Press gets gun laws wrong again
The law-enforcement source said Haq had a license to carry a concealed weapon, though not the weapon that was used in the shootings.
I wonder if the reporter actually was told this by a “law-enforcement source,” because a Washington State concealed pistol license (CPL) does not identify any particular pistol on it. I just renewed my Washington CPL on Friday. Neither the CPL that I was renewing, nor the form that I filled out, asked anything about what gun I would be carrying.
And this would be one of those rare occurrences of a person with a CPL license committing a crime. Expect the Brady bunch to point that out soon.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:12 am
If he had a CPL, he wouldnt have had to endure a waiting period.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:18 am
Not that there should be permits, waiting periods, or background checks to begin with…
C.H.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:45 am
In Washington you don’t even have to own any type of firearm to obtain a CPL; they don’t even ask. Absent a CPL, purchasing a pistol from a licenced dealer will require the same background check that getting a CPL requires — you just don’t have to give them the $55 and fingerprints that a CPL application requires. Private sales don’t require any notice to, or permission from, the state.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Now I’ll be shocked when a news story like that actually gets the details right. It’s sad how little effort reporters spend on getting firearm related information correct. It’s not like that little detail is hard to find out.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Finding out facts takes time. Right now MSM thinks it better to be first rather than be accurate and detailed.
For the MSM, the facts just get in the way of the story.