Tuesday, September 16, 2014

A major threat to the Second Amendment in Washington state


I've been reading about the progress of Initiative 594 in Washington state.  It's on the ballot for November 4th this year.  Its official title is 'Washington Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Initiative 594 (2014)', and it's described as follows:

Current law requires criminal and public safety background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. This measure would extend this requirement to most firearm purchases and transfers in Washington, with exceptions, including transfers within families, temporary transfers for self-defense and hunting, and antiques. Licensed dealers would conduct the background checks and could charge a fee. Violation of these requirements would be a crime.

The measure will also criminalize, with few exceptions, all temporary transfers of possession of firearms that do not involve purchases, such as for safekeeping, hunting, loan, recreational sharing, safety training, coaching, transport, etc.

There's more at the link.  The measure is supported by all the usual liberal, progressive and anti-gun organizations.

The Washington Arms Collectors association is mounting a major effort to educate gun owners about the dangers posed by Initiative 594.  It's published a list of 26 'Myths of Initiative 594' that makes chilling reading.  Here are a few excerpts.

Newspaper editorial boards and media coverage of I-594 continue to distort the purpose and effect of this anti-civil rights measure. The media regularly portrays I-594 as a background check on firearm sales which it is not; it is much more.

There is an effective media blackout on press releases and position statements opposed to I-594. The public, even the shooting public, does not yet realize what this initiative will do if passed.

. . .

Myth #4 – A person can loan a firearm, without going through a dealer, to another as long as it is returned to him.

Reality: Transfers are defined by I-594 to include any loan of a firearm. Any temporary loan of a firearm, no matter how short the time, without FFL dealer paperwork would be a crime.

. . .

Myth #10 – I keep a rifle in my truck and occasionally allow my daughter to drive this vehicle on our property – this can’t be a crime?

Reality: Unless you are in the truck with your minor child, this is a transfer requiring an FFL dealer at two points. There is a transfer when she departs with the truck and when she returns it to you – possession equals transfer under I-594.

. . .

594 is not designed to keep guns from criminals or reduce crime; it is intended to create overwhelming obstacles to the private possession and use of firearms. I-594 targets recreational shooters, competitors, hobbyists and collectors.

The passage of 591 is the only answer to the evils of I-594.

Again, there's more at the link.

The '591' to which the Arms Collectors article refers is a competing ballot initiative, the 'Washington Gun Rights Measure, Initiative 591 (2014)'.  It's described as follows.

This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.

More at the link.

It's intriguing that both 591 and 594 are to be presented to the voters of Washington state on the same day.  It's entirely possible that both measures may pass - in which case it'll be up to the state's courts to sort out the contradictions between them.  Frankly, given the liberal track records of many judges in Washington, I wouldn't be too confident that the outcome will uphold the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.  Furthermore, if Washington state implements such measures, it'll encourage anti-gun activists around the country to try to implement similar restrictions in their states as well.

I think it's very important to gun owners in the USA as a whole that Initiative 591 be passed and Initiative 594 be defeated.  I'd be very grateful if my readers in Washington state, and those of you with friends there, would please spread the word about these measures and the harm that Initiative 594 would do to the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun-owners.  Let's try to mobilize right-minded voters before November 4th.

Thanks.

Peter

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, we know all about it.
I think the "Think of the children!" crowd will cause 594 to pass. Don't know about 591.

The area around Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia has so many voters that they pretty much run the state.

Obviously, I'm voting for 591 and against 594.

Boyd K said...

If you're local, signs can be had at the WAC office at 935 Powell Ave SW Suite 120, Renton, WA 98057. 9-4, you can call 425.255.8410 to be sure they have some before you head in.
The initiative is being run by Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibilty, a group that I'm pretty sure got it's public start at a Seattle Townhall meeting/lecture by local "concerned" public health and pediatric research folks (the same names made infamous in the 80's by their advocacy "research"). They're being bankrolled by folks like Bloomberg, Gates, and Allen, folks who had made long term commitment to "change" for "gun sense" laws around the country. This is just a test case, they'll have plenty left over for 49 more states when they're done with us. The time to turn it back is now. All IMO. -Boyd Kneeland WAC vice president
PS if you'd like to donate, you can support 591 here: http://wagunrights.org

Stuart Garfath. Sydney, Australia. said...

The Australian Government thinks it's rendered us defenceless by the multitude of draconian laws that have been passed in the last 20 years, and we choose not to disabuse them of their delusion, but, from the above, it looks like you Yanks are in a bit of trouble, whatever happens, keep record of who does the proposing, and who does the signing, whether they like it or not, we are ALL accountable for our actions, whatever your Rank, Position or Power, the abuse or misuse of which, might I remind everyone, must never be accepted.

John Block said...

This is the same Bloomberg boilerplate crap that got passed in Colo. last year, that led to two successful recall elections.that "nasty little facist", as Michael Bane calls him, had at least 3 lobbyists in Denver for the legislative sessjon, the dems were on a roll due to the pot legalisation crowd. It backfired. Washington, like my Maryland, may be different. I live behind enemy lines here.

Charlie Foxtrot said...

Blogger Archer provides his perspective as a Washington citizen: http://notonemoregunlaw.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-on-washingtons-i-594.html

Washington gun owners need all thehelp theycan get.

Old NFO said...

Truly scary... And a portent of things to come???

Rolf said...

As bad as the list of myths is, they still missed one. It says that loans for training can happen at "authorized" ranges, but it does not list authorized ranges, define them, or establish any way for any government agency to create such a list or definition.

So even if the INTENT (which I doubt) was to allow loans at ranges for training purposes (while excluding traditional places like rock quarries and the back porch overlooking the south forty), the actual effect is to eliminate 99% of the training loans that occur.

"Here, try a few shots in this one, see how it feels." BAM - criminal.

And, because every formal transfer has a paper trail, it's effectively registration.

Rolf said...

Oh, yes, another thing. A transfer is defined as:
25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

Even the *intended* delivery of the firearm counts. "Well, your honor, no, he didn't actually give anyone the gun, but we thought it was clear that he intended to do so..."

No possible way for that scenario to go sideways, is there?

Dennis said...

I'm voting for 594.

When will American come to it's senses and realize that the 2nd Amendment has not worked out too well?

Its politically incorrect to take the position that America has a huge gun problem.

We are the laughing stock of the world. Time to Revise the 2nd amendment. It's way past it's sell-by date.

Vote YES for 594.

Peter said...

@Dennis: You're entitled to your opinion, just as I'm entitled to mine. What you and 'your side' are NOT entitled to do is to seek to indirectly override the Second Amendment, or change its interpretation. If opponents of gun rights would do the honest thing and seek a Constitutional amendment, instead of trying to find back-door ways to neutralize it, I'd be a lot more respectful of their position. Underhanded behavior breeds contempt.

John Balog said...

I will seriously consider moving if 594 is passed and upheld. I hear Utah is nice...

Dennis said...

@Peter:
Yes, I would like to seek a Constitutional Amendment thru the front door.

Unfortunately, because of the ridiculous Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, the power of the NRA gun lobby, the millions of dollars to made by gun manufacturers, and our corrupt, paid-off, spineless politicians, you and I know this would not be successful.

Hence, the back-door approach

I'm also for restoring the ban on "assault" weapons. Nobody in their right mind needs an AR-15.

Dennis said...

@Peter,

Sir, you and I know both know that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been debated by many scholars over the years.

Our side argues that it does every American the right to own an AR-15

Peter said...

@Dennis: If the Citizens United ruling offends you, and gives you the right to try non-constitutional methods of reforming constitutional rights, does my dislike of Roe v. Wade give me the right to do the same when it comes to abortion? After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander . . .

Dennis said...

@Peter,

Yeah good point...touche'

I'm still 100% against the American gun culture.

I am not stupid enough to realize that fighting against gun rights in our country has any chance of success.

I just wish we could diminish these monthly gun rampages, which are much worse than (3)ISIS beheadings.

I'd be appreciative of any thoughts you had on this.

Anonymous said...

"I just wish we could diminish these monthly gun rampages"

Dennis, the fastest way to reduce a rampage is by shooting the rampager. Many instances of mass shootings being abruptly terminated have been reported locally, but they very seldom make the news cycle nationally because because the "rampage" is stopped after a few shots. And it does not fit the narrative. In fact, the prevalence of mass shootings is no higher than it has ever been- the difference is the media attention. You are aware the mainstream news is largely a leftist propaganda arm, yes?

If one takes the time to look at the data, the most well armed places in the USA have the lowest crime rate. In a near perfect corrolary,, mass shootings happen almost exclusively in places where firearms are forbidden. Washington state is a perfect example- we have 450,000 people with concealed firearm licences. One out of 11 persons in the state. Some places as high as 50 % of the population has a CCW. Yet somehow we have avoided the "blood in the streets" scenario so widely promoted by the media. And nationwide, violent crime is at historic lows, despite (or because) of a huge increase of CCW holders.

PS- I love the American gun culture- I have never met a more intelligent, well read , patriotic and generous bunch of folks. They well understand the lessons of history and the reason to bear arms. These are real people by the way, not the strawmen yahoo's erected by the propaganda artists on the left.






Dennis said...

Anonymous,

Talk about a "propaganda arm"...your comments are typical right-wing talking points spouted on the mainstream media ad-nauseam on behalf of the NRA, other gun Lobbies, and gun nuts.

The "mainstream media is largely leftist"...hahahahaha, come on, you've gotta be kidding me...these are the newspapers and TV shows screaming for more boots on the ground in the ME, and who spread the lies about WMD so our criminal President Bush could illegally invade Iraq and kill 700,000. The old saw that the MSM is leftist is just pure bullshit!

"Shoot the rampager"...ridiculous...I'm sorry, but this is the mindset of the American gun culture that causes the problem to start with. Site me one rampage that was stopped by some gun-toting Joe public person.

"Well armed = lowest crime rate". You'll have to prove that to me. Preferably with a non-NRA source.

"Violent crime is down because of CCW holders"...rubbish, in your crazy gun nut mind only!

The left, yes, that's me, don't have to invent strawmen. We see these nutcases on our local news every night.(Clive Bundy for example., and have to suffer this propaganda on the web.

Shrimp said...


@Dennis--
"Site(sic) me one rampage that was stopped by some gun-toting Joe public person."

You're sort of asking someone to prove a negative, which normally is impossible. A rampage shooting, also called a spree shooting or a mass shooting, that is stopped by a concealed carry permit holder/armed citizen ends what might have otherwise been a much worse shooting. It is safe to say that a shooting that didn't happen will garner very little attention, while a shooting in which dozens are wounded or killed will garner much attention. That said, there are quite a few shootings throughout the country that have been stopped by an armed citizen, and based upon the fact that the shooter was armed and in possession of more ammunition at the time of their demise/being stopped, one could definitively argue that the shooting spree was stopped only because of an armed citizen.

You wanted one. I'll cite you several:

2007 YWAM/New Life shooting, CO
2012 Clackamas Town Center, OR
1997 Pearl HS shooting, MS
1999 National Shooting Club, Santa Clara, CA
2009 Golden Food Market, Richmond, VA
2010 AT&T store, New York Mills, NY
2009 College Park, GA
2007 Trolley Square, Salt Lake City, UT
2008 Players Bar and Grill, Winnemuca, NV

You'll probably note that most, if not all, will not ring a bell. There aren't any famous names, like Columbine, Newtown, Aurora Movie Theater, etc. That's because the shootings were ended well before the body count got very high. And they were all stopped by an immediate armed response.

I've left out literally dozens of cases where a crime of some other sort (armed robbery, domestic violence, property crime, etc) turned deadly, and someone within the intended victims or nearby came to the rescue. I've also left off literally dozens more where the armed citizen was an off duty or undercover police officer (although I did include a couple of those on the list, merely to point out that what could have been and likely would have been a mass shooting was stopped because of the presence of an immediate armed response).


Shrimp said...

@Dennis--
" "Well armed = lowest crime rate". You'll have to prove that to me. Preferably with a non-NRA source. "

Presumably, the FBI semiannual report that came out February of this year (for the year 2013, the latest one to be found) will suffice:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2013/tables/table_1_january_to_june_2012-2013_percent_change_by_population_group.xls

To be fair, I must also point out that during this time period, 21 million more background checks than the previous year were run for gun purchases during this same time period. That's an 8% increase from the previous year, and the 11th straight year on increased background checks.

Also, almost every state in the union has seen an increase in the number of applications for concealed carry permits during the same time period.

To sum up: More guns being bought, more guns being carried concealed, and crime is going down. Per the FBI.

Crazy, huh? It's almost like guns don't cause crime...

Dennis said...

Hi Shrimp,

Yeah, your'e right.....

Your solution for gun violence= more guns + more crazies packing heat!!!

Sounds good to me....NOT

Vote YES on 594

Anonymous said...

To whom it may concern: I know y'all mean well, but arguing with the likes of "Dennis" is as futile as trying to talk an Ebola virus out of making you sick. The only answer, if any, such creatures should get is Mr. Vanderboegh's short one.

Dennis said...

Anonymous,

It' not an argument. It's a stand-off.

Arguing with gun nuts is like arguing with people who believe in a great sky god. A waste of time.

You guys want more guns.
I want less guns.
I want registration and licensing of all gun owners...just like automobiles.

Dennis

Shrimp said...

@ Anonymous--


Oh, no doubt. He's only here to troll and stir. He throws insults, asks for evidence of something that he claims he doesn't believe in, and then, when presented with the very evidence he asks for (which utterly shatters his world view), he returns to throwing insults.

What would the internet be without trolls?

I always give them the benefit of doubt for the first couple replies. Just in case they are one of the few that has been led astray and can be returned to the land of the thinking. Clearly, Dennis cannot.

Dennis said...

@Anoymous,

I forgot two parts of my proposed Gun Registration Law.

1.Place an excise tax on each Pegistration. To pay for the State Police keeping a data base on people who have in their possession a machine whose only purpose is to kill people.

2.If a crime is committed with a gun, the Registered Owner gets to be charged with the criminal penalty for the crime. That takes care of the stolen gun, gun-show sales, selling weapons in Walmart parking lot.

PS you might like to label me as a "troll", but I am dead serious. Something has to be done to mitigate against this gun madness, that makes us the laughing stock of the world.

Anonymous said...

Yuri Bezmanov, line one......