This will give you a chuckle....

imported post

Two articles, two papers, two takes...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004442313_folklifeshooting28m0.html

"The man accused of opening fire at Seattle's Northwest Folklife Festival, wounding three people, had obtained a concealed-weapon permit from the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office even though federal and state laws should have prevented him from having one."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/364861_shooting28.html

"He had the right to carry firearm under state, federal laws."

I called Nancy at the Times, identified myself, and pointed out her error in fact.

As it turns out, she was relying on her reading of the application for a license, rather than the law.

I'm a pretty serious gun law nut, one of two in my department. It annoys me to no end when people suck up this stuff off the news and believe it.

Her number is at the bottom of the Times article.

It seriously annoys me to see the PI getting it right and the Times screwing it up. :banghead:

imported post

What's the error in fact, exactly? If he hadn't been involuntarily committed for a period greater than two weeks he would not have been ineligible under State law, unless he had been "judged" mentally defective, which would require a court order, no?

And I'm not aware of federal laws on concealed carry, merely on sales of a weapon, right? I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if someone has a citation.

imported post

You're reversing my assessment

The Times got it wrong, the Times said he was ineligible.

(Unless they have revised their article, that is)

imported post

I find it odd the focus is on the concealed permit. Would this not have happened if he had not been given the permit? If he lied on the 4473 or he obtained a handgun knowing he is prohibited, a felony is in progress and the fact he has a CWP is irrelevant.



If he were legal to buy the gun and possess it, he could open carry it without the permit. It’s the evil permit that did this!

imported post

I find it odd the focus is on the concealed permit.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I find this statement to be a little amazing.Have younot yet figured out that sheeple, much lesslaw enforcement personnel,have absolutely no understanding of what the permit is for?Many people I have encounteredbelieve, through "serial misinformation" (to quote our Washington State main page), that a permit is required to own a gun of any kind. If that is your misinformed belief, then it makes perfect sense to focus on the concealed carry permit. In the sheeples minds,without the permit,there is no firearm. Welcome to the irrationality of our world.