Jump to content
Hey, namvet60, glad you enjoyed that bit of humor. You likely know as well as I that it is not always possible to reason with one under the influence. Should she have opened the door at all? Probably not. Would the police have arrived in a timely manner? Depends on how busy they were. We can always second guess (as many do) but until we are in that position it is difficult to know how we would respond.
I once opened the door early in the morning to someone who did not appreciate me being at his house earlier, in uniform, due to a complaint by a neighbor. After challenging me to step out and fight he noticed the pistol in my hand at my side. That was when he decided to go home and sober up--and he did not return the next day.
Thank you, Dale, for highlighting a few of the problems with I-594. Unfortunately many have not read it themselves and blindly accept information provided by the pro-594 groups which ignore or leave out the problems.
What Cecile and other proponents fail to point out is the wording AFTER the self-defense part referenced requires that the firearm be returned immediately after the threat (Sec. 3 (4)(c)(i) and (ii) does NOT allow the self defense “transfer” without a prior background check. Practical in an emergency to “. . . prevent imminent death or great bodily harm . . .”? Hardly!
As for the “lawful hunting” exemption the last of the several stipulations to avoid being charged with a gross-misdemeanor again requires a prior background check to know “. . . if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law . . . .” Not very practical just to cross a fence safely as taught in hunter safety classes. Proponents argue there wouldn't be a deputy there, so are they saying if one was s/he should/would ignore the law as written?
Those who do not take the time to actually read I-594 carefully will fail to know “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say and will fail to be a truly informed voter on this issue. Background checks ARE required even on “exemptions” when proponents claim they are not if I-594 is read carefully.
I must have missed the notice in the UB about this meeting and no notice of it from PP is remembered. Was a notice published and it was just missed? If not, it would be helpful if such information were published with enough advance notice to be useful for those wishing to attend.
One thing not mentioned in the letter due to space constraints is the impossibility of enforcement for the portions covered by "transfers" as defined in I-594, but it is unlikely that Chicoli would care about that.
As for mandatory insurance, how has that worked for vehicle drivers? Again, only the law-abiding with do so which means the rest of us who actually work and pay taxes will end up footing the bill for the free-loaders as usual.
And, again, criminals will not care about the law and will continue to obtain firearms to use against those who--if this continues--will no longer be able to defend/protect their spouse and kids with a firearm. Check Chicago and see how well all those laws have worked at removing firearms from the criminals.
You may win this one, Chicoli, but will you hire armed bodyguards as other anti-gunners have done which doesn't say much for your belief in the cause. It just supports the NRA's contention that it takes a good guy with a gun to protect against/stop a bad guy with a gun. And good luck getting them to pay as you suggest.
In case you missed it above, the source was shared for I-937 and a statement given as to how to find multiple sources for the BPA paying windfarms for not producing power. Apparently you missed the articles in past editions of the UB on these topics. But it doesn't seem that is really what you are after.
The print article is where the editor informed me they do not print the URL for the reason stated. Nothing was stated regarding this anonymous posting area.
It seems the argument is what you may be after rather than a valid source.
downhillracer may not be aware that editors don't print URLs for sources since they do not have time to check all of them for accuracy.
Typing in "BPA pays windfarms" came up with several articles, though the story also appears in the UB so a search of their data base may work, as well.
Initiative 937 (text at: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i937.pdf) removed water through existing dams as a renewable power source. It also set the mandatory increases in % of power which must be purchased by power companies through renewable sources, resulting in higher monthly consumer bills.
Sorry that you feel a statement of facts equal an anti-govt. rant.
Well stated. Don't forget about SB 5737 which would required a once-a-year visit to the home of anyone with a legally-owned "banned" gun to be sure it is safely stored. The sheriff has already stated he needs more money and manpower. How would he be able to carry out this mandated illegal search?
So true, but some people fail to realize that the government only has money to share if it receives it from taxpayers or goes further in debt!
Last login: Thursday, January 29, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.