Quote of the 2014 November election—Nick Hanauer

We need more school shootings!!! Vote yes on Initiative 591.

Nick Hanauer
October 24, 2014
Too Soon? Nick Hanauer Posts Sarcastically, ‘We Need More School Shootings!!!
nick-hanauer_tweet
[Via WAC.

In addition to the moral bankruptcy, blood dancing, and exceedingly poor taste Nick Hanauer is a top funder raiser for I-594.

I-594 is the anti-gun initiative in Washington State which would outlaw many common and innocent acts related to gun ownership. One such example is my loaning a gun to Barb for the weekend so she could take a class. If I-594 were law we would have had to seek out a FFL, pay a fee, and fill out a bunch of paperwork for when I “transferred” the gun to her, and then again when she “transferred” it back.

I-591 is the pro-gun initiative which would limit Washington State to background checks to the same criteria as Federal background checks. And, assuming Hanauer is rational, then the only thing that could possibly be what he was referring to with I-591 being a issue in regards to school shootings is the following:

A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

So, unless Hanauer thinks unlawful confiscation of guns is in the future, he has crap for brains in making the statement he did.

My conclusions is that with this post he just confirms the relationship between those opposed to our fundamental rights, crap for brains, and inherent evil.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the 2014 November election—Nick Hanauer

  1. That “new section” seems rather redundant, given that the 14th amendment says basically the same things.

  2. Yes. But it was supposedly redundant in New Orleans and other places as well.

    But you have a valid point. If they won’t abide by the 4th Amendment then why would they abide by a law put into place by a simple majority of the voters? In order to be actually effective it would have been better had there been some “teeth” added to it. Tar and feathering for any government employee who violated the law might be a good start. But that might have increased the difficulty of getting the police groups to endorse the initiative.

  3. 14th, not 4th, though that one is somewhat related. And as Neil Smith argues, so is the 3rd.
    Of course, the argument about redundancy was originally applied to the whole Bill of Rights, and history has since shown how misguided that claim was. While just about every judge has been willing, even eager, to disregard the plain words and meaning of Article 1 Section 8, it seems that when confronted with the explicit prohibitions in the Bill of Rights they have been slightly more hesitant. At least some of the time, some of them, for some of those articles.
    There is of course already a law that makes infringement of constitutionally guaranteed rights a felony. Unfortunately it’s a federal law, meaning that the same government doing the infringing would have to bring the charges. Not likely. Now, if some state authorities were to bring legal action against feds for infringement, we’d stand a chance. Some sheriffs out west appear to be heading that way.

    • It may be so that enforcement of — say, frex, 18USC242 — requires criminal charges to be filed by a US Attorney, but would not a person harmed by an action taken in violation of that section be sufficient cause of action in civil court? “You hurt me and broke the law to do so. I sue you.”

      ?

      M

      • Maybe. But sovereign immunity would probably be asserted, and even if that didn’t work the perp would probably be defended at our expense. The nice thing of federal felony statutes is that the bad guys might end up in jail. The problem is that they don’t in practice.

    • Looks like another Kennedy style fascist racked by guilt over having money. The one odd thing is that he actually worked for a living, unlike the Kennedy parasites of the past couple of generations. But anyone who thinks FDR was a good guy obviously has a lot of loose screws.

  4. Pingback: More proof Anti-Civil Rights Activists Prefer Violence to Peace | Ordnancecorner's Weblog

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » Why are anti-gun activists so violent?

Comments are closed.