- Messages
- 2,885
- Reactions
- 6,905
If he staffed the police department and the jails to keep the criminals off the streets instead of funding new bike lanes it would do more to reduce crime than passing a bunch of stupid gun control laws.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Portland Mayor Sam Adams - Introducing City Anti-Gun Initiatives
- Thread Starter Joe Link
- Start date
- Messages
- 234
- Reactions
- 243
Alright with trepidation I will be a voice of dissent but I have to say that on the whole I do not see major problems with these proposals. Set aside the fact that they are coming from a nut case like Adams.
1. Curfew. Probably won't work but it is not an "I am going to take your guns!" ordinance. I think it is a fairly interesting approach, but is only enforceable after a crime has been committed which is when the police would discover the violation. Ultimately ineffective at stopping crime. This can only amount to political eye candy.
2. The children. I see no problem with this provided it is worded a little better. I think some nimrod that leaves a loaded gun just laying about and does not take even the most basic safety precautions is negligent. If their child or someone elses child gets hurt as a result then it is criminally negligent. If you are not using your gun lock it up. If you are carrying a gun because of your need for personal protection then keep the gun with you. If you are done carrying the gun around then secure it properly. It's basic safety kids. In 2007 613 deaths (of adolescents to young adults) resulted from unintentional discharge of a firearm, in my world that is still 613 too many. I would also note that this is not a ban on enjoying shooting sports with your child. (That number is taken from a study of the causes of death performed by the CDC I believe. I left the report at my office, so I can post later if needed.)
3. Loss/Theft - Can some of you say paranoid? This is not a back door registration because it wouldn't work if it was. Customer A goes to a store to buy a gun. Customer A turns out to have criminal intent and chooses to ignore that whole part about buying a gun for someone not lawfully allowed to posses one. He takes the gun home and somehow the gun goes "missing". Again it is personal and public safety that come to mind for me. Reporting the gun as lost or stolen will be important to solving the crime that will inevitably result and in which your gun will be used. **** if you don't report it as stolen it is just possible that an innocent person could be implicated in a crime.
4. Penalties - This needs to be rewritten to exclude people with carry permits provided they are carrying within the appropriate limits of the carry permit.
5. Exclusion zones - Didn't work in any other incarnation. To much of an administrative nightmare
I get where he is going with this and frankly I am not alarmed. I am concerned that the issues be written appropriately and that is all.
Mandrake
1. Curfew. Probably won't work but it is not an "I am going to take your guns!" ordinance. I think it is a fairly interesting approach, but is only enforceable after a crime has been committed which is when the police would discover the violation. Ultimately ineffective at stopping crime. This can only amount to political eye candy.
2. The children. I see no problem with this provided it is worded a little better. I think some nimrod that leaves a loaded gun just laying about and does not take even the most basic safety precautions is negligent. If their child or someone elses child gets hurt as a result then it is criminally negligent. If you are not using your gun lock it up. If you are carrying a gun because of your need for personal protection then keep the gun with you. If you are done carrying the gun around then secure it properly. It's basic safety kids. In 2007 613 deaths (of adolescents to young adults) resulted from unintentional discharge of a firearm, in my world that is still 613 too many. I would also note that this is not a ban on enjoying shooting sports with your child. (That number is taken from a study of the causes of death performed by the CDC I believe. I left the report at my office, so I can post later if needed.)
3. Loss/Theft - Can some of you say paranoid? This is not a back door registration because it wouldn't work if it was. Customer A goes to a store to buy a gun. Customer A turns out to have criminal intent and chooses to ignore that whole part about buying a gun for someone not lawfully allowed to posses one. He takes the gun home and somehow the gun goes "missing". Again it is personal and public safety that come to mind for me. Reporting the gun as lost or stolen will be important to solving the crime that will inevitably result and in which your gun will be used. **** if you don't report it as stolen it is just possible that an innocent person could be implicated in a crime.
4. Penalties - This needs to be rewritten to exclude people with carry permits provided they are carrying within the appropriate limits of the carry permit.
5. Exclusion zones - Didn't work in any other incarnation. To much of an administrative nightmare
I get where he is going with this and frankly I am not alarmed. I am concerned that the issues be written appropriately and that is all.
Mandrake
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
As with all gun control laws these seem simple, harmless and "common sense" but they just keep chipping away until there is nothing left. I can't get behind any of this nonsense! I have a zero compromise ideology to gun control laws. We have laws to deal with all these problems now, there are no more laws needed though some laws need to be abolished.
- Messages
- 381
- Reactions
- 25
The only thing that I can agree on is the requirement to report the loss or theft of a firearm. Here in Washington, that law is already on the books, I believe. One responder to this post said that he did not agree with this requirement. Think about it! Not only do I want my gun back like someone else mentioned, I certainly don't want someone knocking on my door if the stolen firearm has been used in a crime!
- Messages
- 234
- Reactions
- 243
touche"Common sense"? It shouldn't be called that because most people don't have it.
The biggest problem I have with these anti-firearm groups is that they want to restrict firearms rights under the guise of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Laws designed to do this already exist with substantial punishments.
Their logic disintegrates when you assume criminals obey laws. By definition. criminals break laws. Of course, these groups will never say they believe no one should have guns which seems to be their end goal.
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
Sorry, "common sense" was thrown in my post as sarcasm. 
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reactions
- 4,154
]
Guys, The point I was trying to make on the loss reporting requirement didn't have anything to do with an actual lost or stolen firearm. Of course anyone with any sense would report an actual lost or stolen firearm, legal requirement or not.
The point is that this could be used against someone who privately transfers a weapon to someone else and then chooses not to provide that information to the government (to protect the privacy of the lawful buyer). This reporting requirement, coupled with a potential future requirement to document private transactions, would in effect force any private seller in to being sort of a government informant.
Mandrakes point of criminal intent on the part of the seller would only apply if the weapon was originally purchased and registered with intent to immediately turn it over to someone else (straw purchase or knowingly selling to a felon are already felony crimes). Just paper burden added to the back of the firearms owner. I can't see this part of Adam's proposal as anything but a gradual move against non-documented private sales.
I view anything coming out of this present city hall with the logic of a chess player. You simply can't let their actions go by without looking for what the next possible move(s) might be. If that makes me paranoid.........soooo be it !
OK...... feed me Mandrake, feed me !
.
Guys, The point I was trying to make on the loss reporting requirement didn't have anything to do with an actual lost or stolen firearm. Of course anyone with any sense would report an actual lost or stolen firearm, legal requirement or not.
The point is that this could be used against someone who privately transfers a weapon to someone else and then chooses not to provide that information to the government (to protect the privacy of the lawful buyer). This reporting requirement, coupled with a potential future requirement to document private transactions, would in effect force any private seller in to being sort of a government informant.
Mandrakes point of criminal intent on the part of the seller would only apply if the weapon was originally purchased and registered with intent to immediately turn it over to someone else (straw purchase or knowingly selling to a felon are already felony crimes). Just paper burden added to the back of the firearms owner. I can't see this part of Adam's proposal as anything but a gradual move against non-documented private sales.
I view anything coming out of this present city hall with the logic of a chess player. You simply can't let their actions go by without looking for what the next possible move(s) might be. If that makes me paranoid.........soooo be it !
OK...... feed me Mandrake, feed me !
- Messages
- 866
- Reactions
- 324
this guy as well as the city coucil have to go.I worked on the recall campaign and am sorry I didn't work harder. He over charges us for city progects then rather than returning our surplus monies he has pet projects he spends it on WO any vote or concensus from the people. Green Bi-cycle boxes at stop signs for millions of dollars? He will be defeated and I hope soundly as we need a Mayor who is responsible to the people he or she represents. This gun stuff just adds ammunition for those of us who want him gone. Look what happened to Bob Packwood over a inebriated mistake, and this guy geta away with being a pedophile while on the citys' dime.:angry:
- Messages
- 275
- Reactions
- 6
What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is how this would have prevented any one of the gang shootings that has occurred in, say... the last five years. Sam Adams is trying to curb felony activity by enacting additional misdemeanors that are, at best, tangentially related to the gang violence problem.
Sam Adams did a fairly shrewd political calculation. He does not have the money (or the political capital) to hire enough cops and then send those cops out to aggressively police areas with gang violence. That method tends to work, but brings about complaints from community activists and limits the number of bike paths you can build. The majority of Portlanders are either casual gun owners (they have one or two guns they rarely use, don't carry, etc.) or don't own guns. I think Adams realized that he could propose these laws and they would not affect 95+% of his constituency. Additionally, most of his constituency does not break laws on a regular basis. Those folks have trouble understanding that (A) Laws like this are hard to enforce (B)Laws like this will be broken just as casually by a criminal as they break the ones prohibiting the killing and maiming of others, and (C) These laws don't address the problem at hand.
The proposed ordinance:
1. Increased penalties for carrying a loaded gun in a public place.
OK, but aren't most of these folks already carrying concealed without a permit and/or are felons? Just how much EXTRA TIME is the violation of a city ordinance going to give them? A day? Two?
2. A "special curfew" for any juvenile found by a court of law to have violated gun laws.
So, Junior is 15 years old and commits a gun crime. Junior, a gangster, was in possession of the gun with the intent of, should the opportunity arise, committing a laundry list of felonies. Now, one year later, his case finally comes to trial and he is convicted. Junior goes to McLaren for six months and gets his high school diploma in criminal behavior. Now almost 17, Junior is out on the streets of Portland. He has a curfew on his probation, but both of his parents ignore their parole officers, so why shouldn't he? Just as Junior is tucking his Jennings POS 9mm into the waistband of his baggy pants, he pauses and considers the consequences of his actions. "If I get caught out after curfew tonight, I will be charged with a status offense and taken home to my parents. Then, a month or two from now, I will have to appear in front of a judge and will probably be told to go home on time from now on. Maybe I should stay home."
3. City criminal penalties for any adult who fails to "control access" to a firearm by a child.
And the state statute for reckless endangering has worked as such a great deterrent. Irresponsible gun ownership is not the root cause of these problems and the six hundred or so accidental shootings NATIONWIDE that occur when a child gains access to an improperly stored firearm should not necessitate a city ordinance. The gang members that obtain a gun from their own home don't get it from a naive and unaware parent. They get it from a parent or other member of the family that is also a member of the same criminal organization.
4. Exclude people who have been convicted of violating "firearms use or possession laws" from certain areas within Portland. Those areas would be selected based upon whether illegal use of firearms there is "markedly greater" than normal.
We can do this, but Sammy had a problem with the drug free zone and prostitution free zones (which worked and worked the same way) just a few short years ago.
Sam Adams did a fairly shrewd political calculation. He does not have the money (or the political capital) to hire enough cops and then send those cops out to aggressively police areas with gang violence. That method tends to work, but brings about complaints from community activists and limits the number of bike paths you can build. The majority of Portlanders are either casual gun owners (they have one or two guns they rarely use, don't carry, etc.) or don't own guns. I think Adams realized that he could propose these laws and they would not affect 95+% of his constituency. Additionally, most of his constituency does not break laws on a regular basis. Those folks have trouble understanding that (A) Laws like this are hard to enforce (B)Laws like this will be broken just as casually by a criminal as they break the ones prohibiting the killing and maiming of others, and (C) These laws don't address the problem at hand.
The proposed ordinance:
1. Increased penalties for carrying a loaded gun in a public place.
OK, but aren't most of these folks already carrying concealed without a permit and/or are felons? Just how much EXTRA TIME is the violation of a city ordinance going to give them? A day? Two?
2. A "special curfew" for any juvenile found by a court of law to have violated gun laws.
So, Junior is 15 years old and commits a gun crime. Junior, a gangster, was in possession of the gun with the intent of, should the opportunity arise, committing a laundry list of felonies. Now, one year later, his case finally comes to trial and he is convicted. Junior goes to McLaren for six months and gets his high school diploma in criminal behavior. Now almost 17, Junior is out on the streets of Portland. He has a curfew on his probation, but both of his parents ignore their parole officers, so why shouldn't he? Just as Junior is tucking his Jennings POS 9mm into the waistband of his baggy pants, he pauses and considers the consequences of his actions. "If I get caught out after curfew tonight, I will be charged with a status offense and taken home to my parents. Then, a month or two from now, I will have to appear in front of a judge and will probably be told to go home on time from now on. Maybe I should stay home."
3. City criminal penalties for any adult who fails to "control access" to a firearm by a child.
And the state statute for reckless endangering has worked as such a great deterrent. Irresponsible gun ownership is not the root cause of these problems and the six hundred or so accidental shootings NATIONWIDE that occur when a child gains access to an improperly stored firearm should not necessitate a city ordinance. The gang members that obtain a gun from their own home don't get it from a naive and unaware parent. They get it from a parent or other member of the family that is also a member of the same criminal organization.
4. Exclude people who have been convicted of violating "firearms use or possession laws" from certain areas within Portland. Those areas would be selected based upon whether illegal use of firearms there is "markedly greater" than normal.
We can do this, but Sammy had a problem with the drug free zone and prostitution free zones (which worked and worked the same way) just a few short years ago.
- Messages
- 234
- Reactions
- 243
Far be it from me to challenge someone with the name of Ob1. Your comment is well written and I agree that you should think about what the next steps would be in any of these cases. I disagree with one point though. That being that the "lost/stolen" provision includes FTF sales. If you have a sale than you do not have an issue of something being lost or stolen, you have an issue of something being sold. To require FTF transactions to be subject to reporting will require a new provision and will be a harder sell. It would inevitably result in numerous court challenges.
However on the whole if such a provision were written where would it be unconstitutional? Even the Heller v Washington and the City of Chicago cases handed down by the Supreme Court upheld the lawful nature of current gun control acts by Congress and left open that Congress could pass further "reasonable" gun control measures. If I take your point that requiring some reporting of FTF transactions is a violation of the lawful buyers privacy I would ask you to prove that the buyer actually has a reasonable expectation of privacy or any guarantee of it for that matter. It could be argued quite readily that given that there are reporting requirements when buying from a store or a show that there should be no expectation there would be privacy in private sales either. You are required to report many other private sales, for instance vehicles. One last point from your comment is the when you said "lawful buyer". How do you know the person you are selling to is a lawful buyer? Based on a gut check or do you just like the cut of his jib? I for one would be devastated if I found out that a gun I sold was used in the commission of a horrendous crime. Ultimately however there is no reporting requirement on the table in Mr. Adams proposal other than in the case of theft or loss.
You make the point that there are already numerous laws on the books for enforcing these things. However I would say that Oregonians have a habit of passing "law candy". These tough on crime bills that ultimately have no financial backing. Oregonians have struck down numerous attempts to institute sales taxes or any other tax for that matter. Yet you want more people to go to jail for violations of the law. Well then start funding the bills so they are actually enforceable. Don't say they should use the bike lane money because that actually should be returned to the projects it was taken from (sewers if I remember correctly).
I would love to feed you more but my kids are clamoring for breakfast and now I must go feed them. I fear that we may have to agree to disagree on this point but I will await your next post before making that decision.
Mandrake
However on the whole if such a provision were written where would it be unconstitutional? Even the Heller v Washington and the City of Chicago cases handed down by the Supreme Court upheld the lawful nature of current gun control acts by Congress and left open that Congress could pass further "reasonable" gun control measures. If I take your point that requiring some reporting of FTF transactions is a violation of the lawful buyers privacy I would ask you to prove that the buyer actually has a reasonable expectation of privacy or any guarantee of it for that matter. It could be argued quite readily that given that there are reporting requirements when buying from a store or a show that there should be no expectation there would be privacy in private sales either. You are required to report many other private sales, for instance vehicles. One last point from your comment is the when you said "lawful buyer". How do you know the person you are selling to is a lawful buyer? Based on a gut check or do you just like the cut of his jib? I for one would be devastated if I found out that a gun I sold was used in the commission of a horrendous crime. Ultimately however there is no reporting requirement on the table in Mr. Adams proposal other than in the case of theft or loss.
You make the point that there are already numerous laws on the books for enforcing these things. However I would say that Oregonians have a habit of passing "law candy". These tough on crime bills that ultimately have no financial backing. Oregonians have struck down numerous attempts to institute sales taxes or any other tax for that matter. Yet you want more people to go to jail for violations of the law. Well then start funding the bills so they are actually enforceable. Don't say they should use the bike lane money because that actually should be returned to the projects it was taken from (sewers if I remember correctly).
I would love to feed you more but my kids are clamoring for breakfast and now I must go feed them. I fear that we may have to agree to disagree on this point but I will await your next post before making that decision.
Mandrake
I can think of situations where one may not want to report a lost or
stolen firearm:
1. It can creates a record that you owned or possessed a firearm that
may not have originally been associated with you in the legal record.
2. If your firearm was stolen from a place where you should not have been
with a firearm some of the questions as to loss may be uncomfortable.
3. An illegal possessor may not want to incriminate themselves.
4. Lastly, given the huge degree of confusion about the totality of
firearms laws across a large number of jurisdictions who the city of
Portland may share said data base, it would be less than fun to have
a loss record in Portland City, used to make the case that there was
an illegal transfer somewhere up the line from the loss reporter.
If all firearms were always transferred through FFLs, I would say, yes,
rational people always report loss or theft. But, given the number of
legal transactions on firearms that do not go through FFLs, there is
opportunity to be very careful about sweeping generalizations.
-sbc
- Messages
- 28
- Reactions
- 0
I was so glad to get out of Portland a few years ago. I read that Mayor Denny Doyle, of Beaverton, had joined the Mayors Against Illegal Guns a few months ago and wrote him a polite e-mail pointing out that Oregon was a pretty pro-gun state, and that this might mean some organized opposition to a politician who showed they were unsympathetic to Second Amendment issues. A couple of weeks later he sent a reply that he had dropped his membership.
Don't know if his office was flooded with e-mail or if my single letter changed his mind, but I have positive feelings about Mayor Doyle's willingness to cravenly buckle under to political pressure. . . I mean, rethink his position and take a principled stand on the Second Amendment.
Don't know if his office was flooded with e-mail or if my single letter changed his mind, but I have positive feelings about Mayor Doyle's willingness to cravenly buckle under to political pressure. . . I mean, rethink his position and take a principled stand on the Second Amendment.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reactions
- 4,154
Group Captain Mandrake Sir;
It may be that we will agree to disagree. That being said, a few final questions on your last comments.
"I disagree with one point though. That being that the "lost/stolen" provision includes FTF sales. If you have a sale than you do not have an issue of something being lost or stolen, you have an issue of something being sold."
Have you never had a close friend or relative, (fearing a possible future ban) ask you if you had a weapon they could buy from you to avoid registration ? .. Lets say that some time in a dark future we do find ourselves in gun owners , SHTF world, ie Great Britain or Australia. Those persons wishing to resist gun confiscation could only rely on unregistered pieces stored somewhere in a "cache". In perfect incremental form, confiscation has been preceeded by years of mandatory documentation of private FTF transfers. When the proverbial "knock on the door" ( in whatever form it may take ) does come, the gun "collectors" will have a wealth of registration info to work from such as ATF registrations and FTF transfer documentation. The remaining resort for an owner may be to say "oh, I must have lost that gun". With Sam's forced loss reporting proposal, we've lost that option also, well in advance of the time we may need to use it. This requirement could in effect make it necessary for private owners to maintain some sort of inventory list to account for their property. (Granted many of us already do, but not for the benefit of the Government !)
In your last comment, you also mention that there is "no right to privacy for gunowners / sellers guaranteed in the Constitution". Are we to take it that you would then be in favor of mandatory documentation of private transfers ?
I will leave it at this, as I don't want to load up the thread with this one point. Besides, we should focus our attention on the "International Conspiracy To Flouridate Water"..........OB1
It may be that we will agree to disagree. That being said, a few final questions on your last comments.
"I disagree with one point though. That being that the "lost/stolen" provision includes FTF sales. If you have a sale than you do not have an issue of something being lost or stolen, you have an issue of something being sold."
Have you never had a close friend or relative, (fearing a possible future ban) ask you if you had a weapon they could buy from you to avoid registration ? .. Lets say that some time in a dark future we do find ourselves in gun owners , SHTF world, ie Great Britain or Australia. Those persons wishing to resist gun confiscation could only rely on unregistered pieces stored somewhere in a "cache". In perfect incremental form, confiscation has been preceeded by years of mandatory documentation of private FTF transfers. When the proverbial "knock on the door" ( in whatever form it may take ) does come, the gun "collectors" will have a wealth of registration info to work from such as ATF registrations and FTF transfer documentation. The remaining resort for an owner may be to say "oh, I must have lost that gun". With Sam's forced loss reporting proposal, we've lost that option also, well in advance of the time we may need to use it. This requirement could in effect make it necessary for private owners to maintain some sort of inventory list to account for their property. (Granted many of us already do, but not for the benefit of the Government !)
In your last comment, you also mention that there is "no right to privacy for gunowners / sellers guaranteed in the Constitution". Are we to take it that you would then be in favor of mandatory documentation of private transfers ?
I will leave it at this, as I don't want to load up the thread with this one point. Besides, we should focus our attention on the "International Conspiracy To Flouridate Water"..........OB1
- Messages
- 241
- Reactions
- 1
Spengo:
Saw this:
"And not a single f*** was given that day"
Thought of chans, saw it was you, I lol'ed.
Saw this:
"And not a single f*** was given that day"
Thought of chans, saw it was you, I lol'ed.
- Messages
- 26
- Reactions
- 0
Agree with you; but the reason he believes he can get away with it is that Portland already has exclusion areas for drug abuse as well as exclusion areas for prostitution (they utilize the trespass laws). So I believe, in his mind, he thinks the only question that exists is can he get away with it without violating preemption. Naturally, he will let the courts make that decision. (Have you ever looked at the bias of the Multnomah Circuit?)
Only an opinion.
LCDR
- Messages
- 26
- Reactions
- 0
I would be very careful of both Portland and Multnomah County when it comes to gun control issues. You need to look at any proposed firearm regulations with a jaundiced eye. From 1967 to 1972 there was a commission that was tasked to review the Oregon Criminal Code and provide a new proposal to the Oregon Legislature. That is essentially where most of our present criminal code came from.
One area of major contention was Gun Control. If you review the taped minutes (they have been transcribed) you would be appalled at the attitude that Portland and Multnomah County Commissioners were taking towards gun control. Chicago and New York sound familiar? I have been unable to locate the final, separate proposal that went to the Legislature, but here is the final preliminary draft:
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/legislative/crimlaw/FIREARMS/PD3MAY70.pdf
Thankfully, our Legislature thought otherwise. I have no doubt that there is still a firearms agenda in the works.
LCDR
One area of major contention was Gun Control. If you review the taped minutes (they have been transcribed) you would be appalled at the attitude that Portland and Multnomah County Commissioners were taking towards gun control. Chicago and New York sound familiar? I have been unable to locate the final, separate proposal that went to the Legislature, but here is the final preliminary draft:
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/legislative/crimlaw/FIREARMS/PD3MAY70.pdf
Thankfully, our Legislature thought otherwise. I have no doubt that there is still a firearms agenda in the works.
LCDR
- Messages
- 3,390
- Reactions
- 3,094
My Monday Gun Rights Examiner column looks at this:
===================================
Is Portland mayor drinking same Kool-Aid as Seattle's?
"...the mayor says his measure would create a new crime. This is the earmark of gun control laws. They create crimes in order to control firearm access by private citizens. Its simple really, as simple as the stroke of a pen. Set a standard and anyone who does not meet that standard is suddenly a criminal."
<broken link removed>
Or try this:
<broken link removed>
===================================
Is Portland mayor drinking same Kool-Aid as Seattle's?
"...the mayor says his measure would create a new crime. This is the earmark of gun control laws. They create crimes in order to control firearm access by private citizens. Its simple really, as simple as the stroke of a pen. Set a standard and anyone who does not meet that standard is suddenly a criminal."
<broken link removed>
Or try this:
<broken link removed>
- Messages
- 77
- Reactions
- 3
Your neighbor to the North's former Mayor Nickels tried going anti-gun and look where it got him. I'd fight it as viciously as WA did. I remember reading one news source about a public forum last year where many self declared democrats, liberals and non-gun owners were there fighting Nickels and calling the law stupid--and it wont stop any bangers running around with guns.
However, our new clueless hyped fkup of a Mayor who won our election based solely off the hateful circle jerk against Nickels brought it up again this year. Aside from the obvious 2nd Amendment issues, what gives these pompous asses the right to declare the legal process of the State is wrong and should change in their favour?
Listen up WAers, McGinn is trying to set a precedence in our State. I don't doubt he and Adams have been, or are, chatting about gun-bans in the hubs of the PacNW.
However, our new clueless hyped fkup of a Mayor who won our election based solely off the hateful circle jerk against Nickels brought it up again this year. Aside from the obvious 2nd Amendment issues, what gives these pompous asses the right to declare the legal process of the State is wrong and should change in their favour?
Listen up WAers, McGinn is trying to set a precedence in our State. I don't doubt he and Adams have been, or are, chatting about gun-bans in the hubs of the PacNW.
Similar threads
