Posts Tagged ‘firearms’
In today’s Doonesbury cartoon in the Spokesman-Review, Alex Doonesbury starts an argument with some guys wearing guns in a coffee shop. They respond by implying that her boyfriend Leo is not manly enough to pack a gun. Leo is an Iraq War vet and he puts them in their place.
I blogged last summer about the open carry movement in rural Washington, and I have been tracking it for about 3 years. When I wrote that blog post last summer, I really thought more would come of the movement in rural areas. However, it really seems to be more of an urban thing. It seems as if the open-carry advocates are focusing on the Seattle and San Francisco Bay areas. Check out a good article in the Seattle PI about the subject of Starbucks’ decision not to prohibit open-carry in their stores. See here. The odd thing about this issue is that I think a lot of urbanites assume open-carry occurs in rural areas. I live in a very rural area with no local gun ordinances, and I literally do not recall a single instance of open carry here in the 15 years that I lived here. I have obviously seen people armed at the gun range, out hunting, or even on their own property in Ferry, Stevens and Okanogan County. But I have never seen someone just come into the supermarket or coffee shop bearing a side arm in open view.
To view the full Doonesbury cartoon online click here. (Note that if you visit this cartoon after Sunday, you will have to click “previous” at the top of the cartoon to see Sunday’s strip.) Also, check out this youtube video.
Watching this video it is hard to tell who is supporting what side. Seattle is a weird place.
I read a letter to the editor in the Spokesman-Review today that was pretty interesting. Kayela Robertson of the Spokane Valley made the point that her twenty-year-old husband cannot legally carry a handgun in this state despite the fact that he has served in the U.S. Army. See letter. Kayela writes: “At 18 years old, he signed away his life to the Army, yet, due to his age, he can’t legally…carry around a pistol for protection.” Generally speaking, under RCW 9.41.240, a person under 21 can only carry a pistol if they are in their own home, on their own property, or at their own place of business. The legislature enacted this law in 1994, and at the time their reasoning was as follows: “The legislature finds that the increasing violence in our society causes great concern for the immediate health and safety of our citizens and our social institutions. Youth violence is increasing at an alarming rate and young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are at the highest risk of being perpetrators and victims of violence. Additionally, random violence, including homicide and the use of firearms, has dramatically increased over the last decade.”
The idea of younger people with firearms is always an interesting question in court. In rural areas, firearm possession and use is looked at as part of growing up. In more urban areas, a young person or a teenager with a firearm is looked at suspiciously, as if the youth in question might have motives related to gang membership. I have written in the past about possession of weapons by youth in the past. (See post). Our society seems to be of two minds when it comes to youth and firearms. As an attorney who has defended younger people caught with handguns, I never know how the judge or jury will react. A lot of the perception comes from how a person is raised to look at firearms.
What do people think about Kayela’s point? I saw that her letter was online, but did not see any comments posted on the Spokesman-Review’s site. In Idaho, it appears that 18-year-olds can possess handguns. Should our laws be changed? Should an exception be made for veterans that are 19 or 2O years old? Many veterans face adjustment issues when they return to the civilian world? Is that a fair consideration?