Skip to comments.Anti-gun advocates seek one-word change in WA law
Posted on 06/02/2012 5:30:17 AM PDT by marktwain
SEATTLE A national organization is using Wednesdays deadly shootings in Seattle to push for new gun laws in Washington state. It says a one word change to the law could have prevented someone like Ian Stawicki, the mentally troubled man who shot and killed five people, from getting a concealed weapons permit.
"There are some people who should not own a gun. It can be a devastating thing, said Nina Schumacher, niece of one of the victims in the shooting at Café Racer.
"In this case police had no choice but to issue a dangerous person a license to carry loaded guns in public, said Daniel Vice with anti-gun group the Brady Foundation.
The foundation wants lawmakers to replace a single word in the law which says police agencies shall issue concealed weapons permits to qualifying people. They want it to say may issue giving police an option that they may or may not issue a permit.
Even if a family says this person is a danger don't give them a gun, police in Washington have no choice. In "may issue" states, police have the discretion to say No. This person is a danger they are not going to carry a loaded weapon in public," said Vice,
Ian Stawicki had a history of mental problems, but no felonies, so he was legally allowed to buy the weapons from a Tacoma gun shop in February.
The changes proposed by Brady wouldnt have stopped the gun sale, but denying Stawicki a concealed carry permit would have made it illegal for him to walk around with a gun tucked under his clothes, just as he did Wednesday morning.
"This maniac had possession of guns and killed my brother. It's wrong, said Linda Albanese.
But that one word wont be changed in the law books without a ferocious fight. Gun rights advocates say it would give police broad powers to reject concealed weapons permits for citizens who havent broken the law.
If you did that here in Seattle, you'd have a chief who gave out no gun permits. If it becomes discretionary, then people who deserve guns won't get them, said Alan Gottlieb with the Second Amendment Foundation.
Gottlieb said the Washington state Supreme Court weighed in on the issue decades ago, ruling that police had to issue permits to qualified citizens.
Why do they think someone intent on murder is going to care about may vs shall?
>>Why do they think someone intent on murder is going to care about may vs shall?
They don’t. This is about keeping law-abiding citizens from having a means of self-defense. The real problem isn’t that one person slipped through the cracks and got a gun. The problem is that none of the sheeple in that restaurant bothered to exercise their rights to be armed.
I have a real problem with “Laws” that use words like “may” or “the secretary shall issue regulations” because they turn over our rights to unelected, un-accountable bureaucrats.
Oh, yeah, you know someone intent on shooting people is going to worry about a law that says he can't carry a gun. Did it ever occur to these idiot liberals that it is against the law to kill people but that didn't stop this guy from doing it. He would have obtained a weapon by illegal means if necessary, happens all the time, and still killed these people.
It’s common in “may issue” states for the cops to refuse most applications.
Open carry and constitutional carry states must drive these libtards over the edge.
I do believe qualifying works and may changes the whole scenarios.
To qualify, you should be of sound mind. You stick may in there and this opens a whole can of worms. The police decide they don’t like a particular family and they may never get a license to carry.
I don’t like this at all!
Washington should consider outlawing murder as a first step.
Exactly right. The left cynically exploits these tragedies in order to deprive millions of law abiding people of their rights. Take away guns and and its far easier for the government to control the slaves. We’re slaves already, but at least we’re armed, and when the sheeple finally wake up, we have a chance at overthrowing the tyrants.
Look how well that's worked out in New Jersey. They say "no" almost every time, if you're not politically connected or employed in aw enforcement.
Look how well that's worked out in New Jersey. They say "no" almost every time, if you're not politically connected or employed in law enforcement.
“May” issue. Well, that would be a BIG change in the intent and substance of the law.
I have a one word answer. “No.”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.