From their first blog posting since February 19th we find the anti-gun organization known as Washington Ceasefire crowing about the first progress they have made with the Washington State Legislature in decades:
Today the Washington State Senate passed the first piece of gun violence prevention legislation in over two decades by a vote of 39-1. The bill, HB 1498, which passed in the House unanimously last month, will bring WA state law into conformity with federal law by prohibiting firearm possession if an individual is involuntarily committed by a court for a period of up to 14 days. The new law will ensure that the approximately 4,000 Washington residents who are found by a court to be at risk of self-harm or to harm others will be unable to possess a firearm until they have successfully managed their condition.
Additionally, the legislation will reform the records reporting system to ensure that all individual records are flagged in the background check databases within three days of the commitment. Washington CeaseFire staff worked for the last two years to help bring the legislation to fruition. CeaseFire worked cooperatively with both sides of the aisle, the Seattle Mayor’s office and other groups to achieve the historic victory. The legislation was a led by a strong bi-partisan effort in the House spearheaded by Representative Ross Hunter (D-48).
The bill would not have succeeded without the support of our members – thank you for all of the contributions you make every day. Please thank your legislators – the ONLY legislator to vote against the bill is Senator Dale Brandland (R-42). This is truly an unprecedented victory for our fight to save lives.
Yes, I’m sure it was all their work for the last two years and the support of their members that made the difference. I can’t image that the pro-gun group Gun Owners Action League of WA (email, no mention on the website) that also supported it made any difference.
If pro-gun means supporting this B.S. law, I wonder what that makes me?
I’ve got a lot of experience with the mentally ill. It’s not altogether different from physical illness – it’s exactly the same, really (caused by brain chemistry as opposed to, say, liver chemistry or stomach chemistry) but what I mean is that in most cases it’s something from which people can recover – fully.
Being branded for life because of what amounts to nothing more than an infection or a flu is hardly compatible with liberty or individual rights.
According to the overview of the law it’s not for life. It’s until “they have successfully managed their condition”.
I don’t have much experience with the mentally ill, except those that I sometimes have online debates with, but I am certain there are those which should not have access to guns, cars, matches, knives, etc. At least for a while. Whether this law does the best job of balancing rights versus protection from people with mental illness I can’t say. But I do concede this may be an instance where government intervention is appropriate.
If they do abide by that provision, then it will be far less onerous, but I still oppose giving anyone (especially judges) the right to arbitrarily revoke legal protection of a person’s rights.
Note I said legal protection. These people still have the right, even if they’ve got the force of government contradicting it.