Posts
For a variety of reasons, I supported GPal as a vendor, and trusted them to collect campaign donations.
I became curious at the complete dearth of donations or donation notices from that organization.
When someone I trusted mentioned he'd donated twice and I observed I'd seen money nor notice neither time, my trust was substantially eroded.
Rightly or wrongly, I can no longer sustain faith in this organization, much as I might like to. As a direct result of this loss of my trust, I must recommend that any and all persons who have contributed using the donation page (now disabled) contact GPAL, their bank, and if you believe it appropriate, Washington State Attorney General Robert McKenna.
Rob McKenna
Washington State Attorney General
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
(360) 753-6200
I don't have answers to my questions, let alone yours. I am, to put it mildly, saddened by this turn of affairs.
If you wish to contribute at this late date to the campaign, please mail your contribution (under $500, any sums bringing the total contribution to in excess of $5,000 to be returned to the donor), including the state mandated name/address/phone number/employer/occupation the old-fashioned way to:
Reluctantly Republican
5946 38th Ave SW
Seattle WA 98126
I will, on the other hand, wholly understand if you wish to take a pass at this point.
Best of Wishes,
Ray Carter
Seattle, WA
Monday, October 4, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Mayor McGinn & Closing times...
Mayor Mike McGinn of Seattle at least kick-started the discussion of a sensible liquor policy in Washington - suggesting *Seattle* go to staggered closing times rather than proposing Seattle continue with "let's concentrate all our drunks and rowdies as much as we can in a 90 minute time span so we can overwhelm police and emergency services" as policy.
A better choice, of course, would be to abolish a mandatory closing time state-wide.
Some bars will run 24/7 - with their patrons trickling out in dribs and drabs throughout the day and night.
Other bars will only open from 5pm until 1am (harvesting the "sweet spot" of profitability, and writing off other hours as unprofitable or of unacceptable risk).
In all likelihood there will be room not only for both, but for numerous variants.
Most of the time and in most circumstances, one or two folks that are intoxicated are limited by issues of scale in causing major trouble without some kind of mechanical assistance (say, for instance, getting behind the wheel of a car while in such a condition). They can still do damage, but it's at a retail level rather than wholesale.
Get a whole group of them together, and the chances for the sort of stupid to erupt that sends folks to morgues and hospitals...gets a whole lot better - but not a whit more necessary or less tragic.
Making it a matter of public policy, as we have in Washington since Prohibition was finally repealed, to create such groups by mandating but a single closing time for liquor establishments could be reasonably considered less than completely wise, and more than a bit heartless towards the inevitable victims of such a policy.
Noise and over-service are separate issues, not surprisingly. And even less surprisingly, they require separate and closely tailored solutions.
Anyone who's been in a bar can tell you of the "Great Closing Time Liquor Gulp", also known respectively as "Last Call" and "Drink'm Up, boys and girls, it's time to close". Folks buy 2-3 drinks (and, before even starting to propose to limit how many drinks folks can buy at a time, factor in "buying an extra for friends...and the potential for bar fights caused by such a restriction) and in a short space, when they already have drinks in hand, slam them down...with the alcohol not hitting them nor having obvious affect for some variable time thereafter.
To the extent that abolishing a mandatory closing time reduces that self-imposed or addiction-imposed pressure, we are all that one whit safer. But any improvements gained thereby are purely icing, not cake. The real benefits on this front, it seems to me, are to be found in seeking ways to expand treatment opportunities for alcoholics and facilitating bars that have stronger social and entertainment elements in comparison to the heavy drinkers dive.
Closing time isn't a real driver behind night-time noise levels - architecture, development, and bar theme has a lot more to do with noise than an arbitrary closing time ever will.
An extreme example of noise-creating architecture/design would be a outdoor beer garden holding 24/7 amplified heavy metal concerts - loud, under such circumstances, isn't an accident. But lesser examples abound - opening a bright shiny new live music bar, for instance, in the middle of a residential neighborhood in an old drug store with uninsulated wood frame walls...has it's own little challenges in containing noise. Some times the fix is as simple as some sound insulation and a more complex entry - usually it's not.
Similarly, if a developer picks up some entertainment district property surrounded by a lively music scene and lots of nightlife - neither developer nor anyone that buys lovely new condo's from said developer should be surprised that things stay open loud and late in such an environment. And they have no reasonable right to complain about noise they knowingly moved in next to an night life establishment(and if they didn't know...their issue is with their real estate agent for not fully informing them, not with the entertainment establishments...).
Some entertainment venues are louder than others by their very nature. A private club for elderly folks will *usually* be a bit quieter than a live music bar with twenty-somethings as a primary focus. The first will tend to fit fairly seamlessly in the quietest of neighborhoods - the second, not so much. One size, in this as in many things, does not fit all - nor does one rule. And mandatory closing times won't and don't change this.
A better choice, of course, would be to abolish a mandatory closing time state-wide.
Some bars will run 24/7 - with their patrons trickling out in dribs and drabs throughout the day and night.
Other bars will only open from 5pm until 1am (harvesting the "sweet spot" of profitability, and writing off other hours as unprofitable or of unacceptable risk).
In all likelihood there will be room not only for both, but for numerous variants.
Most of the time and in most circumstances, one or two folks that are intoxicated are limited by issues of scale in causing major trouble without some kind of mechanical assistance (say, for instance, getting behind the wheel of a car while in such a condition). They can still do damage, but it's at a retail level rather than wholesale.
Get a whole group of them together, and the chances for the sort of stupid to erupt that sends folks to morgues and hospitals...gets a whole lot better - but not a whit more necessary or less tragic.
Making it a matter of public policy, as we have in Washington since Prohibition was finally repealed, to create such groups by mandating but a single closing time for liquor establishments could be reasonably considered less than completely wise, and more than a bit heartless towards the inevitable victims of such a policy.
Noise and over-service are separate issues, not surprisingly. And even less surprisingly, they require separate and closely tailored solutions.
Anyone who's been in a bar can tell you of the "Great Closing Time Liquor Gulp", also known respectively as "Last Call" and "Drink'm Up, boys and girls, it's time to close". Folks buy 2-3 drinks (and, before even starting to propose to limit how many drinks folks can buy at a time, factor in "buying an extra for friends...and the potential for bar fights caused by such a restriction) and in a short space, when they already have drinks in hand, slam them down...with the alcohol not hitting them nor having obvious affect for some variable time thereafter.
To the extent that abolishing a mandatory closing time reduces that self-imposed or addiction-imposed pressure, we are all that one whit safer. But any improvements gained thereby are purely icing, not cake. The real benefits on this front, it seems to me, are to be found in seeking ways to expand treatment opportunities for alcoholics and facilitating bars that have stronger social and entertainment elements in comparison to the heavy drinkers dive.
Closing time isn't a real driver behind night-time noise levels - architecture, development, and bar theme has a lot more to do with noise than an arbitrary closing time ever will.
An extreme example of noise-creating architecture/design would be a outdoor beer garden holding 24/7 amplified heavy metal concerts - loud, under such circumstances, isn't an accident. But lesser examples abound - opening a bright shiny new live music bar, for instance, in the middle of a residential neighborhood in an old drug store with uninsulated wood frame walls...has it's own little challenges in containing noise. Some times the fix is as simple as some sound insulation and a more complex entry - usually it's not.
Similarly, if a developer picks up some entertainment district property surrounded by a lively music scene and lots of nightlife - neither developer nor anyone that buys lovely new condo's from said developer should be surprised that things stay open loud and late in such an environment. And they have no reasonable right to complain about noise they knowingly moved in next to an night life establishment(and if they didn't know...their issue is with their real estate agent for not fully informing them, not with the entertainment establishments...).
Some entertainment venues are louder than others by their very nature. A private club for elderly folks will *usually* be a bit quieter than a live music bar with twenty-somethings as a primary focus. The first will tend to fit fairly seamlessly in the quietest of neighborhoods - the second, not so much. One size, in this as in many things, does not fit all - nor does one rule. And mandatory closing times won't and don't change this.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
A pleasant parade
I want to open by thanking the folks at Liberty Bell Printing in West Seattle - having rushed in at the VERY last minute, and already largely given up on getting business cards to print out for the West Seattle American Legion Parade the next day, the folks there surprised me something fierce and told me to wait a few and they'd knock it out right away.
About half an hour after closing and a few (very reasonable) dollars later I left to head to the Luna Cafe, cards in hand, and nothing short of delighted with the product quality and the customer service. I'd recommend them to most anyone (yes, you too, Eileen - they really are that good and deserve *all* of our patronage!) .
Morning of the parade went reasonably well, right up till it got interesting.
Was taking Mom to her place on the route over by ShooFly Pie when she found an obscured 4" bump in the side walk and took a tumble, munched her glasses, and gashed her face where her eyeglasses dug in. At 82, tumbles aren't a casual event, so bundled her back into the car and headed for Swedish by way of younger brothers house where folks decided that Mom was ok to rest there with my neice...and I was more or less ordered back to the route to distribute campaign business cards and say hi to folks.
Lesson? Given the apparent lack of priority given sidewalk maintenance* in Seattle, I'd suggest we all be a little more watchful where we're walking - ESPECIALLY if we have depth perception issues.
Following familial directions and fretting a wee bit about Mom, meandered back to the Parade route and strolled north along California, chatting and handing out business cards - a good time, and surprising how many folks dislike the Liquor Board (and how passionately) and how many folks share my concerns about fiscal responsibility in Olympia.
Saw Eldest Niece in a band on the route, spoke with a lot of folks (and only ran into one or two truly rude sorts), and stayed positive. Actually ran into several moderate and conservative Republicans, and some folks that were amazingly grateful that there *was* anyone, even reluctantly, running as a Republican in W. Seattle.
Must remember to pick up a hat and some sunscreen before doing this again, though!!
And yes, Mom is, if at all possible, seeing the optometrist on Monday.
*a friend had a similar experience with his Mom and wasn't precisely greeted with enthused support and assurances of swift repair by the folks he contacted at the city, and I've heard similar tales elsewhere. I'd be delighted to hear this is untrue, but am not terribly optimistic.
About half an hour after closing and a few (very reasonable) dollars later I left to head to the Luna Cafe, cards in hand, and nothing short of delighted with the product quality and the customer service. I'd recommend them to most anyone (yes, you too, Eileen - they really are that good and deserve *all* of our patronage!) .
Morning of the parade went reasonably well, right up till it got interesting.
Was taking Mom to her place on the route over by ShooFly Pie when she found an obscured 4" bump in the side walk and took a tumble, munched her glasses, and gashed her face where her eyeglasses dug in. At 82, tumbles aren't a casual event, so bundled her back into the car and headed for Swedish by way of younger brothers house where folks decided that Mom was ok to rest there with my neice...and I was more or less ordered back to the route to distribute campaign business cards and say hi to folks.
Lesson? Given the apparent lack of priority given sidewalk maintenance* in Seattle, I'd suggest we all be a little more watchful where we're walking - ESPECIALLY if we have depth perception issues.
Following familial directions and fretting a wee bit about Mom, meandered back to the Parade route and strolled north along California, chatting and handing out business cards - a good time, and surprising how many folks dislike the Liquor Board (and how passionately) and how many folks share my concerns about fiscal responsibility in Olympia.
Saw Eldest Niece in a band on the route, spoke with a lot of folks (and only ran into one or two truly rude sorts), and stayed positive. Actually ran into several moderate and conservative Republicans, and some folks that were amazingly grateful that there *was* anyone, even reluctantly, running as a Republican in W. Seattle.
Must remember to pick up a hat and some sunscreen before doing this again, though!!
And yes, Mom is, if at all possible, seeing the optometrist on Monday.
*a friend had a similar experience with his Mom and wasn't precisely greeted with enthused support and assurances of swift repair by the folks he contacted at the city, and I've heard similar tales elsewhere. I'd be delighted to hear this is untrue, but am not terribly optimistic.
Meeting and greeting
I had the good fortune to visit the 34th District Republicans at their monthly meeting this last week, and the group proved largely made up of gracious and friendly hosts of active intellect.
I spoke, but I got to hear two other candidates speak - both of whom impressed me favorably.
Diane Toledo, running for Dow Constantine's old 8th District seat (Jan Drago is stepping down, having served as an interim Council Member). Toledo wowed us all as a non-partisan candidate and survivor of the bureaucratic wars of King County Government. Her experience inside the system and passion for fiscal responsibility combine with a well-honed sense that the Council and the County Government work for the citizenry to make for a strong presentation.
Her priorities are pretty obvious - in addition to the above, she advocates taking firm steps to remedy cronyism in County Government (in favor of competence, efficiency, and serving the citizenry) and ending an endless series of reaction-driven audits of symptoms - preferring to resolve root causes.
Mack McElroy, the second candidate speaking, is running for 34th District, House of Representatives #2, and makes a strong argument why he should be elected. From what I've seen of the man, I agree he'd make a strong and principled leader in Olympia - a legislator ruled more by facts and logic than whimsy and fanaticism.
McElroy comes across as blunt, straightforward, down to earth, and above all - sensible. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal - a good fit for West Seattle. Running as an independent, he will help change the conversation in Olympia if elected.
My own speech, less practiced than those of candidates with months already on the campaign trail, seemed well received and I enjoyed answering the groups questions.
Also speaking, a representative of the Rossi Campaign shared his enthusiasm with the group quite articulately. I don't know that Rossi is the ultimate best Senatorial Candidate out there - but he seems the best bet to unseat Sen. Murray and perhaps create a bit of balance in the Senate.
If you don't make it out to these events, you might consider it - it's a great way to meet the candidates face to face, meet others who either might be like-minded or spur you to re-evaluate your assumptions (or you might do the same for them), and at the end of the day - meet some worthwhile folks of whatever political persuasion that care passionately about their community.
I spoke, but I got to hear two other candidates speak - both of whom impressed me favorably.
Diane Toledo, running for Dow Constantine's old 8th District seat (Jan Drago is stepping down, having served as an interim Council Member). Toledo wowed us all as a non-partisan candidate and survivor of the bureaucratic wars of King County Government. Her experience inside the system and passion for fiscal responsibility combine with a well-honed sense that the Council and the County Government work for the citizenry to make for a strong presentation.
Her priorities are pretty obvious - in addition to the above, she advocates taking firm steps to remedy cronyism in County Government (in favor of competence, efficiency, and serving the citizenry) and ending an endless series of reaction-driven audits of symptoms - preferring to resolve root causes.
Mack McElroy, the second candidate speaking, is running for 34th District, House of Representatives #2, and makes a strong argument why he should be elected. From what I've seen of the man, I agree he'd make a strong and principled leader in Olympia - a legislator ruled more by facts and logic than whimsy and fanaticism.
McElroy comes across as blunt, straightforward, down to earth, and above all - sensible. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal - a good fit for West Seattle. Running as an independent, he will help change the conversation in Olympia if elected.
My own speech, less practiced than those of candidates with months already on the campaign trail, seemed well received and I enjoyed answering the groups questions.
Also speaking, a representative of the Rossi Campaign shared his enthusiasm with the group quite articulately. I don't know that Rossi is the ultimate best Senatorial Candidate out there - but he seems the best bet to unseat Sen. Murray and perhaps create a bit of balance in the Senate.
If you don't make it out to these events, you might consider it - it's a great way to meet the candidates face to face, meet others who either might be like-minded or spur you to re-evaluate your assumptions (or you might do the same for them), and at the end of the day - meet some worthwhile folks of whatever political persuasion that care passionately about their community.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Port of Seattle
I spoke the other day with a respected local business leader, and he was advocating for closing the Port of Seattle's marine side down as polluting and duplicative of the Port of Tacoma - that Seattle would end up with better and safer roads, less pollution, and because of reduced diesel emissions from both ships and trucks...a healthier population. This, all at the same time that the Port marine properties (Harbor Island, waterfront properties, etc) could be sold off and re-developed as view condo's (not unlike, he shared, the experience of San Francisco in largely closing its' port in favor of Oakland) and other uses.
I hesitated to chime in with eager agreement, because in my experience things are never that simple. If elected, I think the notion bears examination - but I'm concerned about secondary and tertiary effects.
Where do all the truckers working the port today go for jobs? How will a port closure affect businesses in Seattle? If there is a significant displacement of workers (and the folks supporting those workers), just how strong an economic and human impact will that have on a recession impacted Seattle?
I'm open to reason on this one, but I'm fairly sure if we're going to talk about this and contemplate some kind of action - that it's too complex for a simple "yep, let's do it". I think our citizens are owed our time and effort to learn what doing it right looks like in this case, and only then moving forward.
We don't have the margin for repetitive "oops! Let's try again" as an approach, just now.
I hesitated to chime in with eager agreement, because in my experience things are never that simple. If elected, I think the notion bears examination - but I'm concerned about secondary and tertiary effects.
Where do all the truckers working the port today go for jobs? How will a port closure affect businesses in Seattle? If there is a significant displacement of workers (and the folks supporting those workers), just how strong an economic and human impact will that have on a recession impacted Seattle?
I'm open to reason on this one, but I'm fairly sure if we're going to talk about this and contemplate some kind of action - that it's too complex for a simple "yep, let's do it". I think our citizens are owed our time and effort to learn what doing it right looks like in this case, and only then moving forward.
We don't have the margin for repetitive "oops! Let's try again" as an approach, just now.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Why Immigration isn't simple...
The fine folks at the CATO Institute have forwarded a report of a couple of *legal* immigrants who because their still-profitable restaurant isn't making enough profit...are being hurled from the country, likely killing off their business and leading to their employees joining the ranks of the jobless.
As a national issue, we need to secure our borders - but we also need to take a long hard look at reforming our immigration code to include wacky things like logic, compassion, and comprehensibility. Common sense may be a bit much to ask for at this late date.
As a national issue, we need to secure our borders - but we also need to take a long hard look at reforming our immigration code to include wacky things like logic, compassion, and comprehensibility. Common sense may be a bit much to ask for at this late date.
Monday, July 5, 2010
A few comments on McDonald vs. Chicago
If you've not read of it, McDonald v. Chicago is a landmark case recently handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that not only does the Second Amendment of the United States enshrine an individual right, but that the rights protected by the Second apply to the States and their subordinate bodies (Counties, Cities, etc) as well as federal organizations/agencies.
And it looks like the Court will be using either intermediate ("must show rational reason why a given law would not only be intended to accomplish a necessary state purpose, but a reasonable expectation that it will do so) or strict (must not only show the requirements for intermediate, but ALSO show that the law is the least restrictive approach available to accomplish the goal du jour) scrutiny. High hurdles indeed.
Whether you think that's a great or terrible idea, it opens MANY cans of worms. Expensive ones, filled with litigation and other high-priced badness.
We cannot afford the price to play, whether we are talking about as a State...or one of our cities, counties, and other subordinate bodies. We're in deep financial trouble at most every level, and jumping up and down shouting "Sue me! Sue me!" would seem a bad notion in all but a tiny number of instances (say, for instance...when either fundamental individual rights are being violated, constitutional provisions are at issue, or it would cost more NOT to litigate).
And if we can't afford it, we don't NEED to debate any further. Would you rather fund a lawsuit defending a constitutionally questionable law or regulation - or would you rather fund a school?
Fortunately, Washington (due to a prescient state pre-emption law that reserves the entire field of gun regulation and legislation to the Washington State Legislature) is far less vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits springing out of McDonald than many other (and less fortunate) jurisdictions.
We don't need much change here in order to make darned sure our state and its' cities and counties don't get sucked into an expensive judicial whirlwind. We can let someone else be the test case, and let them do it on their dime.
City and County legislative bodies can quickly scan their various legal codes to ensure that they fall within the scope of State law. At which point, they are pretty much home free - allowing them to go spend time and energy on other issues and less money on litigation.
At the state level, we have only a very few areas of potential vulnerability if my understanding is correct. We maintain a state pistol registry, largely unused, that duplicates the federal pistol registry - a redundancy that costs money, that we don't particularly need, and leaves us just as vulnerable as if we were to require journalists to have licenses. After folks stopped pointing and laughing at us, the lawyers representing the local media would obliterate any defense of such a law...and with the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms now held a fundamental individual right - it's reasonable to expect the pistol registry to be treated with about as much gentility.
It's a liability that we're well rid of, and one that we save money on by getting rid of without even being sued. We get no benefit from keeping it (anything it does, the Federal registry does better), it costs us money to keep it, and it puts the State at risk of litigation to keep it.
Our second area of vulnerability is the requirement of a concealed pistol license (as opposed to creating a list of those barred from concealed carry). Frankly, I consider this something of a long shot...but with a bunch of established case law now up for grabs, I'd support our state carefully stepping OUT of the minefield - at least until the dust settles. Lift or suspend the requirement, and let another state fight the battle...we can always revisit the subject later.
Our third area of vulnerability is fairly counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense. Yet, under strict scrutiny at least, it could get us into all kinds of costly headaches. I speak of the bar ban. At first glance, it makes all kinds of sense to bar guns from bars - even folks in the gun community will agree that booze and guns are a poor mix.
Yet our neighbor to the South, Oregon, is ok with folks with guns in their bars...and it doesn't seem to lead to chaos and mayhem - which kind of undermines our position under a strict scrutiny analysis. And the same is true of several other states.
I'd really have a hard time arguing that we here in Washington are uniquely stupid, evil, or dysfunctional such that our citizens cannot be entrusted to behave as well or better(on a per capita basis) than citizens of the other states of the union that do allow "bar carry". This one doesn't really excite me, but when we're talking about "no, thank you, I'd rather the state not get sued" as a motivator, it may be worth considering.
We really can't AFFORD to be a test case right now...and our best bet is to ensure we're not targeted as such.
I'm not aware of any other potential pitfalls - but I'm not willing to bet there aren't any, either. But waiting around to have our vulnerabilities pointed out at great cost to the State by various and sundry plaintiffs...seems like a bad, and irresponsible, plan. We can do better.
And it looks like the Court will be using either intermediate ("must show rational reason why a given law would not only be intended to accomplish a necessary state purpose, but a reasonable expectation that it will do so) or strict (must not only show the requirements for intermediate, but ALSO show that the law is the least restrictive approach available to accomplish the goal du jour) scrutiny. High hurdles indeed.
Whether you think that's a great or terrible idea, it opens MANY cans of worms. Expensive ones, filled with litigation and other high-priced badness.
We cannot afford the price to play, whether we are talking about as a State...or one of our cities, counties, and other subordinate bodies. We're in deep financial trouble at most every level, and jumping up and down shouting "Sue me! Sue me!" would seem a bad notion in all but a tiny number of instances (say, for instance...when either fundamental individual rights are being violated, constitutional provisions are at issue, or it would cost more NOT to litigate).
And if we can't afford it, we don't NEED to debate any further. Would you rather fund a lawsuit defending a constitutionally questionable law or regulation - or would you rather fund a school?
Fortunately, Washington (due to a prescient state pre-emption law that reserves the entire field of gun regulation and legislation to the Washington State Legislature) is far less vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits springing out of McDonald than many other (and less fortunate) jurisdictions.
We don't need much change here in order to make darned sure our state and its' cities and counties don't get sucked into an expensive judicial whirlwind. We can let someone else be the test case, and let them do it on their dime.
City and County legislative bodies can quickly scan their various legal codes to ensure that they fall within the scope of State law. At which point, they are pretty much home free - allowing them to go spend time and energy on other issues and less money on litigation.
At the state level, we have only a very few areas of potential vulnerability if my understanding is correct. We maintain a state pistol registry, largely unused, that duplicates the federal pistol registry - a redundancy that costs money, that we don't particularly need, and leaves us just as vulnerable as if we were to require journalists to have licenses. After folks stopped pointing and laughing at us, the lawyers representing the local media would obliterate any defense of such a law...and with the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms now held a fundamental individual right - it's reasonable to expect the pistol registry to be treated with about as much gentility.
It's a liability that we're well rid of, and one that we save money on by getting rid of without even being sued. We get no benefit from keeping it (anything it does, the Federal registry does better), it costs us money to keep it, and it puts the State at risk of litigation to keep it.
Our second area of vulnerability is the requirement of a concealed pistol license (as opposed to creating a list of those barred from concealed carry). Frankly, I consider this something of a long shot...but with a bunch of established case law now up for grabs, I'd support our state carefully stepping OUT of the minefield - at least until the dust settles. Lift or suspend the requirement, and let another state fight the battle...we can always revisit the subject later.
Our third area of vulnerability is fairly counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense. Yet, under strict scrutiny at least, it could get us into all kinds of costly headaches. I speak of the bar ban. At first glance, it makes all kinds of sense to bar guns from bars - even folks in the gun community will agree that booze and guns are a poor mix.
Yet our neighbor to the South, Oregon, is ok with folks with guns in their bars...and it doesn't seem to lead to chaos and mayhem - which kind of undermines our position under a strict scrutiny analysis. And the same is true of several other states.
I'd really have a hard time arguing that we here in Washington are uniquely stupid, evil, or dysfunctional such that our citizens cannot be entrusted to behave as well or better(on a per capita basis) than citizens of the other states of the union that do allow "bar carry". This one doesn't really excite me, but when we're talking about "no, thank you, I'd rather the state not get sued" as a motivator, it may be worth considering.
We really can't AFFORD to be a test case right now...and our best bet is to ensure we're not targeted as such.
I'm not aware of any other potential pitfalls - but I'm not willing to bet there aren't any, either. But waiting around to have our vulnerabilities pointed out at great cost to the State by various and sundry plaintiffs...seems like a bad, and irresponsible, plan. We can do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
