WA Lawmaker: Ruling Opens Door to Limit Concealed-Gun Permits

Story posted on KIRO news. A Democrat state senator is joining Alliance for Gun Responsibility to push for replacing "shall issue" with "good cause" requirements, based on the 9th Circuit Court ruling on Peruta. The local gun banners sure are feeling their oats after I-594 passed. We'll rue the day greater effort wasn't expended in stopping that abomination.

KIRO Link

Dain Bramage said:

Story posted on KIRO news. A Democrat state senator is joining Alliance for Gun Responsibility to push for replacing "shall issue" with "good cause" requirements, based on the 9th Circuit Court ruling on Peruta. The local gun banners sure are feeling their oats after I-594 passed. We'll rue the day greater effort wasn't expended in stopping that abomination.

KIRO Link

Click to expand...

We need to start a massive email and phone campaign to this lawmaker and any other who dares to suggest it.

Here's Carlyle's info:
District Office
(206) 216-3184
Olympia Office
213 John A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0403
(360) 786-7670

Reuven.Carlyle@leg.wa.gov

Please make sure to keep it civil and reasoned.

Some things to mention when you call/email:

-According to the FBI and NYTimes, 70-90% of murders are by previously convicted felons, not by CPL holders.

-By the time you need to show "good cause" it is already too late. Reference the NJ woman who was murdered while waiting for her gun permit application.

-WA State Constitution has a right to bear arms for basic self-defense, CA's Constitution had no protections.

-Criminals will still carry regardless.

Could be that the senator had no idea about any court decision ... they don't even pay attention to the constitution ...

Just more click-bait. The ruling probably wasn't even on that senator's RADAR, but KIRO called up for a comment because they needed to fill some space . . . .

deanf said:

Just more click-bait. The ruling probably wasn't even on that senator's RADAR, but KIRO called up for a comment because they needed to fill some space . . . .

Click to expand...

I'd almost want to see them try and watch it go down in flames.

Wasn't there another court case back east that ruled that the fact the right exists is the only reason one needs to exercise it?

That whole thing about a natural right not coming from or being removed by government.

Apparently to these people "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't actually mean what is written in simple English.

Schlepnier said:

Wasn't there another court case back east that ruled that the fact the right exists is the only reason one needs to exercise it?

That whole thing about a natural right not coming from or being removed by government.

Apparently to these people "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't actually mean what is written in simple English.

Click to expand...

Only half (50%) of the lawyers in any given case are right/winners - the other half chalk up a loss. Let the losers all be antis.