Washington Initiative 1491

[Osarion]

There is a current Initiative in WA state designed:

"to temporarily prevent individuals who are at high risk of harming themselves or others from accessing firearms by allowing family, household members, and police to obtain a court order when there is demonstrated evidence that the person poses a significant danger, including danger as a result of a dangerous mental health crisis or violent behavior."

Many gun owners that I see make the argument that while the 2nd Amendment should not be infringed, there are cases such as mentally ill or people who are a clear and identifiable danger to themselves or others should not be allowed a gun. I count myself as one of them.

Can this bill achieve this goal without stepping on legitimate gun owners? We may be voting on this come November, and I'm a bit shocked it doesn't seem to have been brought up here yet. Here is the full text:

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_1016.pdf

Read More

 

[Joe13]

Gun, knife or club.

All deadly and you can't ban them all...

 

[scrandall01215]

Who is to say what mental illness is? There are people saying if your religious, that deems you mentally ill!!!
Another BAD law!!

Stacy
Edit
Did you actually read this it starts out with untruths. It misrepresents the facts, how many of those 180,000 people shot are acts of gang violence? Ah most!!! Anyone( gun owner/supporter) that falls for this is just a frog in a pot.any law that limits your RIGHTS is just an illegal law. Because these are Constitutional Rights ( God given you can't take them away!! )
It all sounds warm and fuzzy but just look at NY And CA they got that warm and fuzzy feeling too!!

 

[decklin]

The largest mass murder in US history was committed using fire. Less than thirty years ago too.
I will not and can not condone anything that infringes on a Right.

 

[Osarion]

Gun, knife or club.

All deadly and you can't ban them all...

Totally get that but that's not really the topic being discussed... At all

 

[Osarion]

The largest mass murder in US history was committed using fire. Less than thirty years ago too.
I will not and can not condone anything that infringes on a Right.

Again, this really doesn't address the actual topic of discussion here.

Is anyone interested in actually debating the ups/downs of this initiative? This might be getting voted on this November...
If the only defense presented against this is "Waco/Ruby Ridge never forget!!!"... We're in trouble.

 

[Joe13]

Totally get that but that's not really the topic being discussed... At all

It's totally on topic.

Who cares what your mental state is as far as gun rights go. Aren't you kind of high and mighty judging who should and should not have a gun?

If that's the case then shouldn't the same go for knives and bats or sticks? If your deemed likely to hurt someone then why stop at gun rights?


My point to counter your point was that mental or not, if Person 1 wants to kill person 2 then taking their gun rights does nothing to help; they will find a way to do what they want.

What it does is give the government one more crack to widen the gap to our rights.

I'll be voting against said initiative. The Federal Income Tax was a 'Temporary Tax' to help with the cost of a war. Do you still file your federal taxes every year now that that war is long gone? Yes, because of the Revenue Act of 1913:

The Act also provided for the reinstitution of a federal income tax[2] as a means to compensate for anticipated lost revenue because of the reduction of tariff duties. The most recent effort to tax incomes (Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894) had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Courtbecause the tax on dividends, interest, and rents had been deemed to be a direct tax not apportioned by population. That obstacle, however, was removed by ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment on February 3, 1913.[3] The Act provided in part that:

"...subject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, businesses, trade, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property, also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any lawful business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever...."[4]
Source: Revenue Act of 1913 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913)



Temporary infringement turns into permanent infringement more often then not.

That fit the topic you wanted better?

 

[Koda]

Is anyone interested in actually debating the ups/downs of this initiative? This might be getting voted on this November...

the answer to your questions is actually pretty simple: no due process. Would you want someone totally unqualified in mental health care to make that decision to remove your rights without your conviction in court? Better start kissing butt of everyone that rubs you the wrong way that knows your a gun owner, talk about letting someone bully you.

 

[mjbskwim]

Again, this really doesn't address the actual topic of discussion here.
.

You're kinda new here, huh?
Slow down brother,some time theses threads go sideways. Just . The. Way. It. Goes
We have discussed this,just recently as a matter of fact, but I'll say it again
Crazy,incompetent ,what ever,is defined by the lawyer who can best convince the jury his version is right.
What we are going to have to do is qualify everyone we talk about guns to.
Or just don't?
You will have to zip it shut when you are around ANYONE you think might be against guns
I mean look at that mom in NJ who said her son may have anger problems AFTER he just got back from the ME!!!!.
Yeah most would.
So nowadays we will have to keep ourselves ahead of the game and walk away from some conversations
Just not engage with certain people.
They WILL pass these type laws. It will happen.
We will be looked upon as a fringe community

 

[Joe13]

You're kinda new here, huh?

The green troll for an avatar was either spot on or not well thought out.

 

[decklin]

Again, this really doesn't address the actual topic of discussion here.

Is anyone interested in actually debating the ups/downs of this initiative? This might be getting voted on this November...
If the only defense presented against this is "Waco/Ruby Ridge never forget!!!"... We're in trouble.

We've given an answer. There are no "ups" only downs.
Imagine being stripped of your rights because somebody decided they wanted to give you a hard time.
If the judicial system refuses to prosecute swatters what makes you think they're gonna give a flying leap about whether you're actually guilty?
If passed this would be in direct violation of not only the US Constitution but the Wa state Constitution.
In case you are unaware the Wa state Constitution clearly states the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Given the fact the 2A ends with "shall not be infringed" I'd say it's pretty cut and dry.
To expand on this one need only look at Article I Section 24 of the Wa state Constitution which says, "the right to bear arms in self defense shall not be impaired." That isn't a direct quote. I left out the rest of the stuff it says you have Right to use firearms for. It really only strengthens what I've already written.
Then there is that pesky bit about due process and being secure in your persons.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I want no educated idiot to bid my fate on constitutional rights.
Ask yourself this, aren't there enough laws on the books that already cover this issue?
That right there is the root of problem with TPTB always looking to keep the big brother thumb firmly on the necks of the populous!!!

 

[Koda]

Ask yourself this, aren't there enough laws on the books that already cover this issue?

I believe so. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but in Oregon there is already a law where a judge can remove your gun rights if your mentally adjudicated. The problem is a person has to first commit a crime to find themselves in court, these new gun violence restraining order laws are making it so you don't have to commit a crime first to have your gun rights removed... yet isn't it also already against the law to threaten someone with violence, among other things like harassment, stalking etc?

 

[Osarion]

Who cares what your mental state is as far as gun rights go. Aren't you kind of high and mighty judging who should and should not have a gun?

If thinking that people who are paranoid schizophrenics, diagnosed antisocial personality disorders, bipolar disorder (of whom 50% attempts suicide, this is a fact) or people who have made clear and identifiable threats/acts of violence against others or themselves are people who probably shouldn't have a gun? Then yes I suppose you can call me high and mighty, because these people are the ones who paint the rest of us with the "guns are bad" brush that anti-gunners love to go for.

the answer to your questions is actually pretty simple: no due process. Would you want someone totally unqualified in mental health care to make that decision to remove your rights without your conviction in court? Better start kissing butt of everyone that rubs you the wrong way that knows your a gun owner, talk about letting someone bully you.

This is what I was looking for. Due process is an excellent point to bring up here, but it can also be argued that the due process clauses of the bill of rights don't actually serve to be a total barrier to the deprivation of life/liberty/property, because we already know that they're not. You can be deprived of life/liberty/property and it happens hundreds of times a day in courts around the country. They're called criminal (and civil in the case of property) proceedings.

I would say that depriving someone of their right to arms without them present to contest the claim is a pretty clear violation of your right to due process. On the other hand we have secret courts making secret wire taps and warrants out thanks to the Patriot Act, so, there's that... Thanks Bush.

The problem is a person has to first commit a crime to find themselves in court, these new gun violence restraining order laws are making it so you don't have to commit a crime first to have your gun rights removed... yet isn't it also already against the law to threaten someone with violence, among other things like harassment, stalking etc?

The initiative as I read it seems very vague and open to a scary amount of interpretation. I think they have good intentions and I fully stand by the notion that some people just should not have legal access to guns, but I don't think this initiative is going to achieve what people hope it will achieve and could be pretty dangerous.

It sounds like what you are talking about is the 1st amendment concept of No Prior Restraint, but usually this only applies to speech/assembly/etc. Can your rights be suspended if you make what is believed to be a credible threat? In most cases I'm sure, but there's a lot of other cases with a lot of grey areas.

 

[Koda]

Can your rights be suspended if you make what is believed to be a credible threat? In most cases I'm sure, but there's a lot of other cases with a lot of grey areas.

well if I understand correctly the gun restraining order laws are an attempt to remove the grey area from suspending ones gun rights.

for the record, I agree with you when you say....

If thinking that people who are paranoid schizophrenics, diagnosed antisocial personality disorders, bipolar disorder (of whom 50% attempts suicide, this is a fact) or people who have made clear and identifiable threats/acts of violence against others or themselves are people who probably shouldn't have a gun? Then yes I suppose you can call me high and mighty, because these people are the ones who paint the rest of us with the "guns are bad" brush that anti-gunners love to go for.

but the key word there is, as you say... "diagnosed".

The grey area here is the millions of people out there that do have issues that have not been diagnosed, yet. Case in point: Kevin James Loibl, had no criminal record.

I think that what Joe13 and others are implying in this thread is that no matter what you do there will always be first time killers. This is just a fact of life its always been this way and its impossible to legislate violence. In that regard, I agree with Joe... unless there is a way to not infringe on my due process, I will vote against any gun restraining order laws which are more probable to be abused than save lives....

Gun restraining orders are ripe for abuse: Opposing view (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/10/26/gun-violence-restraining-order-editorials-debates/17979597/)

 

[Osarion]

Well you're absolutely right about, for lack of a better term, the "sleepers". Folks who for no foreseeable or reasonably preventable reason go and do something awful.

I have my own views on what we need to do to prevent things like this. That's an entire rant and post in it's own though... which I've been meaning to write up anyway. The anti-gunners are going after all the wrong things I believe.

 

[scrandall01215]

I edited my rant!
You Osarion want to debate and beat a dead horse we have debated this subject to death!!!
The bottom line is this Law would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL both federal and state period
What part do you Democrats not understand " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Did you notice there is a period at the end of that statement from OUR Constitution here is the definition of period that our Founder Fathers ment with that period

• added to the end of a statement to indicate that no further discussion is possible or desirable.
  
  Stacy

 

[Joe13]

I have my own views on what we need to do to prevent things like this. That's an entire rant and post in it's own though..

Thanks for the warning - I'm just goin to mash the ignore button at this point.

 

[PaulB47]

Many gun owners that I see make the argument that while the 2nd Amendment should not be infringed, there are cases such as mentally ill or people who are a clear and identifiable danger to themselves or others should not be allowed a gun. I count myself as one of them.

Then you need to rethink this issue.

Here is the correct response:
"I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air - that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave." ["Why Liberty?", Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1927]
-- H.L. Mencken

The government is not here to make our life safe. Stop imagining that they are. They are a lot more dangerous to us, than any collection of nuts could be. By the way, laws preventing nuts getting guns, do not actually work. So what you are doing is selling your rights not for a mess of pottage, but for the illusion of a mess of pottage.

 

[Koda]

Well you're absolutely right about, for lack of a better term, the "sleepers". Folks who for no foreseeable or reasonably preventable reason go and do something awful.

I have my own views on what we need to do to prevent things like this. That's an entire rant and post in it's own though... which I've been meaning to write up anyway. The anti-gunners are going after all the wrong things I believe.

Thats part of what the whole gun control debate is boiling down to, but I don't think there is a way to prevent ("sleepers") first time offenders from acting out. The symptoms are too wide spread to act upon all of them effectively. I wouldn't mind hearing your opinions on it though (caution, the majority here will flame you for being a troll if you have any differing opinion than molon labe), I've had my own thoughts but I'm convinced its impossible. Some will lament about how things used to be, more peaceful... but I don't think that's true there are plenty of mass killings including mass shootings in American history. The only difference between the past and today is how fast news travels and puts issues in the lime light. In my own studies of crime and violence I've learned that its really a certain percent of all society that commits crime and violence that's never changed (and never will). There is no law or legislation that can be passed to fix that, people acting out violently do so on emotions and not logic. One theory I have is that the "gun violence" issue appears to be rising but its not, its just that in the last 100 years the US population has doubled... so while the percentage of violent crime stays the same it feels like its increasing.

The problem with gun control is the role models the antis see as examples: The UK, Canada, Australia... they claim have virtually zero "gun violence". But they are ignoring other aspects about those countries, that they virtually had zero "gun violence" in the first place. Whatever the demographic and cultural elements are that keep violent crime (purportedly) low in those countries doesn't apply everywhere else and ignores the fact that those citizens are virtually helpless when eventually all countries are faced with violence, like currently in Europe. Despite the obvious, the antis wont stop until they achieve total removal of gun rights per other countries examples and has reached the tipping point where all current proposed laws are an attempt to remove the law abiding right and will have zero impact on crime.