Bob Owens, Alan Gottlieb and the difference between sh-t and shinola. Are the the Dems playing "Whack-A-Moeller" in WA State House?

"What Happened to Moeller?"

Did you notice something different about the Washington State House of Representatives on Monday? Not many people did, but those who follow sessions closely may have noticed something was a bit irregular. Where was Speaker ProTem Rep. Jim Moeller (49th LD)?

Democrat sources say that Rep. Moeller is being disciplined for his role in the current controversy over open carry of guns in the House gallery. Moeller’s online comments stating that he would not allow open carry of a firearms sparked outrage from gun rights groups across the state. This led to a large protest of armed civilians showing up at the capitol to press for their gun rights. A small group of whom entered the house gallery, then as some say, they were provocatively displaying their firearms. Could it be that Democratic leadership is actually holding Rep. Moeller to account for his part of setting off these tense encounters?

Well, one thing that was brought to my attention up is an earlier post of Moeller's on Facebook on the same subject:

Here's Moeller's Wikipedia entry.

And here's some context to go with it. The "Take-the-House" move on the part of the 594 resisters did not happen in a vacuum. It was in response to Moeller's taunting. From an article in September of last year:

Earlier this summer, Rep. Jim Moeller took to Facebook and issued what some gun-rights advocates perceived as a challenge.

"I will refuse to conduct the business of the state as long as any 'open carry' nuts (are) in the gallery," Moeller, D-Vancouver, wrote on his Elect Jim Moeller Facebook page.

As speaker pro tempore of the state House of Representatives, Moeller often presides when the House is session.

Frank Decker, who is not one of Moeller's constituents but a Vancouver resident and a gun-rights advocate, saw the post.

"My immediate reaction was, challenge accepted," Decker said.

Decker created his own Facebook page titled "Moeller's Open Carry Challenge." The page has more than 80 "likes," and the goal, Decker said, is to have a volunteer openly carry a firearm in the gallery of the House every day during the 2015 legislative session, which kicks off in January.

"The best case scenario is that Jim would come to his senses and realize he's not being intimidated by us being there; he's not being threatened," Decker said.

Moeller, said it's the equivalent of having someone shouting at him from the gallery.

"It's ridiculous it's allowed," Moeller said. "It's not allowed in courthouses, it's not allowed in jails or bars or schools, and I think it's ridiculous it's allowed in the gallery."

Moeller said he doesn't take issue with lawmakers who carry a concealed weapon on the floor or firearms being allowed in the statehouse, but having someone open-carry firearms in the public gallery, which is elevated, he said, is an act of intimidation.

So when Bob Owens wrote insultingly of the anti-594 resisters in this screed -- saying "A small group of long gun open carriers lacking the discernment, basic common sense, and the political savvy of your average garden snail made complete fools out of themselves as they dangerously brandished firearms in the Washington House gallery last week during I-594 protests. Now legislators in both parties have agreed to ban long guns completely from both state houses as a result of these immature antics." -- he didn't know or care to find out that Moeller had already picked this fight LAST YEAR. It was Moeller who invited the controversy, not the I Will Not Comply folks. Owens, to put it bluntly, apparently didn't know shit from shinola about the context of the action.

Gottlieb, on the other hand, knew intimately about it. However he did not share that knowledge with his larger audience when he denounced the resisters as "extremists." To place their actions in context would be to explain them, rather than demonize them. Owens has the excuse of ignorance. Gottlieb does not.