Weekend closures, lane restrictions impact SR 99, I-5 and I-90

Seattle Mayor joins fight for stronger gun laws

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

guns3SEATTLE – Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has joined a national effort to keep guns out of dangerous hands.

On Wednesday, Mayor Murray announced he joined the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a national bipartisan coalition of mayors fighting for common-sense gun laws.

The coalition has called on Washington to address the issue of gun violence – including requiring every gun buyer to pass a criminal background check and making gun trafficking a federal crime.

They’re also working to require the names of prohibited purchasers be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

“I am committed to bringing an end to senseless gun violence in our neighborhoods. As a State Senator, I was proud to fight for sensible gun laws in Olympia and as mayor, I will help lead the fight to pass I-594, ensuring a background check on the sale of all guns in Washington,” said Murray.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


  • Joe

    Turns out that “senseless gun violence” is committed by criminals…. Go figure; furthermore, it also turns out criminals don’t obey gun laws anyway…

    The left under Obama is coming up with a new gun control program, to remove them from your cold dead fingers.

  • Jim C.

    The name of the group headed by Bloomberg should be Mayors against LEGAL guns and gun owners. They have had lots of mayors leave once their agenda was discovered and they have also had several mayors in the group brought up on criminal charges, including charges related to illegal gun use. Requiring background checks for criminals who don't and will never submit to background checks only puts the burden on those of use who already buy and sell our guns in a legal manner. I594 will do NOTHING in preventing violence. It will only make it's supports FEEL like they have done something, when in truth it will only harm our 2nd Amendment right.

  • The World is Endind

    If the mayor had any courage at all he would simply say his true point of view and that is he believes that no civilian should be allowed to own a gun, and that all privately owned guns should be confiscated Immediately and with extreme prejudice.

  • DaveG

    Of course he did. He would've had legal gun owners be subjected to a warrantless search, to prove they aren't in violation of a law: "… The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;" from http://legiscan.com/WA/text/SB5737/id/739144/Wash
    and discussed thoroughly in http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291

    When then-state Sen. Murray submitted SB 5737 (a proposed WA AWB in the spring of 2013 ) with this clause, he later claimed that did he didn't actually read it. Did he actually know that a 4th amendment violation was there, but didn't care, until he got caught and had to lie?

  • American Greek

    Good luck to you guys in Washington State, those liberal commie's are completely clueless. About what there really doing to the lawful gun owners, their feel good laws will do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns! I hope the NRA jumps into the fry to help counter, all the outside money. That's going to be pored into this campaign, big deal you got more signatures on your stupid ballet. I'm looking forward to seeing, all the gun owners turn out in full force to vote! That will send a message, that were united in the fight for our rights and against liberal blow hearts! That will use the money they make from our free society and turn around and use that wealth to try and strip us of our god given rights! God bless!

  • Josh

    An 18 page gun control bill…i-594. :

    THIS is Ed Murray:

    "… The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;"
    from http://legiscan.com/WA/text/SB5737/id/739144/Wash

    "Sensible" a relative word that can have a different meaning to each person that reads it. Which is why they use that word, because "sensible" to them isn't the same "sensible" to you.

    Same with words like "reasonable".

    How about we use meaningful words, such as: EFFECTIVE laws.

    Address the ROOT of the problem, not the symptoms. People assault people, what they use isn't the problem. We need to address the mental health issue, educate people, etc.

  • DaveG

    … More Problems with I-594:

    From pg 8 : "(4) This section (requiring a background check) does not apply to: (a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;…"

    Okay, so I can outright gift a pistol, rifle, or shotgun to my 21 year old son without needing the whole UBC process, but if I am only letting him borrow something for a weekend, we will need to go down do a background check transferring it to him ($25+). When he gets home, and returns whatever he borrowed, we will have to go down and do another background check (and pay another $25+) to transfer it back to me.

    … Despite us both having state issued CPLs, both being members of the armed forces, and since it isn't duty related, nor does him being a commissioned police officer with a local department suffice: "… acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;…"

    Meanwhile, the same prohibited people will continue committing crimes with the firearms that they acquire now, in all of the same places that they buy untaxed MJ, et cetera from, unencumbered by I-594's associated fees and paperwork.

    Since our court system has already shown itself under-resourced to deal with repeat criminal firearms offenders, will it take Jenny Durkan to pick up the slack, when the state courts can't process the influx of scofflaws who just give up and blow off the law, and the unawares who didn't know they violated the law?