Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Politics

Posted: WA Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib is a Coward

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Portrait of Cyrus Habib It seems that Washington Lieutenant Governor Cyrus Habib is so frightened of the notion of citizens having lawfully carried concealed pistols, that he is unable to fulfill his duty as a result.

The Lieutenant Governor ducked out of the annual State of the State address given by Washington Governor Inslee because he felt vulnerable.  The House Chamber has galleries open to the public and both state law and House rules allow those having concealed pistol licenses to attend the event. Despite the fact that the governor, representatives, senators, and the nine supreme court justices did not express feeling any danger, and there was no credible threats made against the lieutenant governor, he announced he would not participate unless his fears were allayed by policy change.

Since just about every area in Washington allows permitted concealed carry and open carry of firearms, save for a few narrowly defined exceptions, how is it that Lt. Governor Habib can summon the courage to leave home?

A requirement of being an adult in this world is being able to walk away from the safety of their mother’s apron or their security blanket.  A requirement of being a man is to perform your duty or job without complaining or expecting others to bow to your insecurities or laziness.

I believe Lt. Governor Habib announced to all that he is simply unfit to hold office, by reason of cowardice alone.

According to the Herald.net website:

“Habib’s office issued a formal statement less than two hours before the event which read: “Safety protocol could not be agreed upon between the House and Senate for the State of State ceremony. Given that the ceremony takes place in the House chamber, deference goes to House leadership to follow their protocol.

Habib’s staff notified House Democratic leaders and the chief clerk of the House early Monday that the lieutenant governor would not attend unless steps were taken to prevent anyone from bringing a concealed weapon into either gallery.

Initially, the lieutenant governor’s staff asked if both galleries could be closed. When that was rejected, they sought unsuccessfully to have some type of metal detection equipment deployed outside the entry doors.

The chief clerk’s office did increase security though it was clear no specific threat existed.

A statement issued Tuesday afternoon from the chief clerk’s office expressed regret at Habib’s decision not to preside. It noted that state clearly allows properly licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons on the state capitol campus, including the House galleries.

Absent any specific security issue, and in accordance with the law, the House kept the galleries open so that the public could see its government in action,” the statement read. “Safety is always a concern, but so is the transparency of the Legislature’s work on behalf of the people.”

I find it typical of many politicians in that they possess such indignity to the ordinary person that such “rabble” must be kept away from their elitist circles. The Lt. Governor would rather close off access to the general public than admit to himself that he is simply too afraid to be among ordinary citizens since it is a reality that a few people lawfully carry pistols. A person lawfully carrying a pistol, pocket knife, book, ballot, cell phone, cross, wedding ring, or other item, or idea protected by civil rights laws and constitutional amendments is not a real threat to anyone.

Does the Lt. Governor expect that a thousand yard zone of exclusion from firearms possession follow him because there might be someone possessing a hunting rifle in their pickup truck or home and he feels unsafe?

Ordinary people are no threat to you Mr. Habib. But if you continue to use fear as the driving force in your life many will rightfully consider you the Coward of Thurston County.

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

137 thoughts on “Posted: WA Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib is a Coward”

  1. Bring back dueling, maybe then congress will get something done. Ask retired policemen how many give up their right to conceal carry.

    1. Alas, dueling is a lost conflict resolution technique. History tells it seemed to have worked fairly well.

  2. Darren Is Calling Ronald Reagan A Coward!

    THE NRA EMBRACED GUN CONTROL WHEN..

    BLACK PANTHERS BROUGHT ARMS TO CALIFORNIA STATEHOUSE

    In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”

    The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.

    “The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans,” says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms. “Including the Gun Control Act of 1968, which adopted new laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns, providing for beefed up licensing and inspections of gun dealers and restricting the importation of cheap Saturday night specials [pocket pistols] that were popular in some urban communities.”

    In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.

    Edited from: “The NRA Supported Gun Control When Panthers Had The Weapons”

    The History Channel’s Website, 3/22/18

    1. MULFORD ACT SIGNED BY (COWARD) RONALD REAGAN

      AFTER HE WITNESSED GUN-TOTING PANTHERS AT CAPITOL

      The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods while they were conducting what would later be termed copwatching.[1] They garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[2][3][4]

      AB-1591 was authored by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland, John T. Knox (D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield,[5] it passed both Assembly (controlled by Democrats 42:38) and Senate (split 20:20) and was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on July 28. The law banned the carrying of loaded weapons in public. [6]

      Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control. Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”[7]

      The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c.

      From Wikipedia article on “The Mulford Act”

    2. DARREN’S USE OF “COWARD” ILLUSTRATES..

      HOW RADICALIZED REPUBLICANS HAVE GOTTEN IN POCKET OF NRA

      50 years ago Ronald Reagan had no compunctions about signing legislation to enforce gun restrictions. That was seen as ‘sensible’ back in 1967. But today, Libertarian Republicans like Darren Smith view Reagan’s signing of The Mulford Act as ‘cowardly’.

      Back in the 1960’s, the NRA was ‘not’ a militant political lobby. It’s mission then was gun safety and training. Ironically it was during Reagan’s presidency that the NRA morphed into the aggressive political lobby it is today. Since then it has become increasingly linked to the Republican party and possibly accepted Russian money during the 2016 campaign.

      1. Peter, get your head out of high school.

        The question is two fold:

        1. Sociological: i.e. what is the demonstrable effect of gun regulations on violent crime.

        2. Legal: to what extent can such regulations be consistent with constitutional provisions.

        Whether or not one of the cool kids or one of the dweebs did something or other 50 years ago is irrelevant.

        Not irrelevant is that Wm. Bratton and Rudolph Giuliani discredited the contention of sociologists that additional policing and punishment would have no effect on crime rates. Democratic politicians (with some exceptions) do not care. They’re interested in blaming an approved object of contempt (rural gun owners) for slum crime. The Democratic Party has no serious policy goals. It’s just guises and poses and status games all the way down.

        1. Tabby, for 8 years I worked closely with Chicago cops. They are leery of people carrying guns. Big city cops don’t want anyone who can get a permit to go running around with concealed guns. Would ‘you’ want to police a city like that??
          Bear in mind that a lot of criminals technically have no convictions. Or no felony convictions. So holding a permit doesn’t mean anything.

          What’s more, you typically fall into this stupid trap where you think Democrats know nothing about crime or criminals. Misconceptions like that come from too much right-wing media.

          1. If I were to take you seriously, Peter, I’d point out that Chicago cops haven’t been doing an ace job. Since the force is amply staffed, I’d attribute that to the institutional culture of the force, which is advanced by political signalling. The homicide rates on the South Side and the Westside are 3-6x what they are in comparable neighborhoods in New York City. Fewer incidents occur when you’re eating doughnuts on company time.

            I don’t take you seriously, of course. It’s not as if John Lott hasn’t been burning up the rubber doing multivariate studies of the association between concealed-carry and violent crime. The studies are inconvenient to your thesis, of course.

            1. Tabby, let’s see a good study from a recognizable research firm showing that big city crime rates drop when conceal & carry laws go into effect.

              To begin with, I don’t know that many big cities have accepted conceal & carry. So there may not even be a model for researchers to study. Again, big city cops want to keep guns to a minimum.

              1. Tabby, it’s late. No study yet on how big cities could benefit from conceal & carry policies. Instead you attempt this culture war put-down of Chicago. Like everyone who’s ever lived there needs to apologize. It’s another example of too much Fox.

            1. Thomas, I lived and worked in Chicago. They were the local cops. Do I have to apologize for living and working there? Are Chicagoan’s supposed not say where they’re from? Or apologize in advance for having lived in Chicago? You’re an example of how right wing media dumbs people down.

              1. You, not I, brought Chicago into play. Your Alinsky gamesmanship does not work on me.

      2. Peter – I often hear bitter complaints that the NRA engages in any political lobbying. It’s a civic duty for unions to force their members to pay dues, which they pay to Democrats for pay to play, buying lucrative, untenable benefits packages in return. There are many groups that are lauded for doing their civic duty in representing their members, such as those against the 2nd Amendment. But, apparently, it is anathema for a national gun club to do so, a club, I might add, that counts so many Democrats among its members that it is very popular in blue states.

        The NRA is a gun club that opposes the concerted effort among the far Left on repealing the 2nd Amendment, or, failing to do so, killing gun ownership through death by a thousand cuts. The only reason why Democrats haven’t openly called for banning all guns is because so many Democrats in hunting states actually own firearms.

        I don’t agree with the NRA on all issues, but they provide excellent gun safety classes to their members.

        People who own firearms are allowed to belong to a club, and that club has the same right to represent its members interests to politicians as any other group. It’s not for you, or anyone else, to try to silence gun owners’ voices by bashing anyone who listens to the NRA. The NRA’s political donations are pittance compared with Big Union or even Soros.

        One of the reasons why the NRA’s stance has changed over the years is because there has been a long history of Democrats trying to reduce gun ownership among law abiding citizens. What started small and non threatening to gun owners has become a massive lobby against the 2nd Amendment, along with other Constitutionally protected rights that the Left seeks to erode.

        Now you claim that the NRA is connected to the Russians? Prove it.

        In the meantime, you may find it intersteing that one of the ways in which Russia influences our country is in its subtle encouragement of anti-capitalist and pro-Socialist sentiments. Russia employs soft power, such as international think tanks to which many US Professors belong, whose aim is anti-capitalist and pro Socialist. Its purpose is to undermine the power of the US, as well as to destabilize it from within with anti-capitalist sentiment. Lose Capitalism, and its basis in individual rights, and it’s the end of America as a pillar of freedom and democracy. You might have to thank Russia for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Or for that anti-capitalist rhetoric among Antifa, or in any number of college lecture halls.

        If you’re so concerned with Russia influence, then look first to the rise of Socialism’s popularity here in the US, and the curious lack of information that the average high school graduate has on the dictatorial nature of Socialism, or its long history of murder.

            2. PH – thank you for the link. As we know, Russians have been in everyone’s drawing room. Although this article focused on Republicans, they have also been cozy with Democrats, as well, even before the Russian Reset Button. You will recall the high speaking fees that Bill Clinton got in Russia, the Uranium One deal, their knocking on everyone’s door in regards to the Magninsky Act…Russia was not a country non grata until Hillary lost the election, and then blamed the Russians.

              Russia did not control the NRA. What your article states is that her involvement with the NRA was an entre to meet Republican politicians, and that she was a pro-gun activist. As I mentioned before, there is a Russian think tank run by an ex-KGB agent to which many academics belong. Its purpose is anti-capitalist. We have had diplomatic ties to Russia for many years. Their ambassadors have been at many functions, and have many contacts in DC. In addition, Russia is famous for its spies, as are we. We have quite a few well heeled feet on the icy ground in Russia as we speak, as they have here as well.

              When reading such biased articles, one could come to the conclusion that the Russians targeted conservatives. In actuality, they’ve been using soft power for years to subtly influence America, beginning with this rise in popularity of Socialism.

              1. Some of the most well-known ways in which the US tries to influence other countries was Obama’s open opposition to Netanyahu in the election, our involvement in the installation of a government in Afghanistan, and we absolutely try to influence elections all around the world. We spy on our allies, too.

                There is no way to escape the subtle influence of other countries, but we can counteract such efforts with countermeasures. Much of our environmental foreign policy was created under the influence of other nations, which resulted in virtually no environmental benefit and instead moved vast amounts of money to foreign governments and dictators. It’s a pay to play game under the auspices of doing good.

                What we can be on guard against, however, is the theft of intellectual property (China), outright hacking, and espionage. Cyber security is of primary importance. There is also the added concern of there being a sleeper Trojan horse in our defense systems. These are people playing the long game.

              2. PH – you may be interested to learn more about the Russian think tank, Dialogue of Civilizations, that has infiltrated international environmental organizations, and politicians, including our own. It works towards the Kremlin’s agenda of undermining capitalism in general and the US specifically:

                https://thinkprogress.org/why-are-these-american-academics-helping-a-sanctioned-russian-oligarch-1d1fa57c98e1/

                A great many academics and Democrats have such connections with this organization, and others, openly promoting Russia’s interests.

                Due to biased news coverage, you might come away with the entirely mistaken impression that the Russians have targeted conservatives, and only conservatives, and only recently. I have family who worked in government and grew up on stories of Russian shenanigans. None of this is new. It’s being used by the Left for political purposes to target conservatives and mislead the public, by only dribbling out curated tidbits that suit their narrative. You are being led.

          2. Yikes! Maybe the NRA and Russians hit a Reset Button? [1]. It’s a good thing Russia is a cold war relic [2]. And Russia had no influence in the #Calexit movement [3].

            Please stop with the one sided Russia conspiracy crap. If you were ever wearing a halo, it was tainted long ago.

            [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/17/the-failure-of-the-u-s-russia-reset-in-9-photos/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2aca8c49f4d9
            [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg
            [3] bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131

            1. Thomas Johnson

              You probably were not aware but this web blog only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment to allow it to post.

              If you wish the readership to review more than two comments, this may be accomplished through the use of multiple comments of two hyperlinks each.

        2. I am a NRA member and Benefactor. I do not agree with their every position. I was once a member of the ACLU, too. I did not agree with their every position.

            1. Opposed to civil liberties, hmm?

              Like free press.
              Freedom of association.
              …

    4. PH, are you confusing law abiding concealed carry permit holders with the domestic terrorist organization, The Black Panthers, who openly threatened politicians, among many others?

      It appears you, too, have a poor opinion of the peopel of Washington.

      1. Karen, paranoid schizophrenics can live in any state. And many go long periods without being diagnosed. Just because they submitted to finger printing for a gun permit doesn’t mean for a moment they won’t snap at some point.

        1. Uh, no Peter. Diagnosis of schizophrenia was, long ago, prone to type II errors, not type I errors. I’ve known two cases of that in my family.

          Part of the problem in diagnosing it that it’s an emergent property of people on a particular life course. They’re not ‘undiagnosed’. A schizophreniform breakdown is bloody obvious. It’s just that for a third of the people who have one, it’s a one-off.

          You can see from this literature review

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182175/

          Surveys of prison populations generally do not find a large share of the inmates with schizophrenia or allied problems. Most put the number between 2-4% with one outlier study claiming 13%. With a prison population which we have, that would amount to about 70,000 inmates with a schizophrenia diagnosis. The census of asylums in this country currently runs to about 170,000, of which 130,000 or so have a schizophrenia diagnosis. That’s 200,000 schizophrenics confined at any one time, a great many of whom are confined for being generically troublesome, not for being violent. There are over 2 million people who’ve had a schizophreniform breakdown in this country. Most schizophrenics are not violent, they are strange. Those that do have a history of violence can be stripped of their franchise to own a gun consequent to a civil commitment proceeding.

        2. PH – you are right that paranoid schizophrenics can live in any state. A lot of them live here in CA in the bushes. They are not properly cared for. Our mental health system is broken. It’s been in a deplorable state for years, but we just keep kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile, I can see ill people starving in the hedgerows, some of them self medicating. I took my son to a well known store a few months ago, and encountered a disheveled man getting into an impassioned argument with…himself. He was getting very agitated. Such a sight is not that uncommon in some parts of CA. But they don’t get help. That have to actually hurt someone, it seems, for anything to be done, and then they are in the criminal justice system, which is not really equipped to deal with the mentally ill. I also have known people who had friends or family who were mentally ill, and decaying in stability. They complained that, from their experience with the system, it took an act of violence for them to be committted against their will. They were just waiting for that to happen. You don’t punish the law abiding because our mental health system isn’t functioning properly.

          Would you strip the Constitutional rights of 324 million people because some are paranoid schizophrenics? Because, if so, then by that logic no one should be allowed to drive, either, because some of those drivers might be mentally ill and they could murder people one day.

          A gun is a dangerous tool. We use them every year here. The rattlers out here are so thick that you would have to whack them quite a few times with a shovel to behead them, which is no fun for the snake and puts your toes within reach. There are close encounters with mountain lions. I love coyotes, but sometimes an idiot feeds them and they become aggressive. A friend’s husband had to shoot one who was snarling at her by the door. In addition, those of us off of dirt roads have to wait a good, long while for law enforcement to find us during an emergency. You have to be able to deal with as many problems at hand as you can. My family has used firearms to stop a break-in during the night. I’ve had to throw hay with a rifle slung over my shoulder when a mountain lion was causing some trouble. Plus, my neighbor had a mountain lion kill his dog right next to him. This reality is Greek to urbanites, who unfortunately set quite a few laws that impact people they do not understand.

          There are good reasons why ownership was encoded into our Constitution. If you don’t agree with that, then don’t claim that are not trying ot ban guns. Just be honest and say you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Instead, the tactic is a series of administrating and legal cuts to a Constitutionally protected right.

          You listed an emotional argument against CC holders. Perhaps you should look at the data of them, compared with the general population.

          http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

          Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry licenses are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime. 22

          Fact: People with concealed carry licenses are: 23

          5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
          13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
          Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem. One said about Texas, “because there haven’t been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.

          I am very concerned about criminals rather than law abiding citizens.

          2. I am also one of the moderators of a controversial YouTube chat associated with a public camera focused on a local homeless encampment. The local politicians hate the public exposure, which is our point.

            I have seen firearms in the encampment but firearms are an outlier where at least one was a painted toy. By far, the common weapons are stabbing and slicing weapons (kitchen knives, kukris, manufactured spikes, etc). I have seen them and video clips exist on YouTube.

            Mental illness, addiction, and homelessness exist in combination which is why it is a difficult problem to solve. I mention this because a year ago one of our homeless was murdered just off cam. The weapon? The murderer (convicted) kicked the victim in the head as he lay on the ground to sleep. The victim got up, stood by a fence, eventually collapsed, and he died a few days later while under hospitalization.

            Perhaps we need a means test for boots? Is there a Constitutional right to wear boots? Perhaps boots need to be regulated and permission granted by the state?

            Pete’s argument that outliers justify the burdening of the majority is absurd.

            1. That’s sad about the homeless murder. I do not believe people should starve in the hedgerows because they are too addicted and/or mentally ill to take care of themselves. We had a homeless problem take over in front of where my husband worked. He assumed they were down on their luck and just needed a place to stay, so he had representatives from every shelter, housing program, and homeless outreach that he could fine. He did everything he could think of to help them. Each and every one of them declined shelter. They said they liked living on the street and didn’t want to be told what to do. Some of them might have been too mentally ill to feel comfortable under a roof, and the addicts didn’t want to give up using. One guy did eventually accept housing, threw a party, OD’d, and died the first night.

              What is the solution to drug addicts who turn down free rehab, mentally ill who turn down psychiatric help, and anyone who refuses shelter? I think the reality is that people may have to be forced into shelters. That would look really ugly. The mentally ill would think they were being kidgnapped by aliens or whatever their paranoia conjured, and the addicts would be fighting to keep doing drugs. It would look bad. The alternative is people lying on the ground in their own vomit and feces, starving right in front of us.

              It is straightforward to help people whom the piano of fate has fallen on. They don’t defecate in the street or shoot up. They need a safe, clean roof over their heads, transportation, and a job. That’s a relatively easy problem to solve, compared with the mentally ill and drug addicted.

              It’s not safe for them, or for us, to sleep on the street. It creates the very same public health hazards that drove infamous plagues across Europe. Biology still works the same today as it did then. That’s how there was a hepatitis outbreak in CA. A homeless encampment also caused a large wildfire off the 405. I still see homeless camping in dry riverbed and the bushes. Trash is everywhere. The ephemeral streams wash their refuse and dirty needles down to the beaches every rainy season, and the brush is dry tinder 10 months of the year. I read about an incident in another state where a kid stepped on a dirty needle in a playground. This has to stop.

              We’re going to have to make some tough decisions, and stop enabling homelessness. They have to go into a shelter or care, or leave the state. No one has the right to expose everyone else to disease and fires, or to drive customers away from businesses. We also have a duty to care for people that are too far gone to take care of themselves.

  3. Seems unfair to call Habib a coward. You can disagree without maligning his character. Please….we desperately need more civil discourse

    1. Well, he’s either a coward or a cynical trying to score political points. Either way he’s scum

  4. Would be great if we could convert Jonathan to Christian right. Jonathan is my fave lib.

  5. I have a friend who is a law enforcement officer. I asked him what he thought of open carry. He said “I like it. I always feel better when I know where the guns are than when I don’t.”

    1. The Greek-letter taxonomy is manosphere talk. In that lexicon, the ‘Beta’ is a satisfactory earner that women do not really want but for which they settle after a certain age. IOW, a normal range male. A subtype is a ‘Beta orbiter’, a man who attractive women keep in their social circle for service provision, attention, and amusement, but who do not get the girl.

      (IMO, manosphere discourse has some insights, but is largely rubbish).

  7. If some terrorists waltzed in the front door and started shooting, then those seated in the audience could shoot them and stop the terror.

      1. Actually, it means beloved. The feminine version, “habibi” would be used like we do “baby”. It’s almost ubiquitous in Arabic love songs.

  8. With open and concealed “carry”, police are justified in shooting first and asking questions later. They have to assume that everyone is carrying a loaded gun.

    1. Given that the population of concealed-carry and open-carry states is ample, it might occur to you to actually investigate the bivariate and multivariate relationship between the presence of such laws and the frequency of shootings by police. Of course, it didn’t occur to you. Because no intelligent idea does.

    3. They’d also have to assume that everyone they meet is a criminal, not a citizen exercising their rights. You know, like the rights they swore to protect as peace officers…

  9. You might abolish the semi-elective Lt. Governor’s post. It’ a witless office, but for some reason nearly universal.

    (Allow the Governor a franchise (which he need not exercise) to appoint up to a half-dozen Lt. Governors. Each could be assigned a portfolio of agencies to supervise. The composition of the portfolios would be at the Governor’s discretion. That way, you could reduce the number of direct reports to the Governor and allow him to concentrate on the state budget and his core concerns. Were the Governor’s office to fall vacant, a short term successor could be drawn from his cabinet (per a statutory law delineating an order of succession) and, after a time, the county legislatures could elect a successor to serve out the remainder of the Governor’s term).

  10. I am a resident of Washington, I have had a concealed carry permits for almost 20 years and, yes, I carry – almost always. I also have three other permits: Utah, Oregon, and Florida. I cannot tell you how much formal formal firearm training I have taken because I quit counting after 1,000 hours. A Washington permit lives for five years.

    To obtain a Washington permit and to renew requires the submission of set of finger prints with your background check. On average, I get fingerprinted every year for permits and qualifications. My first printing was 38 years ago as a job requirement and I was regularly reprinted for differing job requirements. Consequently, I have ZERO sympathy for people who go to vote but cannot be bothered to show residency.

    I live in the district Habib represented. His post election accomplishments are stunningly unimpressive. In my opinion, he’s nothing more than a political tool that, like all tools, offer no value to the electorate. His history seems to be nothing more than playing political gamesmanship to his personal benefit. Habib has an anti-gun history founded on political pettiness also to his political benefit, which first surprised me considering his origin (Iran). That all said, Habib’s ploy is a new low.

    1. Thomas, does the Washington permitting process track the mental health of people registered for Conceal & Carry?

        1. Charles, I’m pointing out that even with a gun permit, the holder could be deranged. States can’t possibly track the mental health of gun permit holders. Therefore the permit and finger prints alone are no guarantee of a person’s stability.

          1. By what process and metric is there a guarantee of a person’s stability?

          2. Even wrapped in the robe of Lt. Governorship one can be deranged. Your point is?

      2. Washington state and mental health? lol.

        Take a look at the history of Washington’s DSHS. It has a long and colorful history of failure. The office door of the Secretary of DSHS might as well be a revolving door (hint: it’s a career ender). The current Secretary came from service at the Western State Hospital which is a notorious source of mismanagement, abuse, and failure. But fear not, for in this legislative session as in past sessions, we are once again going to fix the problem by merely throwing more public money at it.

        https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-pays-19-million-to-settle-abuse-case-that-left-child-paralyzed-and-blind/
        https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslee-unveils-plan-to-reverse-crisis-in-washingtons-mental-health-system/

  11. My husband has been a Washington State legislator for almost 3 decades , and I give much thought before coming to the State Legislature with its ridiculous open carry accommodation, especially when I have my grandchildren in my company . Open carry laws are the reason I stopped attending the State of the State message in the House Chamber years ago. There have been many threats to legislators over recent years, my husband included, and while it is comforting that the Senate changed their open carry allowance in its galleries, the Legislature as a whole is wide open to the public and vulnerable to anyone with harmful intentions. The rallies on the Capitol campus by open- carry advocates have resulted in individuals armed to the teeth on the Capitol Steps and in the galleries. Until the Senate changed its policy, I feared for my husband’s safety when they assembled – not because I was afraid of law- abiding carriers, but because of the ability for any loose cannon with a gun to slip into their ranks unnoticed.I agree with Lt. Gov. Habib. ( who, by the way, is blind, which might make him feel somewhat more vulnerable than a sighted speaker facing the gallery) 100%. It is unnerving to see individuals with firearms hovering above lawmakers in this heated political climate, and in a setting where children are frequently present.

    1. This is political bull crap.

      What you are not bothering to say includes: legislators have a relatively long history of themselves open carrying in session; Pro 2A protests with people “armed to the teeth” DO NOT have a history of running into representative offices and pointing firearms in faces and, in fact, they DO have a history of good behavior and even cleaning up after themselves; and you DO NOT bother to mention the subject and nature of threats, not to mention there is ALWAYS some fool making a threat, rather you imply these threats are only from 2A supporters.

      If you really have a fear of public carrying firearms then I make two accommodating suggestions. First, consider residency in Venezuela or Rio de Janeiro where the carrying of a firearm outside of residence is generally illegal in the later and completely illegal in the former. Second, you and your husband should disconnect yourselves from representing 35th District because, clearly, you have safety concerns stemming from his position. Or you could simply move to California.

    2. Why do you expect Pro 2As to be understanding of your concerns when you, here, paint Pro 2As with the broad denigrating brush of fear?

    3. I took a minute to look into your husband’s legislative background. Politically, he appears to swing both ways and he appears to be fair minded, including on firearm issues. In your posting here, you effectively work to undermine your husband’s credibility and I ponder as to why. In marriage, you have a voice of approval and disapproval of your spouse’s vocation and I also ponder why it was necessary to post here verses the more productive approach of expressing your misgivings to your husband in person. If your husband’s vocation is truly a psychological burden on your fears then you have the option of finding a better spouse with 50% of your combined assets.

    4. Linda Honan Sheldon,

      Yes, it must be quite unnerving to live in the same world in which all other people face. If you cannot handle the fact that the citizenry has rights that you disagree it does not give you license to make demands.

      There are many families out there who’s husbands work in the military or law enforcement and are required every day to be among others having the legal right to bear arms. And their wives do not complain that everyone else must change. If you cannot handle being around ordinary citizens do everyone else a favor and leave the state.

      Now go back to your elitist virtual gated community and leave us commoners alone. 30 years in the legislature is not a badge of honor. It just proves we are long overdue for term limitations.

      1. I don’t agree with term limitations. Instead we need more people willing to stand for election. That has certainly been the case in my legislative district.

      2. Darren, should career politicians should be scorned and shamed..??

        Sound a little radical. The idea seems to be that only amateurs (like Trump) are acceptable for elected office. Because only amateurs have the objectivity to decide which policies benefit ‘real people’.

        2. Again, Peter, your whole conception of this is shallow.

          Look at the shmucks who run Congress: McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, and McCarthy. Only McConnell among them has any executive experience at all. Hoyer and McConnell have in the past a history of fitful law practice. The remainder, not even that. None of them have worked in a trade with robust operational measures of competence. And they do a stinky job. No surprise.

          1. Tabby, ‘what’ is a trade with robust operational measure of competence??
            Even seemingly modest occupations require levels of competence and good judgement.

            There are people on Hollywood film crews performing jobs that don’t seem particularly complicated. Yet those jobs are ‘not’ easy to obtain. And you’d be surprised at how intelligent most crew members are. Even lowly production assistants (who do all the grunt work) are typically very bright kids.

            So just because someone can say they managed a business, doesn’t mean for a moment that they possess crucial insight applicable to government.

            1. So just because someone can say they managed a business, doesn’t mean for a moment that they possess crucial insight applicable to government.

              Peter, you’re implicitly defending the likes of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al. “Crucial Insight” is another country to these clowns.

            2. Just because someone is a career politician doesn’t mean they know anything about running a business or creating a climate for business to thrive. Hence why so many politicians make it so hard for business owners.

        3. I am curious to know what measure you are using to qualify a career politician as “good” and an amateur is “bad.” Obama wasn’t a career politician. Was he “good” or “bad?”

          1. Obama was a career politician, and with little to show for it. He was, after a dozen years taking up space in legislative bodies, a recognized maven in no area of policy. He wasn’t a quick study, either. He collected a salary from the University of Chicago for 12 years, but never produced any scholarly writing. He was the chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and ran it into the ground. He practiced law for about three years; he never attained a partnership. And so on. It’s like the scene in About Schmidt where the man looks around the childhood bedroom of his soon-to-be son-in-law. He sees a corner where there are trophies and ribbons. They’re all for ‘participation’.

        4. There is an inherent problem with the career politician. We have created a system of pay to play. Pork projects. Back scratching. It’s a career rather than an act of service for too many. They no longer represent, or even like, the people, but rather look out for their own intestests. They are constantly running for re-election.

          Perhaps there is a way to remove those obstacles for justice without negating such seats as career jobs. We need to reinforce that they are beholden to the people. Limiting campaign contributions from organizations, unions, and bunglers would be a good start. Remove the money and perhaps get a little honesty.

    5. Ma’am, I don’t mean to make light of your fears, but as well liked and respected as Tim is by the firearms community in Washington state, he was probably safer before Habib made the policy change. Many of us would go to great lengths to protect Tim.

  12. Mr Habib had best give Mississippi a wide berth, too. We also have universal open carry and two categories of permitted concealed carry, one more permissive but requring NRA pistol safety and concealed carry training. And oddly, I have lived in Mississippi five years and do not feel in the least apprehensive about who may be carrying a weapon nearby. We don’t tend to borrow or make trouble here.

    1. Want to guess the training requirements to carry firearms (open or concealed) in Washington state? Answer: zip.

  14. HABIB IS BLIND RHODES SCHOLOR..

    AND THREE TIME CANCER SURVIVOR

    The five paragraphs below are from Habib’s official state biography.

    Lieutenant Governor Cyrus Habib was born in Baltimore, Maryland, and moved with his family to Washington state at the age of eight. He grew up in east King County and graduated from the Bellevue International School before attending Columbia University, Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law School where he served as editor of the Yale Law Journal. He is also a Truman Scholar and a Soros Fellow.

    After receiving his law degree, Lieutenant Governor Habib returned to Washington state to practice law at Perkins Coie, the region’s largest law firm, where he helped startup technology companies raise venture capital funds and license their software.

    He went on to represent east King County in the Washington State House of Representatives and the State Senate, where he served as Democratic Whip and a member of the Democratic leadership team. In 2016 he was elected Washington’s 16th Lieutenant Governor, becoming the youngest presiding officer in the country.

    In his role as Lieutenant Governor, Habib presides over the State Senate, serves as acting-Governor when the Governor is out of the state, and maintains a portfolio of issues including Economic Development, Trade, and Higher Education.

    A three-time cancer survivor, Lieutenant Governor Habib has been fully blind since age eight. His parents immigrated to the U.S. from Iran before he was born, and he is both the first and only Iranian-American official to hold statewide elected office in the United States.

    1. According to local media stories, Habib announced in advance that he is not afraid of any security threats. His refusal to show up was simply an effort to call attention to what Habib feels is an unwise policy.

      Interestingly, the Washington State Senate, where Lt. Governor Habib officially presides, bans all firearms from its galleries. But for reasons not entirely clear, the Washington State Assembly allows concealed firearms in its galleries. It was in the assembly chamber that Governor Inslee delivered his State Of The State address.

        1. I clicked and replied to a message in a different thread rather than to my own in this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

          It WAS NOT Habib who banned the open carry of firearms in the Senate public viewing area, rather in 2015 it was Lt. Gov. Brad Owen[1]. I stand corrected. That said, Habib isn’t new to firearm political theater. Quoting from the November 2017 article [2] (over a year ago):

          “The Senate is going to need a new sign because Democratic Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib on Monday banned all firearms from the Senate gallery during session. And, in a letter to the sergeant at arms, Habib asked that “particular emphasis should be placed on preventing assault weapons from being brought into the galleries.””

          So, to a certain extent, I have to disagree with Prof. Turley’s assertion that Habib’s action is cowardice. Habib’s actions may be, in part, cowardice but I suggest to Prof. Turley it may also be part temper tantrum.

          [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/openly-carried-guns-banned-in-state-senate-gallery/
          [2] http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/firearms-banned-from-state-senate-gallery-during-sessions/

      1. Tabby, I don’t see why it’s crucial that members of the public should bring firearms into the galleries of a state legislature. Tell me what the need would be.

        1. Your first remark is non sequitur and your second would be non sequitur if conceived of as an elaboration of your first.

          Why is it crucial members of the public (who have gone through the hoops to get a CCL) not carry guns in a public building?

          1. Conceal & Carry is fine for legitimate law enforcement personnel. But ‘who else’ really needs to carry firearms in the galleries of a state capitol?

            Permit processes for firearms are relatively lax. No one’s tracking the mental health of permit holders. There are many armed security guards who aren’t necessarily mature or sensible people.

            1. It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. It’s not the governments place to tell me what I need or don’t need. They’re there to protect my rights. The 600,000 or so folks with CPL’s in Washington state are, as a group, more law abiding than are police officers. We undergo extensive criminal background checks and are fingerprinted. Actions that would disqualify a person from owning a firearm are reported to the state patrol and the permit is revoked. Mental health professionals are already required to report if someone is a danger to themselves or others. Why the hell are you so hung up on the state monitoring private health records. Do you trust them that much? Don’t forget it wasn’t that long ago that being gay was considered a mental disorder. Would you have approved of people in the LGBTQ community having the ability to defend themselves stripped away because they were considered “mentally ill”?

            2. What the people of Washington state need is a large (and publicly accessible) database of the medical history, law enforcement contact history, personal details, and habits of each individual such that each of us can make informed decisions. It’s the only mature and sensible thing to do.

            4. The definition of good mental health seems to be conveniently malleable.

              “Nearly one in five U.S. adults lives with a mental illness (44.7 million in 2016).”
              https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml

              “1 in 5 Americans will experience a mental illness in a given year.”
              “1 in 5 children, either currently or at some point during their life, have had a seriously debilitating mental illness.”
              https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm

              2. Perhaps the 1-in-5 applies to Mr. Habib and Mrs. Sheldon? WA has a pop of 7.4m which mathematically implies ~1.9m are, or have suffered from, mentally illness.

                Or maybe I’m 1-in5 enough for everyone?

            5. Are there illegitimate law enforcement personnel? You use a qualifier to legitimize, so I assume you have examples of the opposite.

            6. Why only track the mental health of firearm owners? Should we not also track the mental health of legislators? Should a mental health issue disqualify donors to political causes since they may not be making sound decisions?

            7. PH – someone can be brought before a judge for mental health grounds, which is reported to NICS. There is, actually, a database tracking such things. The problem is that many states don’t accurately upload the data, and many people with red flags are never committed, flagging them in NICS.

              There is due process before someone’s Constitutional rights may be lost. This is true for the loss of their liberty due to incarceration, and the loss of firearms.

              Who else “needs” a firearm out in public? Well, women pursued by stalkers who aren’t afraid to either die or go to jail, for one. I had a very serious stalker once years ago. I am very lucky. My first firearm was a gift from a cop who heard what happened. He told me that in the history of his career, he’d never once stopped a violent crime from occurring. You have to find a phone, call 911, explain what’s happening, wait for them to call a unit, wait for them to drive there, assess the perimeter, gain entry…By then it’s too late for you. That guy’s going to do what he came there to do. The cops may solve the crime. They may catch the guy, or he could have killed himself. But he’s already done what he came there to do.

              We often hear about women being killed at their work by their psychotic stalkers. If someone wants to kill you, you may feel a very strong desire to at least have some small chance of protecting yourself. I know exactly what it feels like to believe that someone is probably going to kill you, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s a very helpless, hopeless feeling. I was lucky. Many women aren’t.

              I need a gun outside my home, but still on my property, because of rattlers. When there is a mountain lion nearby, I like to have one when I walk the dogs. Jewelers may want to carry. People making bank deposits. People who have to go into bad neighborhoods at night. I don’t know everyone’s circumstances. I grew up in an era and location where gun racks in trucks were common.

              I share the concern about stopping violent crime in general, regardless of the tool used. I also wish to see a reduction in drunk driving accidents. The approach needs to be fair and effective, and Constitutional. Laws did not stop a felon from pointing a gun at me. No law can physically prevent Rick from illegally selling his gun to convicted felon Steve. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Law abiding citizens, by definition, follow them. If gun laws stopped gun crime, then murder laws would have ended murder.

        2. Are we to have a needs test for carrying pen and paper, too? Where, exactly, do we draw the needs test line?

        3. Similarly, why is it crucial for you to broadcast your opinion? Tell me what the need would be.

    3. None of which makes any difference. He either has an irrational fear of firearms, or he’s trying to score cheep political points at the expense of the most law abiding group of citizens in the state, those with concealed pistol licenses.

  15. Despots and those prone to such are the most un-nerved in such situations. Is it sexist to say weak sisters these days? Whatever the equivalent is as long as it doesn’t use the cardinal sin sexist word ‘person.’ I’m betting he’ll try for a national office where he can ‘hide’ behind skirts of DC law enforcement and the federal version except…. how many of them in the end are having their pay blocked by Comrade Benita Pelosillyni. No one else is standing in the way of a payroll that’s already been authorized and gone out for three months of this Fiscal Year. And back to hiding behind skirts it wear sunglasses indoor as well?

  16. I called Habib’s office and advised them that statistically, people with CPL’s are more law abiding than police officers. I also said that, as a person who’s had a CPL in Washington State for over 30 years, I was personally offended by his actions and demanded an apology. This is a coordinated, full court press by state officials to demonize guns and gun owners in Washington. The state AG has requested numerous anti gun bills, the state insurance commissioner has declared that the NRA’s carry guard insurance is illegal because it provides legal assistance for someone involved in a self defense shooting. Something that the insurance commissioner has called “criminal activity” and now this crap from Habib. I’m planning to retire within the next ten years, then I’m out of here. This used to be a great place to live, but the Californication of the PNW is turning the state into a shit hole.

    1. Agreed.

      Most of our AG’s actions are blatantly politically favoring. There is much talk of Mr. Ferguson positioning himself for a run at governor.

      I do not understand why state barriers to insurance commerce, and not just WA, is not in violation of the Constitution’s commerce clause whether the product is healthcare, automotive, or firearm use. The Lockton product has was harmless to the state and its residents and protected purchasers no different than automotive liability insurance. These barriers work, in effect, as trusts and, IMO, should be broken.

      1. Thomas Johnson — Every state has an insurance commission, there to keep the insurance companies from exploiting the citizenry.

        1. Hmm… Yes. We need a department of everything to keep people from being exploited. That seems reasonable.

          1. Meanwhile, my telephone rings a minimum of once each day by those offering one scam or another (e.g., the tech support scam and the IRS demand scam). The agencies empowered to protect me from exploitation do what? Seriously, I’d like to know because if they were, in actuality, protecting me then *empirical* data demonstrates otherwise.

            (Yes, I have filled out those online complaint forms. It’s a waste of time, so I stopped.)

  18. Ya know the lag with the submission screening algorithm is becoming problematic. One waits five minutes to see one’s posting and when it doesn’t materialize, one is compelled to submit again, only to find out the original finally worked its way through the molasses-slow code.

  19. Progressives have been working diligently over the past few decades to raise a new variety of emasculated wimp Homo Sapien male. This is the result.

    The solution to his particular enfeeblement is to find a feminazi Democratic aid with a kevlar skirt to act as his shield during such events. I’m willing to bet there’d be thousands of volunteers in the SeaTacOly CSA.

    What is this nation coming to?

  20. Progressives have been working hard over the past couple of generations to raise wimps. This is a Grade A Prime example.

    I’m certain there’s a skirt or three in the House Chamber he can hide behind. In fact, he should probably have a kevlar skirt made for some random female aid that could be designated as his shield at such events.

    What is this nation coming to?

    1. With a name, Face & anti-American Gun Grabbing attitude it sounds wise for him to get his azz back to his family’s ME home of sand n blood.

Comments are closed.