Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/21/2004 7:35:06 AM EST
Hyperbole is the weapon of choice

and my response:

Mr. Shapley,
I would like to take this opportunity to commend you on your opinion piece from the 9/19/04 Seattle PI, " Hyperbole is the weapon of choice. "
This was a well written, well researched article. I add the emphasis on research due to the fact that, as you are aware, the vast majority of articles relating to the "assault weapons" ban are short on factual evidence, and long on emotional, unrealistic hysteria.
Personally, I grow tired of reading articles in the press, and quotes from some politicians, that are intentionally deceptive. Such statements have no basis in reality. In fact, a week after the expiration, I am still waiting to find Uzis and Ak-47s littering my street corners. ( Maybe I'm not getting these because I live on a cul-de-sac.)
One of the basic precepts of our founding Fathers was the ability of the people to think for themselves. I neither want nor need to be force fed the opinions( stated as fact ) of some entity or person with a political agenda. Just give me the unvarnished truth and allow me to decide for myself.
You, Sir, have distinguished yourself with the ability to do what I believe should be the mission of the press- to provide accurate, researched articles without coloring the issue with political rhetoric.
There is only one discrepancy that I found in your article. You state"... flash suppressors (to make it more difficult to spot the shooter to return fire)..." The purpose of the "flash suppressor" is not to "hide" the muzzle flash but to direct it in such a way that the shooter is not temporarily blinded by it. It is impossible to totally conceal muzzle flare.

Again, I thank you for your( unfortunately increasingly rare ) journalistic integrity.

Sincerely,
Justin Gaunt
Puyallup, WA
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:13:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Justin03R6:
...
There is only one discrepancy that I found in your article. You state"... flash suppressors (to make it more difficult to spot the shooter to return fire)..." The purpose of the "flash suppressor" is not to "hide" the muzzle flash but to direct it in such a way that the shooter is not temporarily blinded by it. It is impossible to totally conceal muzzle flare.

...



I've always gotten a kick out of that one - as if the SOUND OF THE GUNSHOTS wouldn't give away a position. If the fear is of another DC "Sniper" type attack - where one shot alone makes ti hard to detect the shooter's location, a person would have to be staring right at the source to see any muzzle blast!

Still, if you haven't seen a rifle with a vortex mounted on it, you should - it really does eliminate ALL flash.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:10:35 AM EST
I found another " -
"No one except police and military can possess functioning automatic weapons (machine guns) in Washington state."

If you owned a machine gun before 1994 in Washington State then it was "grandfathered" and it is legal.


www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.41.190&fuseaction=section
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.

Link Posted: 9/22/2004 1:42:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
I found another " -
"No one except police and military can possess functioning automatic weapons (machine guns) in Washington state."

If you owned a machine gun before 1994 in Washington State then it was "grandfathered" and it is legal.


www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=9.41.190&fuseaction=section
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law.




Comparitively speaking this is really a minor quibble. IMO, far worse factual faux pax have been perpetrated. Yeah, it's not accurate, but for all intents & purposes, it does apply to anyone who would try to buy a MG today. Fart worse has been said.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 2:54:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
...Fart worse has been said.



and "fart worse" shall be said again!
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 5:15:15 PM EST
This was his response and my email back to him.


Shapley @ the P-I

Thanks for the kind note on the column. As to your addition, there may be a
distinction between "truth" and "accurate."

My source, a firearms law expert who has literally written books on
Washington state firearms law points out that you allude to an obscure
statute that protects a very
small bunch of guys who had these guns as part of their national guard
or military service. They were not average Joe Blow
citizens. They had some connection with military service.
While it is legal for this select group to have those guns, it is NOT
legal, and has not been legal for as long as he's been around, for the
average private citizen to have a machine gun, sawed-off shotgun or
sawed-off rifle.
There is a class of firearms referred to as "AOWs" (Any Other Weapon)
for which special federal licenses can be obtained. This again is an
obscure law, and it has allowed some people to obtain short-barreled
shotguns. He's got a call into a guy at ATF right now for the
particulars, because he wants to make sure this hasn't changed.
Also, these "select 2,200 people" who may own guns pass away, they may NOT
will those firearms to family members
or anyone else.

The bottom line is that what you refer to appears to be a technicality,
pretty limited in scope. The bottom-bottom line is that the Brady Bunch need
not be worried about -- or shouting warnings about -- everyone being able to
buy a machine gun, before or after the AWB.
It might help to review the language of the entire statute, which follows.

In any event, thanks for taking the time to write, and to read the
newspaper,

Shapley @ the P-I




From KA3B
Thomas, Thanks for taking the time to answer my email.

Truth and accurate, I'll let you split the hairs since you are the
professional wordsmith.

Your expert, is he Dave Workman by chance?

In Washington State it was legal for anyone to own a machine gun (proper
name: select fire weapon), a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shogun
until 1994 when the state passed the law prohibiting the ownership of said
weapons.

The owners of those weapons did not have to be in the military to own any of
those weapons.
They only had to pass an (extensive) FBI background check, get their chief
law enforcement official to sign off on the fact that "this" person was not
prohibited from owning said weapon (or incorporate themselves) and pay the
ATF the $200 dollars for the NFA (1934 National Firearms Act) tax stamp and
they could legaly own it in Washington State.

Your "obscure" law is Title 26 Sec. 5845 of the US Code.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/5845.html
For the other states that allow "machine gun" ownership (such as Oregon and
Idaho) this is not such an obscure law.

You will find that an AOW is legal to own on the federal level.
Since Washington state does not define an "AOW" in the RCW an AOW is legal
to own in Washington State.

Again, thanks for your response.




Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Comparitively speaking this is really a minor quibble. IMO, far worse factual faux pax have been perpetrated. Yeah, it's not accurate, but for all intents & purposes, it does apply to anyone who would try to buy a MG today. Fart worse has been said.

Link Posted: 9/27/2004 8:06:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2004 8:06:48 PM EST by KA3B]
Here is the latest response to Shipley's article.

These are the morons we have to fight....


ASSAULT WEAPONS
PI letters section Sept 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Columnist takes aim, but misses the target
In the current assault weapon ban salvos, Thomas Shapley chides gun and anti-gun voices for exaggeration, even hyperbole, but saves his detailed criticism for the full hyperbole anti-gun people (Sept. 19). Columnist Clarence Page recently made the central point as well and did so just by explaining the facts.

Shapley has poor aim when he fires off his magazine of technical details at folk who are afraid that assault weapons are likely to be used to assault. I am not comforted by particulars. I think I'll just keep on going ballistic every time I read an argument for the right to bear guns that are designed, made and sold to kill as many living things as possible in the shortest time possible.

Tom Herring
Vashon


Top Top