“According to court records, the gunman who killed 5 people in Washington State had been banned from owning a gun several months previously due to several domestic violence claims,” westernjournalism.com reports . . .
On Friday night, Arcan Cetin, 20, went into a Macy’s in the Cascade Mall in Burlington, north of Seattle. He shot and killed three women, a teenage girl and one man. After the shooting, Cetin left his rifle on top of a cosmetics counter and left the mall, court documents said. In the wake of the attack, many have called for an increase in gun regulation.
Despite the fact that a court order banning Arcan Cetin from keeping or bearing arms failed to stop the Mall shooter from shooting and killing his victims, gun control advocates are using the crime to lobby for an initiative making it easier to generate gun ban court orders. Check this from seattletimes.com:
In November, voters should add a new common-sense restriction and approve Initiative 1491. It would allow families to go to court and have guns temporarily taken away from unstable loved ones. It is unclear whether such a law could have made a difference in this latest tragedy; it certainly could have in other cases.
The memorials of the victims of Friday night’s mall shooting will begin soon — history repeating itself. Take a moment and read about the lives lost — from the “perfect child” killed at age 16 to the 95-year-old woman killed alongside her own daughter.
What if they were you? Your loved one? What will you do to stop the next tragedy?
Is it me of does last bit from Cascade Mall shooting: ‘Inaction in the face of mass shootings is unacceptable’ sound like a call to arms? What will I do to stop an attack on myself or my loved one? I don’t think it’s a secret that I’ve prepared a .45 caliber response.
The first bit of the Op Ed — asking readers to support a bill that would not have stopped the Macy’s murderer — is the usual gun control argument taken to it’s logical extreme. “Even if it doesn’t save one life . . .” pass Initiative 1491!
Just for perspective, let’s take another look at the circumstances surrounding the Macy’s shooting, this time from our good friends at The Trace:
A young man who fatally shot five people in a Washington state mall last Friday was reportedly turned away from a gun store hours before his rampage. The gunman inquired about “.45s and stuff” and asked how he could buy a firearm without going through a background check, clerk Aaron Wilson told a local television station. “No matter what, I wasn’t willing to sell to this man.” The gunman stole the .22 caliber Ruger rifle and 25-round magazine that he used in the killings from his stepfather.
Now about that Initiative . . .
1491 is Washington State’s version of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order. The Evergreen State’s “extreme risk protection order” would give family members, dating partners and anyone who’s lived with a gun owner for any amount of time during the year previous then power to secure a court order mandating immediate confiscation of the respondent’s firearms.
The “ERPO” would be issued ex parte. The first thing the respondent will know about the firearms confiscation order: a knock on the door from their local constabulary. The respondent can only respond to the accusations triggering the confiscation order after their guns are removed, at a hearing held within the next 14 days.
Hello? If someone poses a demonstrable danger to themselves or innocent life, it’s not the guns that need removing. They should be removed from society — after receiving their Constitutional right to due process. If society choose to go all “pre-crime” instead, it’s only a matter of time before thousands maybe even millions of American receive this notice (from 1491):
“To the subject of this protection order: This order will last until the date and time noted above. If you have not done so already, you must surrender to the (insert name of local law enforcement agency) all firearms in your custody, control, or possession and any concealed pistol license issued to you under RCW 9.41.070 immediately. You may not have in your custody or control, purchase, possess, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while this order is in effect. You have the right to request one hearing to terminate this order every twelve-month period that this order is in effect, starting from the date of this order and continuing through any renewals. You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with this order.”
Scary stuff, no?