MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Washington Lt. Gov. Skips Governor's Speech Because People with Concealed Carry Permits Could Attend

Shouldn't he be avoiding most of the whole state of Washington?

The Everett Daily Herald (Jerry Cornfield) reports (see also this AP story):

Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib did not preside at the governor's address to a joint session of the Legislature on Tuesday because he felt vulnerable in the House chamber, where people can carry concealed weapons in the public galleries.

"There is no specific threat to me. There is no specific threat we know of, period," he said before the governor's speech. "It's about the policy."

But, wait: Washington lets people who have concealed carry licenses carry in most public places, such as sidewalks, parks, and the like. That's the policy in about 40 states (including the several that don't even require a license to carry in public). Indeed, Washington has apparently had this "shall-issue" policy since 1961, well before most states shifted to it. Maybe the Lieutenant Governor should continue his political career in a state where he will feel less "vulnerable."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jmaie||

    Publicity stunt?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It could get worse. He could try to shut down state government based on lies to advance bigotry.

    I know it sounds crazy. But it could happen.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, democrats do that. When republicans shut down the govt. it's because something important to the country is at stake.

    You couldn't possibly understand something like that.

  • NToJ||

    If it was so important why didn't Republicans just fund it when they had control of the government?

  • Calliope||

    Probably because of the filibuster? There was a house-passed bill ready to go.

  • NToJ||

    It only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster, and Republicans in the Senate had (and have) the votes. If it's important, they should have called the Democrats bluff.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    NToJ: "It only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster,"

    Nope. Only on appointments. For a bill, it still takes the super-majority of 60. And Mitch McConnell has said that won't change. Even pissed off Trump about it, to at least /my/ surprise.

  • Milhouse||

    You missed NToJ's point. It only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster. Forever. But the answer is just that: ending it would be permanent; there would be no effective way to bring it back. And neither side wants to do that, especially after seeing how the Democrats have come to regret their having done so for nominations. The Rs wanted to fund the wall, but not at the price of permanently rendering the senate minority as futile as the house minority.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "You missed NToJ's point. It only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster. Forever."

    They wouldn't have even had to end it forever. They could have just ended it for bills funding border walls.

  • Milhouse||

    They wouldn't have even had to end it forever. They could have just ended it for bills funding border walls.

    also VoR: they could do it a second time and re-establish the old interpretation.

    Both of these suggestions are too silly for words. Once the legislative filibuster is gone, it's gone. Trying to restore it while you're in the majority is pointless because the minute the opposition gets the majority they will remove it again. The only thing keeping it in place now is that everyone respects it, whether they're in the majority or the minority; the majority at any time allows it to continue in the expectation that when they're in the minority it will be there for them too. Break that and all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to fix it.

    Carving out ridiculous exceptions won't work either; cf Reid's silly rule abolishing the filibuster for all nominations except the Supreme Court. There was never any chance of that exception surviving, because everyone knew that the moment a Supreme Court vacancy came up it would be gone. Ditto for "wall-only" exceptions; once that happened every other issue that came up would get its own "exception".

  • Voize of Reazon||

    too silly for words

    Thanks for clearing that up, I thought you meant it was impossible, not reflecting a philosophy of the futility of all human endeavor.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "Both of these suggestions are too silly for words. Once the legislative filibuster is gone, it's gone. "

    Well, I suppose you could argue that killing the filibuster for one piece of legislation is effectively killing it for all legislation. But NToJ likes to argue precisely the opposite about the filibuster for judicial nominees, so I figured I'd throw him a bone.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    How so? The "nuclear option" involves overruling the speaker's interpretation of the rules, setting a new precedent. If there was a will to, they could do it a second time and re-establish the old interpretation.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    1. The speaker is the leader of the House of Representatives. The filibuster is a Senate thing. The Senate doesn't have a speaker.

    2. The nuclear option doesn't need to involve overruling a standing interpretation of the existing rules. There is a Supreme Court decision from before the US Civil War holding that not withstanding internal rules purporting to say otherwise, both the House and the Senate have an absolute right to change their internal rules by simple majority vote.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I think it would be more accurate to say that not all of the Rs want to build the wall, and ending the filibuster would also end their ability to conceal which of the Republican Senators were lying about wanting it built.

    The filibuster survives, for now, only because the Republican leadership cherish the ability to avoid votes that would expose members who were lying about supporting popular measures. So long as it endures, a Senator who ran on abolishing cheese subsidies, say, but really doesn't want to lose his kickbacks from the dairy industry, can vote for cloture knowing that they won't be forced into an up/down vote on the subsidy itself.

    The filibuster helps keep Republican voters ignorant of which members they elected only because they were lied to. That's why it survives. Everybody who follows politics knows that, the next time the filibuster serves a Republican minority during a Democratic administration, it will die.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I don't think your logic works when you factor in a Dem House.

    Accepting for argument your GOP filled with secret wall-haters, they can performatively vote for walls all they want knowing the House will keep anything from happening.

  • Krayt||

    I've seen Congressmen vote against bills they sponsored because their party didn't want it, if they + the other party was sufficient to pass it.

    Being against what your party wants because of local politics is fine, but those are rare and plum positions your party has to dole out strategically without actually passing (or failing to pass) what most members need for their local politics and the national narrative.

  • Calliope||

    Probably because of the filibuster? There was a house-passed bill ready to go.

  • floridalegal||

    The Lt Governor is following the example of urban elitist like you. In this instance, the Lt Governor only cares about a portion of the state of Washington in and around the uber-progressive Seatle. The rest of the state is the same as you consider flyover country. You don't believe in individual rights. You believe that a cadre of elitist know better what everyone should do and should think. Heaven forbid if anyone is religious. That's your bread and butter bigotry stick

  • apedad||

    You know that people vote and trees don't, right?

  • floridalegal||

    Yes, and ALL people who are legally allowed to vote should be given the same due consideration. Selective enforcement of the laws that one person likes or dislikes at a particular time leads to chaos and is called acting illegally. If it is the law, people should be allowed to follow the law. It is being a respecter of persons to only follow or listen to the uber progressives in one area of the state when you are elected by the entire state. To the uber progressives who believe that they or the government can dictate the morality and conduct of those they deem beneath them... "pride cometh before a fall".

  • Sarcastr0||

    Discretion has always been part of proper law enforcement. People yelling about 'Rule of Law' as they are in favor of shutting down the government, vastly expanding eminent domain, declaring a crisis out of nothing...yeah, that's a pretty weak fig leaf these days.

    And then there is the very people arguing discretionary law enforcement is illegal using executive discretion to deny almost all asylum claims.

    There's a lot of stuff these arguments can be about (though I do find around here it's gravitationally pulled towards racial stuff), but it's not about rule of law.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    Geography check - the Lt. Governor represented a district centered around Bellevue, not Seattle - and the state capitol is in Olympia.

  • Curly4||

    Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib should not go anywhere a police officer for they are armed and are almost as likely to miss use their weapons.

  • iowantwo||

    Officers of the law, active and retired, are charged with fire arms violations more than CCW permit holders.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Sorry. I didn't see your comment until after I posted mine.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Actually the police are more likely to criminally misuse their weapons than CCW holders according to every study out there.

  • Charles Nichols - CRTC||

    I suspect that his response would be the same were people allowed to openly carry firearms in the public galleries.

  • TangoDelta||

    He's blind and wouldn't know if someone was shooting at him with a gun or if it was just a car backfiring, that's why he's also asking for armed security guards. This is of course above and beyond the legally required protection provided by the Washington State Patrol.

    Then again maybe they aren't feeling the need to jump in front of a bullet for a guy who thinks they're mostly useless. That isn't to say he's wrong, it just conveys the wrong feels to the boys in blue.

  • Gasman||

    Is blindness a legal impediment to obtaining a concealed carry permit?

  • Abdul Abulbul Amir||

    Yes in some states where proficiency must be shown.

  • Heresolong||

    "were people allowed to openly carry firearms in the public galleries"

    This is Washington, an open carry state. People are indeed allowed to openly carry in the public galleries. And without a Concealed Pistol Permit, no less.

    I wonder how long it will last, however, with the large majorities that the Democrats hold in both houses, along with a left wing governor.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It depends on if Democrats want to stay in power.

  • Brandybuck||

    It' Washington. Of course they will stay on power.

  • Charles Nichols - CRTC||

    I just read that he is blind.

  • Rossami||

    And that is relevant why, exactly?

    Remember that he's (allegedly) objecting because people could be in the gallery with concealed weapons. I'm not trying to be cruel but as a matter of logic, he wouldn't be able to see them regardless.

  • Sigivald||

    ... wouldn't someone who wanted to do a political assassination totally not care that having their gun concealed there was double illegal, if they changed the law as he seems to want?

  • Noscitur a sociis||

    I would imagine that Lt. Gov. Habib envisions the prohibition on weapons being accompanied by security screening that would detect their presence before they entered the gallery.

  • Rossami||

    I agree that's probably his intent. But whether it is or not, why is the fact that he's blind relevant to his position or to our discussion of it?

  • floridalegal||

    By definition, criminals break the laws and do not care about the laws when they commit a crime. There is a point to the argument that regulations put restrictions on legal users of guns or any legal product. The criminals are not going through legal means to obtain a gun when they are committing a crime/violation of the law. There are instances when a person with legal right misuses a gun but, in general, criminals don't care what the details of any particular law may or may not be. They do whatever they want whenever they want.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    No, open carry in the Washington legislative galleries was banned four years ago.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    A significant number of lefties in WA are very pro 2A. Including an ex gf of mine. She's onboard for big govt., AGW, and is a militant vegan. That said, she owns a pistol, a shotgun, and an AK-47. She has zero interest in ginpvong any of them up.

  • James Pollock||

    Stretching for a more positive interpretation, perhaps his concern is about being in the same place as the governor with a non-specified potential danger in place. Like the way the President and vice-President don't fly on the same plane.

  • Rossami||

    That seems rather a long stretch considering the many, many places where he and the governor have been in the same place at the same time without expressing this concern. And, at least according to their published agendas, will continue to do so.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    Maybe the Lieutenant Governor should continue his political career in a state where he will feel less "vulnerable."

    Or maybe this should be left between him and voters in the fair state of Washington. So far they seem to want to keep electing the guy.

  • apedad||

    "Maybe the Lieutenant Governor should continue his political career in a state where he will feel less 'vulnerable.'"

    Maybe the Lieutenant Governor should use his political status to use all constitutional means available (e.g. Art. V, 1A, 10A), to overturn the existing status.

  • Mike45||

    2A says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    For those that say state restrictions are ok, the 10th amendment makes a pretty plain statement about rights reserved to the people:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR to the people."

  • NToJ||

    I think apedad's reference to Article V was a suggestion to amend away the 2A.

    I don't understand the point you're trying to make re: the 10A? Prior the 14A, the states were free to prohibit firearms. The 10A wouldn't have stopped them.

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    I understand the "power" of the Tenth Amendment to be collective-- a certain scope for local self government where not specifically prohibited by Federal or State Constitutional law or statute. "Right"s in the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments belong to individuals.

  • Milhouse||

    That's as may be, but the 10A did not protect them from state infringement until the 14A came along.

  • CarlosT||

    Washington state's constitution has an even stronger version of the Second Amendment:

    ARTICLE I, SECTION 24: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    Explicitly individual, for self defense, not collective, and "shall not be impaired". All of this would be great if rule of law meant anything in this state.

  • James Pollock||

    I don't see that as stronger than the federal 2A. The state right is explicitly limited to self-defense or official militia.. If you aren't defending yourself, or serving in the militia, you have no right to a weapon.

  • CJColucci||

    The risk assessment here seems pretty obvious. It is much more likely that some nut who might want to shoot the Governor (a Lt. Governor, being mainly insignificant, would not likely be a target, but could easily be collateral damage) would show up at the State of the State than that some random armed person on the street might want to shoot the Lt. Governor. Hell, most random people on the street, armed or unarmed, wouldn't recognize the Lt. Governor if they saw him.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    If this were a more generic situation you might have a valid point, but in this instance I think you probably have it backwards.

    - Habib is a high-flying young liberal, elected to the state House in 2012, the Senate in 2014, and Lt. Gov. in 2016. Hmm, he seems overdue for his next elevation. Point being, he is not some invisible guy.

    - As Lt. Gov. (and thereby president of the Senate) he issued the order to ban concealed carry from the Senate gallery in 2017. That would not have involved getting in the crosshairs of someone aiming for the Governor.

    - He is the son of Iranian immigrants. For some people that would be offense enough.

  • CJColucci||

    This sounds like an empirical question that can be resolved relatively easily if anyone cares. Are there videos of him dancing in college?

  • Jerry B.||

    Shouldn't someone tell the citizens of Washington that their Lt. Governor is a paranoid?

  • Brandybuck||

    Poseurs gotta pose

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    I don't know, not allowing guns in the public gallery seems like a sensible restriction. Watching C-Span, I see lots of people I'd like to shoot, and I don't even own a gun.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    See, that's called projection. "If I can't trust myself to carry a gun, why should I trust anyone else?"

    (I assume you're actually making a snide comment though)

  • Bob Meyer||

    The Lt Governor is just part of a long term campaign to remove guns from private citizens. Washington state has eliminated private gun sales and put ridiculous restrictions on "transferring" firearms making it questionable as to the legality of letting someone try your gun out while at a public shooting range.

    They don't dare eliminate carry permits outright so they will just gradually increase the areas where carry is prohibited.

    The state is in the process of taking guns away from the "mentally ill". The ploy is that if someone's relatives to say that they believe that the person is unbalanced then that person must "temporarily" surrender any firearms that they possess. If your spouse gets a restraining order during an ugly divorce, then kiss your guns good bye.

    When it grows up, Washington wants to be California.

    Until the SCOTUS takes another gun control case and clarifies what a "fundamental right to bear arms" means, the progressives will continue their war on self defense.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wonder why the progressives hate guns so much.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    My experience is that most people object to gun nuttery (absolutism) and dislike many gun nuts (not merely for being gun nuts). That is readily distinguishable from 'hating guns so much.'

    I perceive constitutional entitlement to possess a reasonable firearm for self-protection in the home, for example, and worry that the predictable snapback against gun absolutism could diminish that right for Americans. Yet most right-wingers, and especially the gun nuts, would consider me a progressive and a gun-grabber.

  • Jerry B.||

    "I perceive constitutional entitlement to possess a reasonable firearm for self-protection in the home, for example..."

    So, just for fun, what do you consider a "reasonable" firearm, and why would such a reasonable firearm be valid only for protection in the home, and not, say, at your place of business, in your car, or on your morning run?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    In one respect, for the same reason child pornography, securities-related falsehoods, copyright infringements, nuclear weapons plans, and other elements of expression by American citizens are excepted from the First Amendment's (not-so-absolute) protection.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Poor Arthur. He's been asked for years what he considers a "reasonable" firearm but he can't ever seem to tell us what that is. I'm thinking that's because he knows that a flintlock rifle isn't classified as a firearm by federal law but the cartridge firing single shot rifles are just too scary for him to contemplate.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I would begin the debate with reasonable shotguns, rifles, and pistols and reasonable ammunition. The types of firearms a reasonable adult would consider for self-defense in the home.

    What, in your judgment, would be a reasonable firearm in this context?

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Arthur you are the one using the term "reasonable". I don't think it's outrageous for me to ask you to define what you mean by reasonable. For myself, a reasonable gun for home defense would include pump and semi-auto shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto pistols, and lever action and semi-auto rifles (regardless of how "scary" any of those may look to gun grabbers).

    What would you consider reasonable?

    (Please note, I'm not saying that banning others than what I have listed is acceptable. I find these guns reasonable for the purpose of self defense.)

  • James Pollock||

    "He's been asked for years what he considers a "reasonable" firearm but he can't ever seem to tell us what that is"

    Reasonable for who, and for what? Because either one can change the answer.

  • Krayt||

    Nuclear weapons are banned from private ownership. Plans are not.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You are confused, Krayt. A review of United States v. Progressive, Inc. might help.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Perhaps you should review that case a little more carefully yourself. While the government did secure a preliminary injunction against the publication of an article that include a design for a thermonuclear device, the case was ultimately dropped and the article was in fact published later that year.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Law students apparently still review that case every year. Have you considered alerting the faculties that they are wasting the students' time?

  • NToJ||

    I have no objections to people having guns at their work, or in their car, or their morning run. But I can still imagine people who would think gun ownership in the home is more sacred than outside the home, since outside the home you are subjecting others to your gun. If someone believed that the possession of guns by others increased their own risk of danger, that's a pretty rational desire.

  • Jmaie||

    Can't say as I agree that having a gun in my glove compartment is subjecting others to it. By that logic keeping a gun in my home is subjecting my neighbors to it.

  • NToJ||

    I don't think the fear is that you'll have the gun in your glove compartment. The fear is, for e.g., that you'll use it in a road rage incident.

    But fair point. Would you agree the calculus changes re: work or morning run?

  • ||

    Except that it's not a rational fear.

  • NToJ||

    But we're not limited to rational fears. See, e.g., your racism and homophobia.

  • Absaroka||

    "Would you agree the calculus changes re: work or morning run?"

    I dunno. I find that "so-n-so would like to kill me if he could, but he doesn't have a gun closer than his house" to provide very little comfort. Putting aside tire irons and bricks, as I slip into my dotage unarmed combat with homicidal youngsters becomes unappealing. And I expect that happens even earlier in life for, say, 100 lb women.

  • NToJ||

    "I find that "so-n-so would like to kill me if he could, but he doesn't have a gun closer than his house" to provide very little comfort."

    Do you also understand that there are people in the world who disagree with you? Even in conservative Texas, guns are not allowed in bars, even for concealed handgun license carriers. We're talking about evaluations of options on a continuum.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    Why should the calculus change when every report or study I've seen shows that people with a CCW commit less crimes in total (not just with guns) than any other segment of the population including police officers?

    In fact, the numbers are so small they might as well be zero.

  • NToJ||

    "Why should the calculus change when every report or study I've seen shows that people with a CCW commit less crimes..."

    This sounds like an argument in favor of gun regulations like limiting the right to carry to CCW holders, or non-felons.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    No, I don't think the calculus changes. I carry daily at work, in public, and at home. I'm not "subjecting" anyone to my gun. It sits quietly in its holster and doesn't bother anyone.

  • NToJ||

    "I'm not "subjecting" anyone to my gun. It sits quietly in its holster and doesn't bother anyone."

    You should assume that the people who advocate for gun control are not scared of holstered guns. They're scared of unholstered guns. Do you not understand what the controversy is about?

  • Harvey Mosley||

    "You should assume that the people who advocate for gun control are not scared of holstered guns.

    Why should I assume that they are not afraid of holstered guns? From everything I've seen they are terrified of guns in general. They don't care if it is holstered or not.

    I will admit that if I see someone with an unholstered gun I would be concerned and would want to know what's going on. In that case it could be:

    A) Someone needs help
    B) Someone is about to do something bad
    C) Some idiot doesn't know any better

    Finding out which would be very important to me. But the hoplophobes generally don't care whether or not it's holstered. Their reaction to guns is along the lines of "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

  • Violent Sociopath||

    Why should I assume this? On what basis should I conclude that people who advocate for categorical bans on the most popular rifles and handguns in the country, and accessories thereto, are not scared of, and have no problem with, holstered guns?

  • James Pollock||

    "By that logic keeping a gun in my home is subjecting my neighbors to it."

    True enough. But they also are around you enough to tell whether you handle your weapon safely, or if you have some unsafe or irresponsible habits. If you're just driving through MY neighborhood, I have no way of determining that information.

  • Absaroka||

    "If you're just driving through MY neighborhood..."

    ... I have no way of determining whether you handle your car safely, so we can say you are subjecting me to your car, and in a much more direct way than you are subjecting me to your holstered gun.

    Now, even though I'm not around you enough to tell whether you handle your vehicle safely, I can take some solace from the fact that you have a driver's license, just like I can take solace in the fact you have a carry permit for the gun.

    (of course, scofflaws both drive and carry guns without the appropriate permits, but I think we're talking about the law abiding here)

  • Abdul Abulbul Amir||

    Arthur,

    Can you think of a firearm short of automatic weapons that would be reasonable for a civilian police officer to use for self defense that would be unreasonable for civilians to use for self defense?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I do not know. I am not convinced police weaponry should be limited to that which would be appropriate for civilian self-defense in the home.

    Why? Do you have an insight?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I do not know. I am not convinced police weaponry should be limited to that which would be appropriate for civilian self-defense in the home.

    Why? Do you have an insight?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I sense police weaponry, much like military weaponry, need not be limited to that which is reasonable for civilian self-defense in the home.

    Why? Do you have an insight you could share?

  • Jerry B.||

    So you've managed to not define what would, in your opinion, be a 'reasonable' firearm, and not explained why such a firearm would be reasonable for protection in your home, but not in other places.

    I expect that you can't.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Avoid the "reasonable" point, stick with absolutism (regarding issues such as which weapons, which people, and which locations), and ride the gun nuttery so far as you can.

    But only a dope -- such as the type of person who figures John Wayne was a gun-grabbing commie when he collected the yahoos' guns outside the saloon for safekeeping until sobriety or departing the city limits occurred -- will be surprised when the predictable, sensible backlash overrides even some reasonable gun rights.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    My experience is that most people who object to "gun nuttery" labor under the delusion that history began yesterday, and confuse gun owners' strenuous objections to efforts to de facto repeal what's left of the Second Amendment, after eighty-plus years of increasingly burdensome regulation at all levels of government, with "absolutism."

    If you imagine that the Second Amendment extends only so far as to protect a right to a "reasonable" weapon (presumably to be defined by the same pack of imbeciles who think that muzzle brakes and collapsible stocks make semi-auto rifles more lethal, and that a handgun without a loaded chamber indicator or magazine disconnect feature is ipso facto "unsafe"), and then only for the purpose of self-defense, and then only in the home, then you are not only a progressive and a gun-grabber, but a constitutional illiterate.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    Also: my experience is that most people who object to "gun nuttery" are odious cultural bigots, like Arthur.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Progressives loathe any activity that produces a sense of being in control of your life. That's why they hate guns and private automobiles favoring instead, police protection and passenger trains, both of which are controlled by the state.

    To rule a nation it is necessary for the people to feel helpless and look to a "leader" to protect them. "Il Duce" and "Der Fuehrer" both translate as "The Leader". Although progressives will deny it, their forebears supported Mussolini and Hitler because they took away from people any sense of individuality and self sufficiency. They were the original propounders of identity politics.

    The enemy of progressives is the person who stands on their own, repudiating group membership as a means of achieving one's goals. Identity politics is a way to suppress individual initiative and force people into easily manipulated herds that, while passive in response to government, will aggressively attack anyone perceived as a threat to group identity or as an impediment to the progressive agenda.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    Yawn

  • ||

    Pretty much. They also like to herd people into cities, where they can employ groupthink and other control mechanisms to subjugate us as permanent chattel slaves.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    Bob Meyer: "They don't dare eliminate carry permits outright so they will just gradually increase the areas where carry is prohibited."

    Similar to efforts to end abortion.

  • Krayt||

    Judges are playing with rejecting anti-abortion laws that, while reasonable on the surface, pile up to deny abortion clinics the right to exist. Good, strike those accumulative law abominations.

    I hope judges apply this same standard to California efforts to effectively deny gun shops the right to exist becsause they can't be built within half a mile of a school, church, day care, government office, and so on, leaving a 200 square foot patch in a farmer's field on the county edge as the only viable place.

  • MaverickNH||

    It's one thing to not pay government employees and have them not report to work. It's another thing to pay government employees and have them not report to work. Habib should be dismissed for failure to perform duties and functions of the Lt Gov.

  • Milhouse||

    Attending the governor's speech is not one of his duties.

  • James Pollock||

    Shush. Don't rain on his parade.

  • Absaroka||

    From a statistical risk point of view, it would make more sense for him to refuse to attend official functions to which he had to travel by automobile.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    Especially if he is driving.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    The article referenced shows the issue is over concealed carry in a legislative chamber. EV's post expands the scope of the issue by analogizing to concealed carry generally, presumably to make some point about hypocrisy.

    Comparing the number of states that permit concealed carry in a legislative chamber might be more appropriate. But, I recognize it might not support the implicit argument EV is trying to make as forcefully.

  • QuantumBoxCat||

    It also appears that it's not about whether people with concealed carry permit can attend (which the headline indicates) but rather whether people with concealed weapons, a subset of those with concealed permits, can attend. Title is inaccurate and over inclusive.

  • ||

    Link

    This is what liberals mean when they say "common sense gun regulation."

  • James Pollock||

    " 4 4. Sales of ammunition not prohibited. Nothing contained in this
    5 section shall be construed to prevent, or interfere in any way with, the
    6 sale of ammunition for revolvers or pistols of any kind, or for rifles,
    7 shot guns, or other arms, belonging or which may belong to any persons
    8 whether as sporting or hunting weapons or for the purpose of protection
    9 to them in their homes, or, as they may go abroad; and manufacturers are
    10 authorized to continue to manufacture, and wholesalers and dealers to
    11 continue to deal in and freely to sell ammunition to all such persons
    12 for such purposes."

    EGADS! Those MONSTERS!

  • Naaman Brown||

    No. It's Egads, those idiots.

    JUSTIFICATION::

    This bill is designed to keep assault weapon ammunition out of the hands of unlicensed users and to prevent the illegal trafficking of ammunition. Assault weapons are particularly lethal and have little application to time honored sport of hunting game. Rather, the purpose of assault weapons is assault. Unfettered purchases of such ammunition enables stockpiling and further contributes to the growing epidemic of mass shootings.

    And:

    This bill would limit the sale of ammunition designed for use in assault weapons to twice the capacity of such weapon(s) to those authorized to possess said weapon(s) within a one hundred twenty day period.

    Searching: What is the legal magazine capacity in NY?
    New York prohibits the manufacture, transportation, disposal and possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device with a capacity of more than ten rounds.

    That would limit legal purchase to 20 rounds every 4 months for owners of firearms using "assault weapon ammunition": .223 Rem (5.56 NATO), .30 Carbine, 9mm Luger (9x19mm NATO), .308 Win (7.62x51mm NATO), 7.62x39mm, etc.

    There are firearms not classified as assault weapons that shoot those calibers.

  • Absaroka||

    I'm trying to figure out exactly what they are saying. I'm not sure if they mean:

    1)There is a specific list of restricted calibers somewhere (my limited googling didn't find one).

    2)Any caliber that is chambered in any gun that meets their assault weapons definition.

    3)And it's not clear whether the restrictions apply to everyone, or only registered assault weapon owners (i.e. if you have a registered .223 AR-15 you can only buy 20 rds per 4 months, but if you don't have a registered .223 AR, but perhaps a .223 bolt gun, you can buy all you want?

    If #1, AR-15ish rifles come chambered in many, many calibers. Offhand, I haven't heard of any in rimmed cartridges (38SPL, .303, etc), but I think someone somewhere makes them in the vast majority of other calibers. Having mass shooters merely switch to obscure calibers doesn't seem to buy you much.

    If #2, given the above, you're restricting the vast majority of ammunition; the Venn diagram of 'assault weapon calibers' and 'normal calibers' are pretty close to overlapping circles.

    If #3, I suppose it's intended to be a penalty; shoot your lever .22 all you like, but buy a 10/22 to go with it and your ammunition supply for both dries up. I suppose you'd have to confiscate people's existing ammo when they buy a semi-auto, lest prospective spree killers buy a couple hundred rounds before buying their semi-auto. That would be effective because they surely wouldn't just hide it and say it had been used. That would be dishonest.

  • ||

    Exactly. This proposal is so far in bad faith that it's not even worth addressing with rational arguments.

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Washington Lt. Gov. Skips Governor's Speech Because People with Concealed Carry Permits Could Attend."

    For a while my hometown paper would include the carry permit status of people involved in bad acts involving guns: none of the bad actors had carry permits.

    Washington Lt. Gov. should skip speeches where people without concealed carry permits can attend, to be rational about avoiding venues based on carry permit status of attendees.

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Washington Lt. Gov. Skips Governor's Speech Because People with Concealed Carry Permits Could Attend."

    For a while my hometown paper would include the carry permit status of people involved in bad acts involving guns: none of the bad actors had carry permits.

    Washington Lt. Gov. should skip speeches where people without concealed carry permits can attend, to be rational about avoiding venues based on carry permit status of attendees.

  • TBlakely||

    Can we move on the the civil war? I'm getting tired of all the fluffing.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Who? I live in Washington and I didn't know who this person was until just now.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online