Washington Senate Dems want your GUNs....

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by BTPost, Feb 12, 2013.


  1. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Senate Democrats introduce six bills on guns and mental health

    Posted by Brian M. Rosenthal

    After nearly a month of discussions in the state House about a wide range of proposals to reduce gun violence, the state Senate is getting into the debate.
    Senate Democrats introduced six bills Monday dealing with firearm restrictions and mental health that may face resistance in the GOP-controlled chamber.
    The most high-profile measure would require background checks for all gun purchases, ending exceptions for private sales at gun shows, between friends on the street and anywhere else. A similar bill has been introduced in the state House, and President Barack Obama is pushing the entire country to move in that direction.
    The package also includes measures to increase the state’s ability to civilly commit those who might be dangerous; to allow residents to voluntarily surrender a gun to law enforcement for 30 days for safe-keeping; and to make it a crime for a person to leave a loaded firearm in a place where a child is likely to gain access.
    “The people in my district and across Washington want us to take action to ensure the safety of our communities,” said state Sen. Nick Harper, D-Everett, in a news release announcing the package.
    Prospects for passage are unclear.
    The background-check bill has support from two Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, a Medina Democrat who is caucusing with a majority coalition of 23 Republicans and two Democrats. Still, the Senate committee tasked with setting gun policy is run by Mike Padden, R-Spokane, who does not favor many more gun restrictions.
    The Legislature was expected to consider a variety of gun-policy proposals this session, in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings. Many state lawmakers have gotten high marksfrom the National Rifle Association, the nation’s dominant pro-gun lobby.
    State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, promised the crowd Friday at a Second Amendment rally in Olympia that the state Senate would protect the rights of gun owners.

     
    jrotten, Georgia_Boy and Motomom34 like this.
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Everett is pretty close to SeaTac. Any questions?
     
  3. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Time for @melbo, @fedorthedog, and a few others, to call their State Senators and make "A Point" maybe.....
     
  4. Gator 45/70

    Gator 45/70 Monkey+++

    Never ending battle,

    Keep your head on a swivel and rack a fresh round...
     
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  5. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Moderator Moderator Site Supporter++

    We are having gun bills discussed today in CO. the capital is packed, standing room only. I am going to go research the links that BT posted because house bills tend to hide things.
     
  6. Kingfish

    Kingfish Self Reliant

    This is only going to get more and more ugly as states divide over this issue. On one hand you Montana who passed a Bill in 2009 outlawing federal agents from confiscating anything in their state to New York openly defying the United States Constitution. My state (Michigan) is Following Montana's lead and working on a similar law as Wyoming and Montana. I just bought my last Handgun today. Now I have to get more .44 magnum and 30-30 rounds to top off our ammo supply and we are set for whatever they throw at us. I did all of our transactions before any changes could be made to background checks. If they get Universal background checks passed we will see the end of the second amendment as we know it as this is registration under a different name.
     
    Moatengator and BTPost like this.
  7. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Sounds like WA is going to need some more prisons soon.

    Wash. state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals - Seattle Political Buzz | Examiner.com

    Washington state Sens. Ed Murray (D), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D) and Adam Kline (D) have introduced new gun control legislation that goes far above and beyond what anyone would consider a simple sales ban.
    The bill, S.B. 5737, proposes "banning the sale of assault weapons." According to the legislation, an "assault weapon" is any semiautomatic pistol, pump-action rifle or shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine, with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Any magazine that accepts over 10 rounds itself will also be banned.
    Also included in the definition is any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip, a stock of any kind, a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator. The bill also prohibits the manufacturing, possessing, purchasing, selling or transferring of an assault weapons "conversion kit."
    In order to continue to possess a so-called assault weapon that was owned before the assumed passing of the legislation, the person must "safely and securely" store the assault weapon and allow the sheriff of the county to, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to "ensure compliance," despite some apparent civil liberties implications related to the Fourth Amendment.
    Not to mention the manpower, time and money that would be needed to search tens of thousands of Washington homes; it could prove to be very difficult and possibly divert much needed manpower from conducting actual police duties, especially in light of shrinking police department budgets.
    The bill also gives no definition of what “safe and secure” storage consists of. The ownership and storage may only be done on property owned or immediately controlled by that person or while engaged in the "legal use" of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range. The bill does, however, exempt possession rules if the weapon is about to be "permanently relinquished to a law enforcement agency."
    Any person who, after the effective date of the section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest or succession must within thirty days either dispose of the weapon or have it permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile. Failure to comply will result in a class C felony.
    Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, or other law enforcement officers of the state or another state will be exempt. Members of the armed forces of the United States, National Guard and organized services, are exempt when on duty. Also, any federal agent "allowed" to own an assault weapon is exempt as well.
    This legislation is similar to a bill introduced by California Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) whose legislation would ban over 120 specifically named firearms.
    Others such as President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have come out recently pushing for gun control. Holder gave a stern warning to gun traffickers, despite President Obama and him being involved in Operation Fast & Furious, a program that allowed tens of thousands of firearms to be given to drug cartels that took the lives of countless Mexicans and most notably U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
    The program’s supposed intent was to track where guns went in Mexico, but government emails leaked to CBS News showed that the intent appeared to be to use the resulting deaths to blame American gun owners and push gun control.
    Video of Holder claiming that American's needed to be "brainwashed" to be anti-gun was also recently uncovered.
     
  8. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    It is such a shame that these idiots can't seem to READ, and UNDERSTAND, the Heller & McDonald Rulings by SCOTUS..... If they had actually Read the Rulings, they would understand that the State can NOT REQUIRE a citizen to Lock up their FireArms inside their Residence. Hey Yahoos, READ THE Ruling... It is in English, and even YOU, as dumb as you seem to be, should be able to READ and COMPREHEND, what was written, there..... I mean are you really as dumb as the per verbal BLOND.... Inquiring Minds, Want to Know.....
     
    tacmotusn and Mountainman like this.
  9. fedorthedog

    fedorthedog Monkey++

    I would have to use a pointed stick for them to get it
     
    BTPost likes this.
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Ask for a big bite, settle for a nibble.
     
    Moatengator and BTPost like this.
  11. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    finally a SMALL bit of sanity from the Washington State Legislature.......


    Scaled-down background checks don’t satisfy gun-bill critics
    A contentious state House hearing on whether to require background checks for all gun purchases drew police officers, shooting victims, religious leaders, gun owners and Second Amendment activists to the Capitol on Wednesday.

    By Brian M. Rosenthal Seattle Times Olympia bureau

    OLYMPIA — A state House panel Wednesday took up a universal background-check proposal, a major sticking point in discussions about how to reduce gun violence.
    House Bill 1588, proposed mostly by Democrats, would require background checks for all firearm purchases. Currently, licensed dealers are required to do the checks, but private sellers are not.
    Supporters say the bill — if it clears the Democratic-controlled House and a GOP-run Senate — would reduce the likelihood of mass shootings like the recent one in Connecticut.
    “This is a small step that we can, and I believe we should, take that will move us toward a society that will be safer,” said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Seattle Democrat who sponsored the bill and chairs the House Judiciary Committee. He noted that 40 percent of gun sales nationally are done privately.
    Pedersen announced at the hearing he had scaled back the bill by exempting concealed-pistol license holders from the checks and requiring the conducting agencies to destroy records of the background search.
    The changes, he said, were to address concerns that records of the checks would create a de facto registry of gun owners. Currently, federal background-check results are destroyed within 24 hours.
    But in the contentious two-hour hearing, a couple dozen gun owners and Second Amendment activists described the bill as ineffective, unnecessary and unfair.
    “Ninety-nine percent of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, and those are the ones who will be affected by this,” said Brian Judy of the National Rifle Association. “This is a misdirected program. It’s not going to work.”
    Law-enforcement officials and religious leaders, meanwhile, said the additional checks would save lives.
    Seattle Deputy Police Chief Nick Metz said many violent crimes are committed by people who obtained guns illegally. Cheryl Stumbo, who survived a 2006 shooting at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, urged lawmakers to take action.
    The tension boiled over into two witness-versus-lawmaker arguments:
    The Rev. Sanford Brown, of Seattle, and state Rep. Matt Shea, R-Spokane Valley, traded Bible verses to support their points (Brown in favor, Shea against).
    And Vancouver resident Wayde Hager accused state Rep. Mike Hope, R-Lake Stevens, of citing incorrect statistics to support the bill.
    Hope, a Seattle police officer with a top grade from the NRA, is one of two House Republicans supporting the proposal — which Hager said was akin to throwing gun owners “under the bus.”
    Despite little Republican support, Pedersen said he is confident the bill will clear his committee.
    He said he’s received hundreds of messages about the bill, and that his changes should satisfy most of the complaints.
    But House Republican Leader Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis, said the amended version still has “so many problems.”

    Senate leaders declined to say whether a similar bill would get a hearing in the Senate.
    Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, called the idea “highly divisive.”
    Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee supports the measure.
     
  12. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort | Local News | The Seattle Times

    Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort

    One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

    Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
    As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

    That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

    “They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
    That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

    Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

    But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
    “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

    In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
    “I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

    He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

    I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

    I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
    “I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

    That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

    The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.

    “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.

    He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.

    Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.

    Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.

    “We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”

    Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.
    Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com
     
  13. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Follow Up Article on the above Posted Article..... Interesting.... Lobbyists are writing these Bills and these Yahoo State Senators aren't even READING them, before they SIGN them and Introduce them.... Multiple times in Multiple YEARS... How dumb are these guys... they MUST be BLONDs.... Have to be... No Other Explanation....


    Dems keep shooting themselves in foot

    How can legislators keep introducing a bill they don’t support? Because not only are they sometimes not reading their bills. They aren’t writing them, either. Lobbyists are.


    Seattle Times staff columnist

    By Danny Westneat

    Last week’s crazy story about the senators who didn’t support their own gun bill has raised more than a few existential questions.
    Such as: If a bill is introduced, but nobody wrote it or even likes it, does it technically exist?
    If the lawmakers didn’t make the law, then who did?
    And to paraphrase the 2,500 people who wrote, called, or commented about this story from around the nation: What the bleep is going on in Olympia?
    I’m referring to the Orwellian tale of three Democratic senators who sponsored an assault-weapons ban, Senate Bill 5737. Only to discover — when I called them, apparently — that it would allow police to search gun owners’ homes without a warrant.
    The specter of police going door to door obviously is the gunner nightmare come true. It does seem unconstitutional. But all three senators said they wouldn’t support such a plan, either. It was in the bill by mistake.
    As a militia regiment of readers pointed out, this strained credulity. Two of the lawmakers — Sens. Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles, both D-Seattle — backed the same legislation twice previously, most recently in 2010. Eight House Democrats also sponsored a nearly identical bill in 2005.
    “Senator Kline flat-out lied to you,” read a typical email. “You are too naive to call yourself a journalist.”
    Maybe so, but I still don’t think Kline lied. Because when the same bill came up in 2010, he also said then that he didn’t support the home inspections.
    “There’s no purpose in having that clause,” Kline said during a 2010 public hearing, agreeing with an NRA lobbyist who had called the police searches “a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Kline pledged then to take the provision out of the bill.
    Of course he didn’t — Kline co-sponsored it again this year with the same provision. I don’t blame anyone for doubting him. He has, after all, put in the same alleged mistake three times now. But it’s also true he’s on record opposing police inspections before.
    The deputy chief of staff of the Senate Democrats, Jeff Reading, insists nobody in Olympia supports these police searches: “The provision is nutty,” he said. “And obviously unconstitutional.”
    So ... why does it keep coming up? Is there some gremlin that creeps into the Democrats’ bill-writing room to slip in nutty, unconstitutional clauses?
    As it turns out, in a sense, there is. It’s part of an increasingly popular, fast-food-franchise-like practice called “model legislation.” Special-interest groups write up their dream bills and then shop them to statehouses around the country.
    The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the best known such boilerplate bill factory, proliferating hundreds of right-wing bills from Stand Your Ground to repeal of Obamacare. This police-search provision came from a left-wing version — a model assault-weapons ban written by the Brady Campaign and the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
    Our bill tracks almost word for word with bills introduced in 2004 in Michigan and a few other states, as well as in 2005 here. At the time, the gun-control group had put out a 73-page guide called“Banning Assault Weapons — A Legal Primer for State and Local Action” in which it offered sample language, including this same police-search provision.
    So our bill was a cut-and-paste job. How can legislators keep introducing a bill they don’t support? Because not only are they sometimes not reading their bills. They aren’t writing them, either. Lobbyists are.
    If this keeps up, what will be the point of even having a Legislature? Might as well have lobbyists take their boilerplate direct to the voters. (Wait, scratch that thought. Tim Eyman doesn’t need any encouragement.)
    In the end, the assault-weapons ban, stripped of police searches, died Friday when it didn’t clear committee. Lawmakers insist there never was a drive to send cops door to door. OK, but since there are think tanks pumping out model bills advocating exactly that, the gunners are wise to worry.
    Legislators, I know you feel misunderstood. But we’re not mind readers out here. Don’t support something? Then don’t keep proposing it!
    And we’d be more likely to take your word for it if you stopped ceding your jobs to the lobbyists.
     
  14. NWPilgrim

    NWPilgrim Monkey++

    Being a former Washingtonian it surprised me a Seattle paper would write such a candid article about its beloved legislature. But, they are just now surprised this us happening?! That is how the Obamacare bill was written, by lobbyists, and why Pelosi said they need to pass it so they could find out what is in it. Washington is just following suit.

    Perhaps the author followed the short chain of logic: if congressmen just introduce bills lobbyists write then why have congressmen, and if journalists just write what their favorite politicians tell them then who needs journalists?
     
  15. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Originally published March 5, 2013 at 8:56 PM | Page modified March 5, 2013 at 8:56 PMProspects dim for deal on universal background checks for gun purchases
    A key lawmaker said Tuesday that supporters of universal background checks are unlikely to reach a deal with an influential Second Amendment activist whose support was once seen as important.
    By Brian M. Rosenthal
    Seattle Times Olympia bureau


    Gottlieb’s support would help the bill, Pedersen said, but the activist’s request for lawmakers to end a de facto database of handgun owners was ultimately too much for law enforcement to swallow.
    “We are continuing to look for support for this common-sense gun-control measure,” said Pedersen, D-Seattle. But “there’s no question” that challenge is now harder, he said.
    With a floor vote expected next week, Pedersen said House Bill 1588 is still a few votes shy of what it needs for passage.
    The challenge is harder in the Republican-controlled Senate, where leaders say the proposal is unlikely to get a vote.
    The bill would require background checks for all gun purchases; currently, they are required for sales by licensed dealers but not for purchases from private sellers.
    Supporters see the checks as a way to increase safety by making it harder for criminals to obtain weapons. Opponents see the checks as an ineffective and unconstitutional burden on law-abiding gun owners.
    Gottlieb, of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said last month he would support the bill if state lawmakers agreed to end the de facto database, a collection of transactions by licensed gun dealers.
    Pedersen initially thought he could take the deal because he didn’t know of any use for the database.
    But it turns out that law enforcement uses it thousands of times a month, including to track down the last buyer of guns found at crime scenes, said Don Pierce, a lobbyist for the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
    “Any amendment that would eliminate that database moves the bar in the wrong direction,” Pierce said.
    Pedersen said he will not push a version of the bill without law-enforcement support.
    The developments on the Gottlieb negotiations come as a nonpartisan poll found broad support in the state for universal background checks.
    An Elway Poll of 412 registered voters found that 79 percent support the idea. The telephone poll, conducted Feb. 28 to March 2, had a margin of error of 5 percentage points, plus or minus
    Supporters cited the findings as evidence the Legislature should approve the checks quickly.
    But opponents questioned the results.
    “That’s funny,” said Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville. “My email is 90 to 10 against it


    Looks like Washington State Bills will Die on the Vine in the House..... and not even get to the Senate......

    .
     
    Silversnake and Motomom34 like this.
  16. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Wash. Senate endorses NRA child gun safety program
    The Washington state Senate has endorsed a National Rifle Association program to teach kids about gun safety.
    OLYMPIA, Wash. —
    The Washington state Senate has endorsed a National Rifle Association program to teach kids about gun safety.
    Under the joint memorial passed Friday, schools and pre-schools would be encouraged - but not required - to adopt the "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program.
    The program consists of an animated bird of prey telling preschoolers and elementary school students what to do when encountering a gun: "Stop! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult."
    Supporters of encouraging the program's use say it would save lives.
    Opponents say they can't support the NRA-backed initiative when the Senate has yet to hold a hearing on a universal background check for gun purchases bill that the NRA staunchly opposes.
    The joint memorial passed by a vote of 40-8 and goes next to the House.

    Not a BAD Idea... for a bunch of Gun Grabbers....

     
    Silversnake likes this.
  17. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    You know kids. More than one will chirp up and say, "My daddy has one of those!" Instant list. (But I still like the idea.)
     
    BTPost likes this.
  18. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Major Wash. state gun bill fails in state House
    By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press
    Updated 9:28 pm, Tuesday, March 12, 2013


    OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A contentious proposal to expand background checks on Washington state gun sales failed Tuesday in the state House, where supporters said they were just a handful of votes short.
    In a final effort to pick up a few extra votes, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, had proposed a referendum clause that would have allowed the public to vote on the measure. He initially believed that would draw enough support to corral the 50 votes needed to pass the bill but conceded Tuesday night that others had dropped their backing because of that shift.
    "It was too big of a stretch for this year," Pedersen said.
    Pedersen said he was disappointed by the result, and several Democrats departing for the night were emotional about the collapse of a bill they'd spent two days intensely working to finalize. The week had included lobbying from former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who was wounded in a January 2011 mass shooting, and Gov. Jay Inslee.
    After years of seeking expanded background checks, supporters of gun control had seen this year as the greatest chance for major changes in state law, with the public still reeling from the December massacre of children at a Connecticut elementary school. The National Rifle Association, however, led a broad campaign in the state to block the bill, with opponents of the measure saying it wouldn't stop gun violence and arguing that it was the first step to a registry of gun owners, which opponents consider as an unconstitutional overreach.
    Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Pedersen's proposal, crafted in conjunction with Republican Rep. Mike Hope, would have extended such reviews to cover private gun transactions.
    Hope, a Seattle police officer, had expressed concern that criminals have been bypassing the current system of background checks and acquiring guns through private transactions. He said the proposal won't stop gun violence but would make it harder for criminals to get weapons.
    Pedersen said some initial supporters of the bill opposed the idea of a public vote, concerned about running such a ballot measure during an off-year election. He said they were also concerned about setting a precedent of falling back on referendums when lawmakers were unable to agree on a bill.
    A similar proposal in the state Senate never received a public hearing.
    Proponents of gun control had recently formed a coalition to lobby on behalf of the background checks plan. Christian Sinderman, a political consultant who aided the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said it was a stark reminder of how hard it is to get votes on the issue.
    Sinderman said the group would discuss future options over the next few days to determine whether it was best to continue with a legislative strategy or to consider going directly to the ballot with an initiative.
    "One thing is clear," Sinderman said, "we're not going to give up the effort on this critical public safety issue."

    Couldn't happen to a Nicer Bunch of Folks... those idiot Dems from Seattle.... ..... "Life is tough and then you Die....."[violin] [lolol]
     
  19. Silversnake

    Silversnake Silverback

    @BTPost wish we could post multiple likes...
     
    Yard Dart and BTPost like this.
  20. BuckStudson

    BuckStudson Monkey

    Anytime anything stems the procurement of high capacity,high rate of fire bullet sprayers,commonly called "sporting arms/rifles" by the lunatic fringe types and their close cousins the socially functional (until they snap) nice guy next door.who guns down half a dozen former coworkers.because he was fired.I'm all for it.people,most of them are prone to irrational behavior that borders on that of a denied 2 year old child.I trust no one with a gun in their hand.and I sure many who did wished before they drew their last breath they hadn't either.to me it's always both ironic and somehow somewhat befitting when an avowed killer of things with bullets is himself undone with a bullet.a form of poetic justice I'd say...
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7