• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle Times endorses gun control...again

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
, ,
Last edited by a moderator:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
dave, who are the critics, where is the nasty unrest you speak of? who are the 'they' that are spending, or critics, or the proponents you speak of? w/o name, face, or point of reference these are antonymous and vague references.

what is your message & why is it at the bottom of your blog forcing everyone to read through to get to what you believe needs to occur? i noticed with interest you also did not make the pitch here about what needs to be done.

WASHINGTONIANS NEED TO GET OUT AND VOTE TO ENSURE I 491 DOES NOT PASS!!

quit referring to 594 it didn't cause a ripple in JQPublic's daily life and minimal, if any, in those who own firearms!

ipse
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
, ,
dave, who are the critics, where is the nasty unrest you speak of? who are the 'they' that are spending, or critics, or the proponents you speak of? w/o name, face, or point of reference these are antonymous and vague references.
Evidently, you didn't read the hundreds of Seattle Times reader reactions.
The initiative is backed by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the same group that backed I-594. Half the money for that effort came from about a dozen individuals, and certainly less than 20 people. That's public record.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
Evidently, you didn't read the hundreds of Seattle Times reader reactions.
The initiative is backed by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the same group that backed I-594. Half the money for that effort came from about a dozen individuals, and certainly less than 20 people. That's public record.
evidently, they are not attached to your blog nor the link in the blog...so explain again how your mentioning it has any objective evidence it occurred.

and there you go again...'same group', nameless entities...shrouded in the invisible cloth...

and what do you want the good readership here to do about it...contribute to the nameless entities who shall not be named? write letters? promote education? promote voting?

this how this same conversation went the last time it was brought up on this forum about a month ago...everyone jumps up and down, waves hands, whines & complains yet do not present one iota of guidance to the masses to move forward in some fashion of a plan...then everyone sits on their hands to bemoan the fact it passed and why didn't someone do a bloody thing about it.

594 and yes i was there and watched and listened...as everyone pointed to the other stating ~ hummm thought you were doing that...a whole dozen involved with stopping that initiative...seems like a good number...majority in northwest part of the state, huh...eastern WA didn't give a crap...huh!

ipse
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Voters education is an individual responsiblity

I want to submit for everyone to consider the following link to a .PDF file describing Joel's law. Decide for yourself if we need the proposed initiative or not. This is but one source of information, you may review the historical record at the legislatures website.

~Whitney

https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/defau...Support/How to file a Joel's Law Petition.pdf


Summary:
On July 24, 2015, Chapter 71.05 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), goes into effect. This new section is called Joel’s Law. This allows a person’s immediate family member, legal guardian, or conservator to petition the superior court for initial detention under certain conditions.

A Joel’s Law Petition may be filed under the following circumstances:
*You are an immediate family member, legal guardian, or conservator of the person that you seek to have detained. The law defines “immediate family member” as a spouse, domestic partner, child, stepchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, or sibling;

*A Designated Mental Health Professional (DMHP) has conducted an investigation and decided not to detain that person for evaluation and treatment; or

*It has been 48 hours since the DMHP received a request for investigation, and the DMHP has not taken action to have the person detained


Here are the steps to follow:
1. Go to your county’s Superior Court and ask the clerk for a Joel’s Law Petition for Initial Detention.” The petition requires the following:
 A description of the relationship between you and the person you are seeking to have detained; and
 The date the investigation was requested from the DMHP. In the petition, the person you are seeking to have detained will be called the “Respondent.”
2. Complete a written and sworn declaration in support of your petition that describes why the person should be detained. You may describe past behavior, including a history of one or more violent acts, such as behavior that resulted in death, attempted suicide,nonfatal injuries, or substantial damage to property. You may also list prior commitments or determinations of incompetency or insanity.
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Editorial Board Interview

Please spend a few minutes and watch the Seattle Times Editorial Board interview for this story.

The Seattle Times Editorial Board interviews proponents and opponents of Initiative 1491 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

[video]http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016091085[/video]


~Whitney
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
*A Designated Mental Health Professional (DMHP) has conducted an investigation and decided not to detain that person for evaluation and treatment; or
Wait. Does that seriously say what I think it says?

If you are evaluated by a qualified mental health professional, and they find that you are not mentally ill, you can be detained for mental illness SOLELY because you are not mentally ill?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Please spend a few minutes and watch the Seattle Times Editorial Board interview for this story.

The Seattle Times Editorial Board interviews proponents and opponents of Initiative 1491 (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

[video]http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016091085[/video]


~Whitney
Its an hour .. have a transcript link?

Maybe I'll listen while I'm doing some mundane task.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Wait. Does that seriously say what I think it says?

If you are evaluated by a qualified mental health professional, and they find that you are not mentally ill, you can be detained for mental illness SOLELY because you are not mentally ill?
No that is not what it says.

An evaluator has 3 choices = (1) mentally ill, (2) not mentally ill or (3) if a concern, detain for further investigation.
 
Top