Last night the City Council passed an assault weapons ban resolution on Bainbridge Island, although it is perceived by supporters and opponents as largely symbolic as Washington State law preempts all regulations related to firearms. The vote was 5-1 in favor. Councilmember Ward opposed the resolution, and Mayor Bonkowski was absent because of a family health emergency.
Councilmember Kirsten Hytopoulos, who introduced the ban, said that, after the shooting at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary, she and her colleagues heard from citizens asking the Council to do something. She said last night, “I’m not going to claim that this resolution has perfect language by any means. I admit I don’t know a lot about weapons. This is not a law, this is a spirit.” She stressed that she hoped this resolution would “encourage and demand” that lawmakers at the state and federal levels take action.
Hytopoulos said that “this is a local issue because, when these tragedies happen, that’s where it hurts.” She also said that citizen Doug Hatfield, who had spoken earlier in public commentary, had put it right when he called the resolution a “small step.” But, she said, “If it doesn’t come from the grassroots, it comes from nowhere. The NRA has a powerful lobby.”
She finished her comments by addressing the issue of assault-style weapons versus other types, such as those used for hunting. “The difference between killing 5 children and 30 children really matters. There are a lot of steps we need to take, but this is an essential step.”
Before the vote, Alan Kasper, President of the Bainbridge Island Sportsmen’s Club, stood up in public comment and read a written statement. He said that the tragedy of Sandy Hook had broken his heart but that the now-expired federal assault weapons ban is “old news” and resulted in no discernible reduction in violence. He emphasized that support for the resolution on Bainbridge is not universal.
Kasper said he was interviewed by King 5 News for an hour, but they didn’t report on the ideas he shared with them about what he believes would work to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. His list includes civil dialog, background checks for all transfers at gun shows, a national database of people who shouldn’t be allowed to have guns, challenging Hollywood to change their message about violence, armed guards in schools, education, and better treatment for the mentally ill. He said, “What this nation needs to do is the ‘right thing’ not just ‘something.’”
In the Council discussion preceding the vote, Councilmember Scales said he has “heard every argument pro and con.” He echoed Hytopoulos’s sentiment that this is a symbolic resolution. He also said that, among NRA supporters, there is a majority who support many of the restricting elements of the resolution.
Councilmember Blair spoke about how the many messages she received from the community on this issue had convinced her that, even as a nonpartisan elected official, she needed to choose a side on this issue. She said, “Taking a public stand on an issue like this at the local level is a move in the direction I want us to go.”
Councilmember Blossom said she had come to the meeting knowing little about guns, but “I realized just now that I know someone who had a gun that should not have had a gun.”
Councilmember Ward who said that, like Kasper, he is a gun owner who doesn’t own an assault weapon, repeated some of Kasper’s comments and voiced his opposition to the resolution.
A number of other citizens also spoke in public comment. David Stratton said that he feels this is a waste of councilmembers’ time and not their purview. He said, “Feel good on your own time and your own dollar.”
Lori Gilbert stood up to offer support of Councilmember Hytopoulos and the resolution. She disagreed with previous speakers, saying that, even if this measure wouldn’t solve all the problems, “We should start anywhere.” She said she had hosted a community meeting at Eagle Harbor Community Church at which there was widespread support for the ban.
Russ Berg, the only federally licensed firearm dealer on the Island, repeated what Kasper had said about the failure of the assault weapons ban, saying it “just gives us the illusion of safety.” He also criticized gun-free zones: “If somebody wants to go in there and shoot somebody, they’re going to do it. They don’t care about some sticker on the window.”
Doug O’Connor says all this will accomplish is “to separate a large number of citizens who own guns . . . from the rest of society.” He says that it tells him that he, an active member of the community, is now not to be trusted. He asked that the Council not even vote on the matter.
Gloria Sayler, a mental health practitioner, said that regardless of whether the ban is perfect or not, it should be enacted. She quoted Lincoln: “The perfect can sometimes interfere with the good.”
Related Stories:
- City Council Considers Assault Weapons Ban on Bainbridge
- Concealed Weapons Permits on the Rise on Bainbridge (and in State)
- Poll: Should U.S. Gun Laws Be Reformed?
- Pistol Fires in Silverdale’s World Market, Customers Chase Down Gun Owner
- How a Gun in the House Killed My First Friends on Bainbridge
- Letter to the Editor: Response to the Newtown Tragedy
- In Wake of CT Shootings, Bainbridge Schools Intensify Security Measures
- Vigil Tonight and Other Healing Events on Bainbridge for Connecticut Victims
- Masked Men with Semi-Automatic Weapons Tie Up Poulsbo Family, Rob Safe
Photo by Brian nairB.
Now please do something usefull!
"I admit I don’t know a lot about weapons."
That says absolutely everything you need to know about this council action.
And this council.
This is not an Island issue?? This is an issue for every town in America. And if the Connecticut tragedy had happened here, how would anyone feel when we had not done whatever we could to deter the spread of guns designed only for people killing? David Ward's comments against the resolution were nonsensical – right out of the NRA talking points handbook. According to him and the rest of his NRA friends, there is nothing we can do until we cure mental illness. Perhaps he has plans to turn the Sportsmen Club into a free psychiatric clinic. Anything short of that reveals his real motivation: "I just love guns and damn the consequences".
Especially for those of us who have lost loved ones to gun violence, the actions of the majority of our City Council are very deeply appreciated.
Ms. Shriner, I'm very sorry for your loss. And I have lost friends to gun violence as well – all at the hands of the mentally ill. This is a fundamental issue that must be addressed and that our society has to start investing time effort and money in.
My concern over an "assault weapons ban" is that it is simply a red-herring emotional "do something!" response to real tragedies. It is much like saying that because so many people die in drunk driving accidents, we need to ban SUVs – after all, very few people really NEED an SUV. They're big, heavy, dangerous, more likely to damage a smaller vehicle in an accident. So we really should regulate SUVs.
Of course this argument is ludicrous – people use all sorts of vehicles in DUI accidents – just like criminals and "spree shooters" such as Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech use all sorts of weapons. The VT killer, just as a reminder, had no rifle – two pistols, one of which was a small ten-round .22 cal pistol. And he killed more people than even the unfathomable tragedy at Sandy Hook. Criminals who, by definition, break the law, will find any means necessary to do so, regardless of paper restrictions or "gun free zones" or what have you.
One reason that modern sporting rifles like the AR15 are used by some criminals is that they are very common. And the reason that they are common is not because they are extra-super deadly. They are relatively inexpensive compared to many firearms, they are easily modified to your personal needs, they are lightweight, they have very low recoil. And many many firearms experts in law enforcement, the military, and civilian sectors will tell you that because they fire a very small very lightweight bullet – much smaller than almost any handgun – they are much safer if used for self defense since they won't keep going and going and going through multiple layers of drywall, plywood, etc., like most handgun and other rifle bullets will.
They are very common, and recommended for home defense, for very logical reasons.
I just fear that by focusing in an area that will have very little impact on crime (please see the crime statistics related to the previous assault weapons ban, almost no effect whatsoever per most indices) we are diverting attention from some of the very real changes that we need to make in society to keep our children and communities safer. I'm not a "gun nut" – I'm a lefty-liberal Obama voter right here on the island. But I'm just hoping and praying that we can actually have a fact-based discussion, not emotional knee-jerk responses no matter how good-intentioned, to deal with these tragedies.
In case there is further interest in this subject, I note that the New York State Sheriffs' Association has issued a letter expressing concern over some of the recent New York State firearms law rapidly enacted by the legislature and governor. The full text is available at nysheriffs.org. I'm pasting some of the text just to help with education and discussion.
Regarding "assault weapons" : "Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want."
Magazine capacity limits: " We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer."
These are not "gun nuts" but rather are law enforcement professionals with a very real life-and-death personal interest in reducing gun crime. But even they point out that these well-intentioned provisions will only impact those that obey the law. Which, once again, excludes by definition law-breaking criminals.