm access. He says enough is enough, and wants a commission to give him a practical plan by January.
"The vast majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war," Obama said.
Vice President Joe Biden will lead the commission that will focus on mental health reforms and also push to bring back the the assault weapons ban.
While some of the Seattle City Council's reforms go farther than the president, the council wants the public to rise up and start the process to change the law. They can't wait for state lawmakers, and they don't want to wait anymore.
"We don't think that we would win in Olympia," said Harrell.
The city's board has the involvement of both King County mental health experts and the school district. But the initiative process to change the law will take more than 240,000 signatures.
The Seattle City Council wants to decide the fate of firearms at the local level. State law says the city can't, but from the council president to the chief of police, nearly every city leader wants something to change.
In the often slow-moving debate over gun control, big changes take small steps. And the first step for Seattle was a meeting on Wednesday.
Seattle City Council member Bruce Harrell is leading the charge to gather signatures to change state law and let cities decide how best to control guns.
"I think you can see how overreaching it is. I mean, it's a clear preemption," he said.
The council has hinted that it wants to bolster gun-shop reporting, potentially restrict high capacity magazines and start databases to track purchases.
Even Seattle Police Chief John Diaz supports a number of the reforms.
"We would like to stop access to felons having weapons, to mentally-ill individuals having weapons, to kids having access to weapons," he said.
The problem is the law at the state level and in Congress.
"In the past, we haven't had the votes in Olympia or Washington, D.C.," said the city's legislative director Craig Engelking. "The votes are just simply not there."
On the national level, Pres. Barack Obama has made the first overtures to drastically restrict firearm access. He says enough is enough, and wants a commission to give him a practical plan by January.
"The vast majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war," Obama said.
Vice President Joe Biden will lead the commission that will focus on mental health reforms and also push to bring back the the assault weapons ban.
While some of the Seattle City Council's reforms go farther than the president, the council wants the public to rise up and start the process to change the law. They can't wait for state lawmakers, and they don't want to wait anymore.
"We don't think that we would win in Olympia," said Harrell.
The city's board has the involvement of both King County mental health experts and the school district. But the initiative process to change the law will take more than 240,000 signatures.
This is not about safety! It is all about control!
If criminals cared about the laws, they wouldn't be criminals!
Only fools and idiots would believe more laws will stop or slow down crime!
That is only wishful thinking!
Reality does not work that way, and most Americans know it!
I find it ironic that "Mensa" Joe Biden will lead the commission that will focus on mental health reforms.
What could go wrong?
 @Mr. Carbon Footprint HA!  I agree. They need to work on their choice of poster boy...Next thing you know, Bill Clinton will be leading the fight against infidelity......
Because I have been at many incidents that the news media did not report correctly, I will give Chief Diaz that benefit of the doubt, but I will say that if what is being reported here is accurate the Chief is a total tool of his political bosses, because what he said is beyond ignorant. As it is already illegal for felons, the mentally ill, and children to possess firearms. Although I will admit, that the article says he said "weapons" not firearms, overall this is about guns, so I substituted firearms because I like to point out "spin."
gun laws work, just ask Mexico.
 @iamright555 And England, and Australia..
To all those who say " I'm not at all interested in banning guns" ...... well, you may not, but there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that the govts do like to ban guns...... and gun ban will only come about over many years of taking very small rights away at one time....... it will happen just like how smoking was banned over several decades.
Â
Â
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HoV7TgAXKO8
 @kramr The govt already did the ban thing. Didn't really work out all that good. People were still able to get booze on the black market or make it themselves. That ban was called Prohibition(1920-1933). They finally gave up on it and re-legalized it.Â
Â
Besides, it the city did that, the courts would overturn it like they did in Chicago.
Naturally, if you make less restrictions for pot, you need more restrictions for guns. Interesting choice of social progress, though.
What this country needs "right now" is a National Gun March. Everyone that is capable and willing grab a firearm and march through every city in America to show support for the Second Amendment and protest more useless restrictive gun laws.
@JohnQ.Public --- I like that idea. Let's organize that. I'm there. I just finished cleaning my Bushmaster and Glock. Moron Labe will be on my Don't Tread On Me Banner.
 @The Resistance Organize it.
Â
The city of Seattle can go fly a kite.... to put it nicely. All the city of Seattle is trying to do is punish legal law abiding citizens pertaining to gun rights.... After all a criminal never adheres to any gun laws....
Great idea Seattle, it's worked AWESOME in Chicago! /sarc
Stock up on weapons, ammo and magazines. The US is suspending habeas corpus. They can some and take you away at anytime and toss you in prison. No trial, no charges, no attorney and no communication with anyone.
Â
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html
Seattle can say what they want, but it isn't the city's decision. I dislike all of the assult weapons too, but banning them won't keep the criminals, survivalists and mentlly ill for getting them. It wiil only keep law abiding citizens from purchasing them. How could all the ones already out there be rounded up? I am real curious about this situation so please post what your thought are
 @kf54 Can survivalists be law-abiding?
 @Julie  @kf54 Yes they can they watched what happened in Waco so they know it can happen to them...
On another note it is totally impossible to get a high capacity magazine. They are all sold out. Companies making high capacity magazines are working overtime to meet the demand.
Â
Same with all semiautomatic rifles.
Â
This was so predictable. Every time there is a highly publicized the sales of guns, ammo and magazines go up.
@RalphCramden --- Yes and that's about to make me go postal.
 @The Resistance Â
Funny. It's amazing how going postal is such a common term when the post office is considered relatively safe. Retail is number one. So maybe going retail would be more accurate.
@RalphCramden @The Resistance ---Remember when there were all the postal worker shootings because the workers were so stressed out? How quickly we forget.
"I think you can see how overreaching it is. I mean, it's a clear preemption," he said."
Â
I think you meant overreacting.
Â
Local gun laws do not work. Look at Chicago.
Â
They thinking this time instead of just reacting like typical politicians.
Â
Â
Because the laws on the books have been so effective? More laws will help? Knee jerks.
Hmm interesting because all the criminals up there using guns for their crimes really don't seem to mind braking numerous laws so this should really have a big impact on gun violence, NOT...
Only imbeciles and idiots could believe that more laws will stop crime or criminals,or even slow it down. The only thing that gun laws have stopped are law abiding citizens. The control freaks will do anything to gain control. When the firearms are all gone, how will America defend itself? Our government is a bigger threat to us than any foreign enemy!
You want to hear why guns are needed? Suzanna Gratia can explain it to you better then just about anyone else. Just google it and watch the video as she explains why our second amendment right is important to uphold.Â
"We would like to stop access to felons having weapons, to mentally-ill individuals having weapons, to kids having access to weapons,"Â
The law already stops these people from buying guns.
 @iamright555 It does? Since when do laws stop felons from doing anything they really want to do? When do laws prevent gang bangers and other law breakers from getting guns?
Â
Please answer those questions.
Â
<crickets>
 @scoreboard  @iamright555 That's kind of the point, that laws only put restrictions on law abiding citizens. But as far as legal sales, there are already rules about selling to felons and the mentally ill, and children. This is EXACTLY what they checked for when I bought my guns.Â
 @iamright555 Don't let facts and common sense get in the way of the gun grabbers taking full advantage of the tragedy that just happened...
lawless people dont care about laws... So whatever they do it wont stop mass shooting.
Even Seattle Police Chief John Diaz supports a number of the reforms."We would like to stop access to felons having weapons, to mentally-ill individuals having weapons, to kids having access to weapons," he said.Â
Â
Ok, I can go along with the 'felons' part, but Mr. Diaz seems to be woefully disconnected regarding mental disorders and the predisposition toward violence. Â The problem with your statement Mr. Diaz, is that with the exception of paranoid schizophrenics, the rate of violence for persons diagnosed with a brain disorder is approx. equal to those that have not been. Â
Â
Let me provide a very applicable and interesting quote from ABC's This Week from this past Sunday (Stephanopoulos hosted):
Â
ABC "This Week (16 Dec 2012)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-tragedy-elementary-school/story?id=17985934&page=5#.UNNAY-Q1nSg
Â
"WILL: Yes. And our response is always to think that there's some defect in the social system or some prompting in the social atmosphere that causes this and, therefore, we assume, we can tailor a law to correct the defect.
Â
The problem is, the law can do three things. It can deter with severe punishments. Of course, we already have lots of deterrents against murder. They can impede the access to public spaces or to weapons. Or, third, the law can monitor and, in some cases, confine people who meet the profile of these people.
Â
The problem with this is, these people are determined, psychotic, and often suicidal. It's very difficult to deter someone like that or impede. And then when you come to the question of monitoring or confining, you look at the profile. These are often men, young men, young, unmarried men, young men who are socially awkward, and sometimes young, unmarried, socially awkward men who have been diagnosed or even prescribed some kind of psychotropic medicine. The civil liberties and privacy issues involved in trying to monitor people in this not insignificant cohort who fit that profile are insuperable."
Uh, well, there is that 'Constitution' thingy out there somewhere...
More resources for mental health care is the answer, not more control for people who own guns legally.
The problem is the "Mentally ill" don't think they're ill.
Laws won't stop criminals or anyone else from getting guns. When will people learn this? They'll just get them illegally. They're wasting their time even discussing anything like this. Their efforts could be better spent on perhaps improving mental health care or something like that.
 @scoreboard It makes them feel like they are doing something positive, when in reality, they are disarming law abiding citizens.
Â
/Former LEO
I don't see it helping. Â Criminals will still find guns. Â The issue is much bigger than too many guns, and everyone knows that. Â
Another stupid political waste of time. Â Lets screw the honest person and leave the criminal alone. Â Criminals don't care about laws, they buy in back rooms and on street corners.
Explain to me how restricting the sale of some types of weapons and accessories will have any effect on criminals that are willing to steal them...?? Â In both recent events, the weapons that were used were stolen......
Â
Also, did the crime rates for crimes committed using these types of weapon go down during the ten years the Clinton ban was in effect..??  The answer is no.  Yet, we can't wait to repeat the same failed experiment, expecting a different outcome this time.
Â
I ask my liberal friends; "....do you want to address mass violence, or do you just want to ban guns..??...". Â We can make changes but it will require an honest look at our society. Â The answers and steps required may not be very complementary.....
 @'CouvGuy Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time.
 @scoreboard  @'CouvGuy ....exactly.
"gather signatures to change state law and let cities decide how best to control guns."
Â
The liberals in liberal town want to take matters into their own hands. So one city may have very strict laws and the next town over the hill won't? So what's to stop a criminal from just going to the next town and buying the "outlawed" weapon?
@TimBurr Statists would rather the government have more control, regardless of logic. They dont use much prudence in their thinking.
So if or when guns laws become very strict and next mass killer uses something other than a gun, can we repeal the gun laws????
Â
@kramr Won't that be counted as evidence that the stricter gun laws worked? It reduced the impulse killers. I think you wanted to ask is what will happen when the gun laws are very strict and the next mass killer still uses a gun, will gun laws then be re-addressed.
@JTesla  """"Won't that be counted as evidence that the stricter gun laws worked?"""""
quite the opposite, it would demonstrate that sick individuals who want to kill WILL KILL REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE GUN LAWS ARE.
My point is that its sick individuals that kill, not their hardware of choice. you take away one way to kill, they will just use another......its that simple
@JTesla  """""Yes there are some who will get different hardware, but regarding the two recent crimes it is my understanding that they were done more on impulse and did not show the type of advanced planning that would have allowed them to conduct the killing with alternate hardware"""""
what evidence supports this claim?
@kramr I disagree to a point. Yes there are some who will get different hardware, but regarding the two recent crimes it is my understanding that they were done more on impulse and did not show the type of advanced planning that would have allowed them to conduct the killing with alternate hardware. That of course doesn't apply in every situation, the whack job from Norway comes to mind, but then there is no one-size fits all solution. So going back to your original point: for me the telltale sign of a need to repeal will not be alternate weapons being used, but the continued use of the weapons that are banned.