Gun safety on Washington ballot, gun research axed in Washington, D.C.
Washington voters will have a gun safety initiative on their statewide ballot this November for the second time in three years, this time one allowing courts to disarm those deemed a risk to themselves, family and loved ones.
A pair of happenings Thursday, at opposite ends of the country, demonstrate a yawning gap between action in Washington state and continued inaction on guns in Washington, D.C.
In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, majority Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee turned back Democrats' efforts to lift a two-decade-old proviso that virtually bans federal research into gun violence.
The gun lobby-inserted language that forbids the Centers for Disease Control from research and actions "to advocate or promote gun control." Since research into gun deaths likely would do just that, CDC directors have pulled the plug on virtually all research into the societal impacts of firearms.
"The fact is, the gun lobby has a lock on this Congress and they have continued to block this gun research at every turn. They've taken away our ability to protect the public from gun violence," charged Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., senior Democrat on Appropriations.
Two House members from Washington, Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler and Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer, sit on the committee.
The picture in this Washington is far different.
Legislation to create protection orders was blocked in the state legislature earlier this year. The Alliance for Gun Responsibility responded by raising more than half-a-million dollars at a June luncheon, hiring signature gatherers and fielding advocates with compelling personal stories.
"I was afraid of my son. I was afraid for my son, but there was nothing I could do to keep him from buying a gun," said Marilyn Balcerak, who told her story at the June event. "He killed himself and his step-sister and I was powerless to stop it.
"If Extreme Risk Protection Orders had been law just two years ago, my son and daughter would still be alive. This is the most important thing we can do this year to make sure that no other family has to go through what mine is going through."
In 2014, a young man named Elliot Rodger killed six persons (two by stabbing) and wounded 14 others on a rampage near the campus of the University of California-Santa Barbara. His parents had sought law enforcement intervention. Police visited Rodger, but had no authority to act. They ended up exchanging fire with him before Rodger took his own life.
"Had this law (1491) been in place in California in 2014, my niece Veronika Weiss might still be alive today," said Jane Weiss, another 1491 sponsor. "Instead, she was murdered while walking to her sorority house. ... The shooter who killed Veronika displayed warning signs prior to his rampage."
The National Rifle Association is still able to block gun safety legislation in Olympia. It has been outflanked, however, by the initiative process.
A gun safety campaign, begun in Seattle's faith community after the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut, slaughter of 20 first graders and six adults, has morphed into an enduring statewide movement. It has featured marches between St. Mark's and St. James cathedrals, gained support from technology millionaires, and been embraced by victims of gun violence.
In 2014, by a 60 percent margin, voters passed I-594, requiring criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows and online. Militia types rallied on the State Capitol lawn, packed heat into the House visitors gallery, and vowed resistance. But the law has taken effect.
In the late 1990s, the National Rifle Association spent millions of dollars to defeat a ballot initiative requiring trigger locks on guns not in use, and that all firearms purchasers undergo gun safety instruction.
The tables were turned in 2014: Initiative 594 dominated the airwaves.
I-1491 would allow family members and law enforcement to before a court, and present documented evidence that a person poses a serious threat to themselves or others. The judge could temporarily suspend a person's access to firearms, including the ownership, purchase or borrowing of guns. The restraining order would last for up to a year.
By: Joel Connelly
Source: Seattle PI