Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

"Moscow City Council tables gun ban debate indefinitely"

The lame duck period of Queen Nancy's reign has officially begun. She couldn't get her misbegotten gun ban proposal through the EXISTING liberal city council.

This quote from the Queen is one for the ages:
I'm just saying that the person loses their temper and they have something readily at hand, they may use it regardless of what it is, if it's a bag of popcorn or a firearm.
Only a barking moonbat from San Francisco could equate the spectrum of violence required from a tub of Orville Redenbacher's finest to a Glock 17 as being the same. From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:
Moscow resident David Klingenberg said he'd like a City Council resolution encouraging the Idaho Legislature to allow cities to restrict firearms in city-owned spaces to be "permanently shot down."

Still, the longtime opponent of firearms restrictions was pleased the City Council voted Monday to postpone the discussion indefinitely.

Councilman Aaron Ament proposed the postponement, and council members Linda Pall, John Weber and Bill Lambert voted in agreement.

Pall said she voted to postpone the discussion "because I think that if our legislators would like to bring it up, they can certainly bring it up. ... There was no special reason why we needed to do that."

Ament left the meeting early and was unavailable for comment.

Mayor Nancy Chaney said she was disappointed, but accepted the decision as part of the political process.

Chaney initiated the firearms discussion in August when she asked City Attorney Randy Fife to ask the Idaho Attorney General's office whether the city had authority to restrict firearms in public, city-owned places such as City Hall, city parks and the Hamilton Indoor Recreation Center.

Deputy Attorney General Stephen A. Bywater sent a reply in September stating the city cannot restrict people from legally carrying firearms. Chaney then wrote to local legislators asking them to consider introducing state-level legislation on the matter. Such legislation could give cities power to restrict firearms, or could add city halls and other areas to an existing list of places where guns are restricted, such as federal buildings and schools.

State Rep. Shirley Ringo agreed to help Chaney, but she cautioned that such legislation would be difficult to pass, even if it was well-supported.

Councilwoman Kit Craine and Councilman Tom Lamar spoke in favor of the resolution.

"I'm sure we can all imagine how far we'll get in the state Legislature with this, but I think this can be discussed in terms of whether it's appropriate to have firearms in certain areas, and we should deal with this now," Craine said.

Chaney said "the discussion is about whether it's time to ask this question."

She said other federal and state government buildings restrict firearms, so it's appropriate to consider city buildings as well.

Lambert suggested changing the resolution to allow people with concealed weapon permits to carry firearms in public buildings.

He said people who have concealed weapons permits have been scrutinized by law enforcement.

Chaney countered that the permit system is "not as fail-safe as you might anticipate."

She said she did not intend to question the responsibility of people with permits, but she believes there are circumstances where firearms are not appropriate.

The presence of a gun could keep someone from thinking as clearly as usual if they became angry, she said.

Weber asked if the mayor was suggesting "that because someone may or may not have a concealed weapons permit that they're less likely to control their temper in an argument."

Chaney said she was not, and that an angry person may use anything at hand - even a tub of buttered popcorn - as a weapon.


The Red Knight (aka, Dr. Know) said...

"The presence of a gun could keep someone from thinking as clearly as usual if they became angry, she said.

Weber asked if the mayor was suggesting "that because someone may or may not have a concealed weapons permit that they're less likely to control their temper in an argument."

Boy, I tell you, they're reading my mind! I was watching the news last night and didn't like the stock market quotes they had. I got upset and hit a throw-pillow with my fist. I'm glad I didn't have my gun with me, cause I might have gone crazy!

Mattwi said...

She's quite silly... and she's "projecting" on every lawful firearms carrier, I'm actually offended by what she is saying, but you know what I'm allowed to not agree with her viewpoint, that's what is so great about living in the US, we don't have to agree!

Anyway, did you read the other article in the LMT... Police want more gear...

Okay, they want more gear, sounds fair enough, but what do they want, the article was all wishy washy emotional for the most part.

Just what exactly do they want for gear?

I did see they wanted a SWAT van, what is that exactly, a Grumman delivery truck with bullet resistant glass or an M1A1 main battle tank?

Then there is some brouhaha about schools and they are vulnerable... but wait a tick... Didn't they figure that already in Utah.. sure did, gun free zone exemption, those who are legally allowed to carry concealed, i.e. teachers, are allowed to carry at work, i.e. in a School or College or University...

BTW, you can get personal exemption for carrying in Educational "Gun Free Zones", not just LEO and such.
I'm not saying they will just give you the "go ahead" ASAP, but there are exemptions.

And now from the State of Arizona... this interesting Act has been proposed:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 13, Chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding new section 13-3119:

A.R.S. §13-3119. Gun-Free-Zone Liability.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. In the event the conduct is a result of a terrorist attack as federally defined, or adversely affects a disabled person, a person who is a member of a minority as federally defined, a senior citizen or a child under 16 years of age, treble damages shall apply.

B. For the purposes of this section, criminal conduct shall include offenses specified under this title in Chapter 11 (Homicide), Chapter 12 (Assault and Related Offenses), Chapter 13 (Kidnapping), Chapter 14 (Sexual Offenses), Chapter 15 (Criminal Trespass and Burglary), Chapter 17 (Arson), Chapter 19 (Robbery), Chapter 25 (Escape and Related Offenses), Chapter 29 (Offenses Against Public Order) and Chapter 36 (Family Offenses).

C. For the purposes of this section, the term "gun-free zone" shall mean any building, place, area or curtilage that is open to the public, or in or upon any public conveyance, where a person's right or ability to keep arms or to bear arms is infringed, restricted or diminished in any way by statute, policy, rule, regulation, ordinance, utterance or posted signs.

There is also talk of doing similar here in WA State over at opencarry.org


April E. Coggins said...

In related news, popcorn isn't safe either.

Mattwi said...

and FYI, by "Projecting" I meant this:
In psychological terms, this is called "projectionism." Projectionism is where someone projects their own noxious qualities on someone else, then despises the recipient for now possessing those noxious qualities, and sees themselves as totally blameless in their own eyes.

But she should understand that, after all she was a mental health nurse or something like that wasn't she...

modus operandi = Tugging At Heartstrings With Loose "Facts"...