Mayor Durkan proposes new Seattle gun control legislation

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Mar 3, 2018
9,244
6,105
1,030
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
I wonder how they plan on enforcing this, particularly since so many places in Seattle are prohibited.

Mayor Durkan proposes new Seattle gun control legislation
The proposal is being sent to the city council for consideration. It requires that guns are safely stored while not under the control of the owner or lawfully authorized user. It will also increase civil penalties for failure to report a firearm that is lost or stolen, or is improperly used. Violation of the regulations will result in a civil infraction. The proposal states:
  • Safe storage: Guns should be stored in a locked container, and rendered as unusable to any person other than the owner or authorized user.
  • Unauthorized access prevention: It will be a civil infraction if a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person obtains a firearm when the owner should have reasonably known they would have access to it.
  • Violation of the safe-storage law, or the unauthorized access regulation could result in a fine between $500 and $1,000.
  • If a prohibited or at-risk person, or a minor obtains a firearm and uses it to commit a crime, injure or kill someone (including themselves), the gun owner could be fined up to $10,000.
  • If a civil case results from a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person accessing a gun, it will be “prima facie evidence” — meaning fact unless proven otherwise — that the owner is negligent.
  • The new gun law will go into effect 180 days after it passes and Mayor Durkan signs it.
  • The chief of police will have one year to conduct a survey to determine levels of compliance.
  • The city auditor will monitor the law’s influence on gun injuries and deaths in Seattle.

The legislation was drafted in partnership with Councilmember Lorena González.

“Simply put: If more gun owners lock up their firearms, it will reduce accidental firearm injuries and deaths, help prevent youth suicide, and reduce access to guns among youth who have no legal right to purchase firearms,” González said. “I look forward to championing this common-sense, public health approach through my public safety committee in the coming weeks.”

The mayor’s office says that it was developed after speaking with gun owners, safety advocates, and community members.

“The roots of gun violence are complex, but we know that unsecured, unsafely stored guns help fuel this crisis of violence because they are more likely to cause tragic accidents, fall into the wrong hands, or be used in suicides,” Durkan said. “Requiring that gun owners safely store their guns can help make our communities safer places to live.”

The proposal comes about three years after the last Seattle gun control measure — a gun tax. Seattle implemented a $25 fee on each firearm sold in the city. It also imposed a 5 cent per round tax. The council estimated the city would take in between $300,000 and $500,000 in gun-tax revenue. That money was slated for gun-violence prevention programs.

But gun stores reacted by dropping firearm sales, referring customers to their out-of-Seattle locations, or just simply moving out of town. Seattle has been largely silent on how much gun tax revenue it has received. According to Mayor Durkan’s office, by the end of 2018, the city will have taken in $200,000 — far less than the lower estimate of $300,000 annually.​
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.

What a stupid comment. Remember when the NRA taught that guns should be stored safely out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them? I guess that all changed when they became the lobbying wing of the gun industry.
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.

What a stupid comment. Remember when the NRA taught that guns should be stored safely out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them? I guess that all changed when they became the lobbying wing of the gun industry.






Constitutional Rights are stupid comments? Only to a brain dead idiot like yourself maybe. There are elements of the Seattle proposal that are good, but contravening the COTUS is a non starter. Instead of being a consummate moron, how about you try and come up with a better idea.
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.

What a stupid comment. Remember when the NRA taught that guns should be stored safely out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them? I guess that all changed when they became the lobbying wing of the gun industry.






Constitutional Rights are stupid comments? Only to a brain dead idiot like yourself maybe. There are elements of the Seattle proposal that are good, but contravening the COTUS is a non starter. Instead of being a consummate moron, how about you try and come up with a better idea.

As usual, your comprehension problems are causing your confusion. The constitution doesn't give you the right to leave a firearm where a child or mental patient can get to it.
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.

What a stupid comment. Remember when the NRA taught that guns should be stored safely out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them? I guess that all changed when they became the lobbying wing of the gun industry.






Constitutional Rights are stupid comments? Only to a brain dead idiot like yourself maybe. There are elements of the Seattle proposal that are good, but contravening the COTUS is a non starter. Instead of being a consummate moron, how about you try and come up with a better idea.

As usual, your comprehension problems are causing your confusion. The constitution doesn't give you the right to leave a firearm where a child or mental patient can get to it.







"Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged."
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
 
This is the Democratic parties intent if they can't outright ban firearms they will make it so expensive to own them that the common law abiding citizen can't afford to. Only the rich elite will be able to protect themselves from the criminals who by the very nature do not follow the law.
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.

What a stupid comment. Remember when the NRA taught that guns should be stored safely out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them? I guess that all changed when they became the lobbying wing of the gun industry.






Constitutional Rights are stupid comments? Only to a brain dead idiot like yourself maybe. There are elements of the Seattle proposal that are good, but contravening the COTUS is a non starter. Instead of being a consummate moron, how about you try and come up with a better idea.

As usual, your comprehension problems are causing your confusion. The constitution doesn't give you the right to leave a firearm where a child or mental patient can get to it.







"Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged."
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

Sounds like an attractive nuisance to me. You know, like having to put a fence and locked gate around your pool so the neighbor's kid doesn't fall into it and drown. You think that's unconstitutional too? Only a real idiot would have a problem with requiring guns to be stored safely. I don't understand why we haven't already had that law for years. It's just common sense.
 
I wonder how they plan on enforcing this, particularly since so many places in Seattle are prohibited.

Mayor Durkan proposes new Seattle gun control legislation
The proposal is being sent to the city council for consideration. It requires that guns are safely stored while not under the control of the owner or lawfully authorized user. It will also increase civil penalties for failure to report a firearm that is lost or stolen, or is improperly used. Violation of the regulations will result in a civil infraction. The proposal states:
  • Safe storage: Guns should be stored in a locked container, and rendered as unusable to any person other than the owner or authorized user.
  • Unauthorized access prevention: It will be a civil infraction if a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person obtains a firearm when the owner should have reasonably known they would have access to it.
  • Violation of the safe-storage law, or the unauthorized access regulation could result in a fine between $500 and $1,000.
  • If a prohibited or at-risk person, or a minor obtains a firearm and uses it to commit a crime, injure or kill someone (including themselves), the gun owner could be fined up to $10,000.
  • If a civil case results from a minor, at-risk, or prohibited person accessing a gun, it will be “prima facie evidence” — meaning fact unless proven otherwise — that the owner is negligent.
  • The new gun law will go into effect 180 days after it passes and Mayor Durkan signs it.
  • The chief of police will have one year to conduct a survey to determine levels of compliance.
  • The city auditor will monitor the law’s influence on gun injuries and deaths in Seattle.

The legislation was drafted in partnership with Councilmember Lorena González.

“Simply put: If more gun owners lock up their firearms, it will reduce accidental firearm injuries and deaths, help prevent youth suicide, and reduce access to guns among youth who have no legal right to purchase firearms,” González said. “I look forward to championing this common-sense, public health approach through my public safety committee in the coming weeks.”

The mayor’s office says that it was developed after speaking with gun owners, safety advocates, and community members.

“The roots of gun violence are complex, but we know that unsecured, unsafely stored guns help fuel this crisis of violence because they are more likely to cause tragic accidents, fall into the wrong hands, or be used in suicides,” Durkan said. “Requiring that gun owners safely store their guns can help make our communities safer places to live.”

The proposal comes about three years after the last Seattle gun control measure — a gun tax. Seattle implemented a $25 fee on each firearm sold in the city. It also imposed a 5 cent per round tax. The council estimated the city would take in between $300,000 and $500,000 in gun-tax revenue. That money was slated for gun-violence prevention programs.

But gun stores reacted by dropping firearm sales, referring customers to their out-of-Seattle locations, or just simply moving out of town. Seattle has been largely silent on how much gun tax revenue it has received. According to Mayor Durkan’s office, by the end of 2018, the city will have taken in $200,000 — far less than the lower estimate of $300,000 annually.​


upload_2018-5-25_5-38-25.jpeg
 
Sounds like an attractive nuisance to me. You know, like having to put a fence and locked gate around your pool so the neighbor's kid doesn't fall into it and drown. You think that's unconstitutional too? Only a real idiot would have a problem with requiring guns to be stored safely. I don't understand why we haven't already had that law for years. It's just common sense.
Attractive nuisances refers to things that by their very nature attract children - things like swimming pools and horses.

I think one of the reasons this rubs me the wrong way aside from the burning question of how they're going to enforce this is because it allows acts of an unknown third-party to cause harm to lawful gun owners IF the firearm is acquired through an unlawful act (theft, car prowl, strong arm robbery, etc.). This allows the firearm owner to be victimized twice, once by the criminal and then again by this new law.

It also raises the specter of life pre-Heller, in which residents of the District of Columbia were allowed to possess a firearm but only in their home with the "regulation" that the firearm must be kept in a state of disassembly which renders it useless as a defensive weapon.
 
I think it's a reasonable proposal.







Not really. It tries to countermand the Constitutionally guaranteed Right of innocent until proven guilty. Funny how leftists are always trying to destroy individual Rights.

Also you have to check and see how the storage requirement is written. If it requires storage at "all times" then a person couldn't keep a loaded gun by their bed at night.

So I guess the criminals will just have to give people enough time to go to their gun locker, open it up, load the gun (because these storage laws also usually say the gun has to be unloaded) and then be ready to defend themselves.

And I agree that the whole shifting of the burden of proof is a no-go.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top