21 May, 2001 email reply to Rep. Shay Shual-Berke re: SHB 1604

NOTE: Rep. Shual-Berke's comments are shown in light blue

Rep. Schual-Berke:

Please find my responses to your individual points below:

At 08:02 AM 3/21/01 -0800, you wrote: Dear Mr. Stewart,

As you are aware, this bill has passed out of the House Criminal Justice Committee but was not pulled to the floor of the House. It is doubtful that the bill will move any further this session. Currently, there is no prohibition for bringing weapons into a hospital even though there are weapon restrictions for jails, courts, and public mental health facilities.

This is a comparison of apples and oranges. Jails, courts, and mental health facilities are specifically populated by criminals and the mentally ill. The prohibition against weapons in these facilities is (ostensibly) to prevent such persons from coming in contact with weapons. This cannot be said of hospitals.

Further, by ordinance (specifically RCW 9.41.300 (1)(b)) these facilities are required to provide locked storage for firearms while the owner conducts his or her business:

"In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."

I am unaware of any such provision in SHB 1604.

While current law creates an atmosphere of safety for everyone in some places, hospitals and emergency rooms are unique. Unlike restaurants or stores who generally have the right to refuse service, emergency rooms must serve everyone. Regardless of what a person says or does or what weapon is hanging out of the person's pocket, hospital staff must serve the person. As you know, emergency rooms are fraught with tension and anxiety and health care providers work under an enormous amount of stress - they should not have to feel fear in their workplace. This bill is an effort to make emergency rooms a safe place.

I beg to differ. Current law creates an atmosphere of safety for CRIMINALS by effectively creating a zone in which the law-abiding are disarmed. If anything, such law compounds hazards for the law-abiding by rendering them incapable of defending themselves should the need arise, and by making this known to criminals.

Your reference to a weapon "hanging out of the person's pocket" is meaningless in the context of this discussion. It is already against the law for a person to openly carry in Washington State. This becomes clear when you examine the language of the brandishing law (RCW 9.41.270). Quoted in part:

"9.41.270(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."

What we are discussing here is NOT weapons "hanging out of the person's pocket", but the right of law-abiding CPL carrying citizens to remain free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Disarming the lawfully armed citizens of our state will NOT make emergency rooms a safe place.

I would also like to ask you this: if I am assaulted while in a hospital that has adopted this policy and am shot, knifed or otherwise injured while I have been deprived of my defensive arms, are you or the hospital going to assume liability for my injuries, given that your disarmament policy will have been directly and materially responsible for my injuries? I assure you that our judicial system would, in such a case, be deciding such an issue, as a lawsuit would be the immediate outcome.

It appears that you would benefit by reading up on the current statistical data regarding crime rates and the availability of concealed weapons. For starters, I recommend this interview by The University of Chicago Press with Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.

(Dr. Lott is the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.)

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

In the final analysis, you must consider this: such a law will affect only the law-abiding. By definition, criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. You do not have anything to fear from the non-criminal that this foolish law would affect. Any such fear is unreasonable... consider that Washington State has a VERY high percentage of CPL holders, then look at the incredibly low incidence of crime committed by those who lawfully carry arms.

Please. Reconsider your position on this issue from a perspective of REASON.

If you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact me again. You can call me toll free on the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000, call my office directly or e-mail me at schualbe_sh@leg.wa.gov.

Warmly,

Shay Schual-Berke, M.D. State Representative - 33rd District