Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration


PDA






savage1r
July 22, 2013, 06:00 PM
Petitioners began hanging out at my local grocery stores and were attempting to get people to sign. I decided to download and read the document that is being proposed and I am EXTREMELY upset at the legislation this is shaping up to be. This video is my partial analysis of the language of the initiative and I encourage you all to read it and please share the video with your friends and lets spread the awareness about this dangerous initiative.

VIDEO LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbKW0o8Prk)

If you enjoyed reading about "Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sidheshooter
July 22, 2013, 07:55 PM
Here we go. I think a lot of us knew that a fight was brewing in WA next. Just read through the text; I'll need to take another stab at it when I have more time, but I agree about being upset.

savage1r
July 22, 2013, 08:12 PM
I can't stand dishonest legislation masquerading around as something it's not. This bill has nothing but crap in it and should never see the light of day.

silvermane_1
July 23, 2013, 05:50 AM
darn it, those folks in Olympia are at it again.

Ryanxia
July 23, 2013, 08:42 AM
Care to summarize what's wrong with the Bill for those of us that can't click on a video link at work. :D

savage1r
July 23, 2013, 12:52 PM
It's universal background checks plus firearm registration for every pistol transfer (you must have a CPL or written permission from the local LEO to purchase a pistol). If you hand your firearm to someone other than your immediate family at anywhere other than an approved gun range, you are a criminal. If you fail to register your dead spouses pistol within 60 days, you are a criminal. There's a new tax to pay for everything. There's a new state background check system. That's what I can list off the top of my head.

2bfree
July 23, 2013, 04:15 PM
Initiative is what it is and has no chance in Olympia then goes to a public vote and that will have a good chance of passing (IMOP) Remember, King county ( Seattle ) is the largest voting block in the state and it is about as anti-gun as you get. Best thing to do is vote in 2014 when it comes up and make sure your friends do the same.

Ryanxia
July 23, 2013, 04:52 PM
Put your boots in the ground and dig in! Gotta push that tide back, several states have already this year.

They can only take our freedom if we let them.

sporterizin
July 27, 2013, 10:08 PM
Here in Washington State we have the "pro" gun organizations offering up Initiative measure 591, titled "Protect Our Gun Rights." It all looks good other than what I noticed when I first read it when it was released. That was as follows:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.

It is interesting that the "Protect Your Gun Rights" I-591, Section 2 "...unless a uniform standard is require." (which could be written by anyone from the EPA, or the UN) is being overlooked as a potential usurping of and forfeiting of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

BLB68
July 28, 2013, 01:28 PM
That video in the OP goes too far off topic to be effective. The guy really needs to get to the point in explaining the problems that are specific to I-594.

I do appreciate the effort, but a shorter video that points out the hidden problems with the bill would pull in more of the fence sitters, whose votes we need. Thanks for your work on this.

sporterizin
July 28, 2013, 05:21 PM
I-594= Universal Background checks>Registration>Confiscation>Democide

Deer_Freak
August 3, 2013, 12:53 AM
Here in NC we have to get a permit from the local sheriff or have a CCP. But we can get 5 purchase permits at once for $5 each and they are good forever unless you do something to fail a background check at the time of purchase. So once you have purchase permits there is no waiting period. You just buy a pistol like a long gun until your permits are gone. To be frank, I would rather wait 24 hours for purchase permits one time in 5 than have a brady waiting period on every purchase. Most counties have a purchase permit ready the next business day.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a few people had to wait an extra day for a purchase permit. We have one deputy that will be on desk duty for the rest of his life from a helicopter crash. Now, we have another deputy on desk duty for an indefinite length of time due to a car accident. Things going fast in the office are nice but not due to our deputies being injured. They both have a family that loves them and they are respected members of our community.

hso
August 3, 2013, 08:19 AM
I don't know why you'd try to tie to a national standard since it already exists in the form of the fed mandated Brady check (which also provides that national standard). The language may be intended to limit the requirements of the background check to the Brady, but that's not clearly what is being said (many state, mine included, have added a couple of bits to the minimum the Brady calls out).

sporterizin
August 4, 2013, 01:35 PM
Well the problem starts when people forget that the only national standard is, ..."shall not be infringed." But here we have folks trying to impose something different and even legitimize anything other than what shall not be infringed upon. The 4473 which leads to the NICS is an infringement on what shall not be infringed upon...now we have those with the intent to completely, by state initiative, acquiesce to whomever and whatever they may come up with from the national level to infringe upon what shall not be infringed, without recourse. Does critical thinker in WA State really think that the liberal State Supreme Court will in any subsequent ruling, rule in favor any pretext of what shall not be infringed? I think not. To think otherwise is to whistle past the grave yard of all we have learned of those who would see themselves rule over free people.

outerlimit
August 4, 2013, 01:49 PM
"you must have a CPL or written permission from the local LEO to purchase a pistol"

Isn't the 2nd Amendment "written permission"? In what way is this possibly Constitutional..

sporterizin
August 4, 2013, 02:10 PM
"you must have a CPL or written permission from the local LEO to purchase a pistol"

^ This is an infringement when purchasing any firearm from an FFL. Any "new" uniform national standard, like Unversal background checks, will be infringements just as the current national standard, 4473---> NICS is an infringement.

"Isn't the 2nd Amendment "written permission"? In what way is this possibly Constitutional.."

^ NO! The 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of a right, NOT permission granted by another human. One man's right cannot be owned by another, therefore cannot be given or taken. Now granted man has made paper law that punishes people for violating said man made paper law which does infringe upon a natural, God given right. To acquiesce, or compromise or think of giving up a right is wrong wrong, wrong for those who would be free.

savage1r
August 11, 2013, 10:59 PM
Thanks for the compliments, tips, and suggestions. I appreciate you guys watching and hopefully getting this info out to fellow Washingtonians. Keep up the fight and call your reps and congress people!

2bfree
August 19, 2013, 02:04 PM
This is why if it goes to a public vote I think it will pass. Again King county is the largest voting county in the state and most there feel this is a good idea. Gun free zones in Seattle. Announced Today,
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/seattle/McGinn-Wash-CeaseFire-launch-Seattle-Gun-Free-Zone-program-220128521.html

outerlimit
August 23, 2013, 08:54 PM
sporterizin, philisophically I agree, but if it wasn't written down in the Constitution, I doubt it's a right we would still have.

mdauben
August 26, 2013, 11:37 AM
To be frank, I would rather wait 24 hours for purchase permits one time in 5 than have a brady waiting period on every purchase.
And I'd rather have neither, so its a good thing I live in a free state where I can walk into a gun store and walk out with any handgun, rifle or shotgun in the store within 15 minutes. ;)

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a few people had to wait an extra day for a purchase permit.
Why? Waiting periods are nothing but an additional burden on law abiding gun owners imposed by people who would just as soon confiscate every lawfully owned gun in the country. :mad:


We have one deputy that will be on desk duty for the rest of his life from a helicopter crash. Now, we have another deputy on desk duty for an indefinite length of time due to a car accident. Things going fast in the office are nice but not due to our deputies being injured. They both have a family that loves them and they are respected members of our community.
I'm sorry for these LEOs, but this has what do do with the discussion of purchase permits and waiting periods? :confused:

2bfree
October 5, 2013, 11:53 AM
Still very active.
"Advocates seeking to expand the use of background checks on gun sales in Washington state plan to submit their first batch of initiative petition signatures next week, the Secretary of State’s Office said Friday.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/10/05/2822120/gun-sales-initiative-plans-to.html

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/10/05/2822120/gun-sales-initiative-plans-to.html#storylink=cpy

Crashbox
October 5, 2013, 07:25 PM
Yep, in my opinion I-594 is rotten to the core. Every effort must be made to defeat it.

hso
October 8, 2013, 09:51 AM
The 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report state statistics are at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

They show the rate of crime by state and reveal that Washington's rate of 2.4/100,000 population is far below NJ (4.3), NY (4.0), and CA (4.8), states with just the sort of proposed infringements on ownership. Table 5 also shows that these crimes are committed 10 to 1 as often in the major metro areas of Washington (137) vs. the state as a whole (162). Why exactly would Washington want to follow California when California's murder rate is twice that of Washington?

savage1r
October 18, 2013, 08:29 AM
This video comes from another YouTuber showing extremely clear evidence of signature manipulation in the gathering for support of I-594. This guy deserves a medal and whoever the out of state company is should be investigated for fraud.

VIDEO LINK (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n93Zl_EEamA)

Bonus footage showing massive fraud (http://youtu.be/lui1ndWXKXQ)

silvermane_1
October 20, 2013, 10:32 AM
This video comes from another YouTuber showing extremely clear evidence of signature manipulation in the gathering for support of I-594. This guy deserves a medal and whoever the out of state company is should be investigated for fraud.

VIDEO LINK (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n93Zl_EEamA)

Bonus footage showing massive fraud (http://youtu.be/lui1ndWXKXQ)
if the Video shows fraud savage1r, we need to make sure it is shown to lawmakers.

JDBoardman
November 11, 2013, 06:53 PM
"Isn't the 2nd Amendment "written permission"? In what way is this possibly Constitutional.."

^ NO! The 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of a right, NOT permission granted by another human.

This is incorrect on BOTH accounts. We all need, as first principle, to understand that the Constitution is not a guarantor of our rights. Our rights derive from natural law, that is, from the condition of being a living, breathing human being. The United States Constitution, perhaps the most brilliant document ever written, is a series of limits on the actions of the Federal Government. The Constitution, from Article I to the 27th Amendment, restricts what government is allowed to do. We, the people, are not 'allowed' to own weapons, the Federal Government 'shall not infringe', that is, RESTRICT, our naturally existing right to keep and bear arms. We need no one's 'written permission' to exercise these natural rights - we can only surrender these rights, and even in doing so, we merely forego the ability to exercise these rights - the right itself does not cease to exist.

Now this of course presupposes a moral government, one that lives within its Constitutionally defined limits. This is something we no longer have, so by extension, our government has breached its covenant with its citizens, and we are no longer morally obligated to live within the dictates of the government. Since the government will then resort to enforcing its dictates by force (or threat of force) what we now have is no longer a Republic but Tyranny.

Dave Workman
November 12, 2013, 07:56 PM
Oh, my...where to begin?

First. thanks to everyone for their interest in the dueling initiatives..

I-594 is a 15-page gun control measure that would set up a far-reaching state level background check.

I-591 is a one-page measure that mandates that state background checks comply with a uniform national standard, and it also prohibits government gun confiscations without due process (anybody remember Hurricane Katrina?)

So, in answer to someone's earlier query: The "uniform national standard" that..as correctly pointed out..exists with the NICS system is the one to which the checks would have to continue complying.

Now..while it is nice to pontificate about the 2A being the only paperwork someone needs, and "shall not be infringed" means what it says, we all know — regardless whether we "like" it or not — that this is not the reality in any of the 50 states. Before anyone bites my head off as a "traitor" for even suggesting this, I'm not endorsing any of these laws, just saying that they exist and we live with and abide by them, like it or not.

What I-591 is attempting to do is prevent gun prohibitionists from adding more red tape and bureaucracy to the process in Washington state. The people backing I-594 are well-funded, and Michael Bloomberg hasn't even weighed in yet with any of his millions of $$$$$.

I've been writing about the dueling initiatives for months on my Examiner.com column, as many here know because they read my stuff regularly. Those who do should share the links now and then so everybody else can keep up.

I-591 has the backing of the Washington Arms Collectors, Washington State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Hunters Heritage Council, Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors' Assn., and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I-594 has the backing of a bunch of rich characters in Seattle and along the I-5 corridor, but mainly Seattle. Plus the usual anti-gun suspects.


I-591 could use all the $upport it can get, and that mean$ contribution$ to the campaign fund. It i$ that $imple. Find out more by clicking here (http://wagunrights.org/)

Keep your eyes on the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner column. I'll continue covering this battle as it unfolds.

stressed
November 12, 2013, 07:59 PM
Civil war era and before, you could walk right up to that liberal and challenge him to a duel, weather it be with blades, rifles or pistols. In fact it was a common occurrence among senators - republican against democrat and vice versa.

He wins, you sign the petition and surrender to registration. You win, the matter is squashed indefinitely.

Dave Workman
November 14, 2013, 05:51 PM
Stressed:

Alas, that may have been another time in another place... perhaps a fantasy place that is Gone With The Wind...

but the reality is we're here, and we're here now.

And as I wrote today, Bill Gates has just ponied up with $25K.

This ain't good. :cuss:

savage1r
November 14, 2013, 07:17 PM
Dave, I just want to say thank you for all the hard work you and your publication have been doing fighting for our rights over on the other side of the state. I hope that the video I produced can help out in some way to raise awareness of washington voters and get that awful piece of legislation voted down.

2bfree
November 21, 2013, 08:09 PM
Petitions turned in today for I-591
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Gun-rights-advocates-set-to-turn-in-initiative-signatures-232861581.html

col_temp
December 4, 2013, 01:35 PM
Thanks Dave,
There have been several great summaries in the WAC magazines over the past couple of months.
%94 is as bad as you could possibly think it would be. (And there is no LEO provision in so they would be just as limited and everyone else!)

Keep getting the message out and getting the petitions signed.

col_temp
December 4, 2013, 02:23 PM
For those of you who want more details:

https://washingtonarmscollectors.org/i-594-is-bad-law/

Point by point breakdown of all the problems with 594...

David4516
December 12, 2013, 12:07 PM
I'm confused though, is this going to the voters or directly to the state senate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/10/gun-control-initiative-likely-headed-to-washington-state-legislature/

"Washington allows citizens to file two types of initiatives: One puts a matter directly to a vote of the people, while the other puts an issue before the legislature. If the legislature doesn’t vote to pass the measure, it then goes to the next general election ballot. I-594 is the second type.

Supporters said they pursued an initiative to the legislature because groundwork had been laid during this year’s legislative session."

Sounds like we should be calling our reps...

2bfree
January 9, 2014, 03:19 PM
Remember to talk to every one you know, this will be a tough fight once it goes to the people of the state, King county is just to large and also anti. Also remember FTF is the only way to own an unregistered hand gun in this state.
http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-group-adds-30k-to-washington-gun-control-war-chest

David4516
January 9, 2014, 06:07 PM
This is going to the legislature and not the voters. The people of WA won't even get to vote on it. Please call your local reps that is the only thing that is going to help!

Edited to add:

I sent this message to my reps and state senator (3 politicians in total):

Hello,

I am a concerned citizen living in Yelm. I have a couple of quick questions for you regarding I-594. I recently read this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/10/gun-control-initiative-likely-headed-to-washington-state-legislature/

It states that this initiative will go directly to the state legislature if/when enough signatures are gathered:

"Washington allows citizens to file two types of initiatives: One puts a matter directly to a vote of the people, while the other puts an issue before the legislature..." "...I-594 is the second type."

So I am wondering if this is true, and if so, do you plan to vote for it?

My concern with 594 is that in order for it to be enforceable, I would think that you'd have to have a mandatory registration of all firearms in the state. I am a strong believer in individual rights, including the right to bear arms, and so this has me worried.

Thanks,

-David4516 (used my real name in the original letter)
Yelm, WA

Of the 3 that this was sent to (Randi Becker, Gary Alexander, and J.T. Wilcox) the only reply I got back was from Mr. Alexander, who apparently has just retired. Here is the reply:

Thank you for your email. Representative Alexander retired from the Legislature at the end of the year and his replacement has not yet been appointed. It is true Washington has 2 different types of initiatives and I-594 will go directly to the Legislature. The Legislature has the option of acting on the initiative or sending it to the people for a vote.

2bfree
January 9, 2014, 08:01 PM
The legislature did not pass this last year and at least it had an exclusion for CPL holders and LEO's. If the legislature does not pass it this year, it than goes to a vote of the people.

J_McLeod
January 9, 2014, 08:13 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I'm in the military, but own a home in WA and am still registered to vote. I'll write the representatives. If something like that passes I'm not coming back.

spottedpony
January 10, 2014, 10:42 AM
My thinking on this, regardless of the state or agency, is that it's a 4th amendment violation, regarding unreasonable search/seizure.
My reasoning is that a person has to be suspected of something for a legitimate search to occur, and a background check is a search, of sorts. Thus unless there is a justifiable reason for search, its unreasonable, per the 4th.

Along similar lines, the 5th is supposed to protect us against abuse of government authority. To quote “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
So, based on that, a firearm, for example, could not be confiscated without due process, which I take to mean at least a warrant issued by a judge.

David4516
January 17, 2014, 11:30 AM
Well I just received a reply from Mr. Wilcox, here it is:

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to share your concerns with me. I am a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights and will do what I can to protect those rights. On January 14th, I swore an oath to "uphold the Constitution and laws of the United State of America, the Constitution and the laws of the state of Washington." I stand by that oath.


I was encouraged by this repsonse. I wrote back:

Thank you for your reply. I am wondering if there is anything that I
can do as just a regular citizen to help, aside from just contacting
my representatives?

I hear that there will be a pro 2nd Amendment event this weekend at
the capital, and I will plan on going. But I'm not sure what to do
beyond that.

While I have some pretty strong opinions, I am not normally a
"politcally active" person. I am thinking it's time to be more active.
Waiting would be foolish, my fear is that once we lose our rights, we
won't be able to get them back.


Does anyone else from THR plan on showing up in Olympia this weekend?

shootingthebreeze
January 27, 2014, 09:52 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140126/urban-gun-violence-gains-attention-in-washington-greater-new-haven

If you read this article very carefully you will see a trend in the US with states, counties, cities, villages initiating firearm control measures due to Washington DC inaction.
Bloomberg, as an example, poured 30 million dollars into 594 (not I 594) so as you can see there is a quilt like firearm control tsunami going on in the US BECAUSE there is inaction at Washington DC.
My argument is this: the Second Amendment will be in danger IF a national addressing on the issue of firearm control IS NOT DONE. If flexibility on the part of firearm owners is not happening then see more quilt like laws springing up all over the US which will actually damage the Second Amendment more than if a national effort to study firearm control is not done.
I am a firearm owner and even have a CPL; my take on the subject is different than most here-and I look at the firearm situation in the US a little differently. You already have NY, IL, CA enacting at state level severe restrictions; that type of restriction creep is growing at the STATE level to a point I see in the future that firearm owners will have to have a manual to navigate through state, county city and village firearm laws throughout the US.
Only because at the national level inaction to address firearm control in a rational way is and will not be done.
For example, securing firearms is to me a priority for anyone. Accidental shooting deaths of children and stolen guns should not ever happen. It still does. The argument that "responsible gun owners lock their weapons" falls flat when I read about accidental shootings of children as an example. There should be zero incidents.

2bfree
January 27, 2014, 06:21 PM
The Giffords will be at the state legislature on 1/28 to speak on behalf of 594 and expanded background checks.

David4516
January 27, 2014, 06:39 PM
shootingthebreeze,

I hear what you are saying but you are assuming that their goal is to make people safer. It is not, their real goal is an full ban on guns. They're just slowly moving that direction, one little step at a time. Do you honestly think that if there was a nation wide "safe storage" requirment that the anti-gun folks will stop all their efforts?

Please check out this comic, I think it very clearly shows why pro-gun folks are so rigid and unwilling to "compromise":

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

2bfree,

One thing I've never understood is why do people who live outside the state (Giffords, Blumberg, etc) have so much influance? In my opinion they shouldn't have any voice at the WA state legislature...

steelerdude99
January 28, 2014, 07:24 PM
shootingthebreeze,

I hear what you are saying but you are assuming that their goal is to make people safer. It is not, their real goal is an full ban on guns. They're just slowly moving that direction, one little step at a time. Do you honestly think that if there was a nation wide "safe storage" requirement that the anti-gun folks will stop all their efforts?

...

Readers of "Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration" thread,
This shootingthebreeze guy is "singing the same song" on other threads here on THR. Below is a link to a recent thread about New Hampshire proposed UBC law. Like David4516 says and what I would say as well: inching away at freedoms by anti-gun persons will never stop until all guns are outlawed. As such, I can't advocate giving an inch.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=741666

If like the U.K., the U.S. Government manages to achieve a total ban... then gun and non-gun crime skyrockets as crooks will never give up what they have and those who can't find guns will resort to knives and other weapons. Do you think there will be a "mea culpa"? I doubt it too.

Bottom line... shootingthebreeze may be gun owner, a concealed carry holder and retired military, BUT he (or she perhaps) does not speak for me.

chuck

hartcreek
January 28, 2014, 09:36 PM
i am in the Yakima area and neither of the petitions seeem to have made it this way. I asked at a couple local gunshops today and just got blank looks.

Seattle fools have tried to get all kinds of city codes passed in the past. It appears that both iniatives already have enough Seattle signatures. The state attorney general now wonder what ig both of them pass then what as the one page iniative nullifies the other.

You can find links to the PDF files of each iniatitive and the site listed below.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/01/03/poll-gun-control-initiative-washington/

metalax
February 9, 2014, 02:41 AM
It seems no matter how many times these attempts to subvert our constitution
are voted down the big out of state money keeps coming back. Year after year they change a few words in the bill, drag another poor group of victims harmed by criminals and here we go again. They are like roaches they just don't seem to go away. I don't understand why, other than they are misinformed and being used like pawns to help the tyrannical government disarm American. JMHO

Wyatt
February 11, 2014, 07:35 PM
Sadly, I think the changing face of WA voters is very similar to CO. If this vote goes to the people, I think I-594 passes!

col_temp
February 20, 2014, 05:31 PM
Sadly, I think the changing face of WA voters is very similar to CO. If this vote goes to the people, I think I-594 passes!

A Lot of that depends on King County the liberal basket case of WA state.
Also, wouldn't it be interesting to see the results if both 594 and 591 pass. 591 basically invalidates 594!

The biggest advantage is if this goes to the ballot (Likely).
Maybe we will finally get the rest of the more conservative parts of the state to actually vote, thus getting rid of more of the crazy Democrats in the various legislative bodies.

2bfree
April 20, 2014, 02:22 PM
Got my first pro 594 phone call Friday, started out telling me why I should support it, predictably he left a lot out. In the end he asked if I would support them. When I said no he asked why ? When I started to explain it to him he just hung up. It has started, and vote is not till November !

georgejeanlouis
April 21, 2014, 12:23 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...

click through the next site (http://duilawyerrightnow.com/)

silicosys4
April 21, 2014, 12:58 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...

which is why we have laws that specify which criminal acts cause one to lose their gun rights. If you mean incrementally giving up our rights via a series of erosions that do nothing to address the problem being named as "responsible" than you will find opposition here.
First post...I smell troll.

2bfree
April 21, 2014, 01:11 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ... That is why I will not sell to a known criminal. I 594 does nothing to meet your statement. It is gun registration period.

stonecutter2
April 21, 2014, 04:16 PM
That's starting early.

Good luck with this fight.

stonecutter2
April 21, 2014, 04:17 PM
Got my first pro 594 phone call Friday, started out telling me why I should support it, predictably he left a lot out. In the end he asked if I would support them. When I said no he asked why ? When I started to explain it to him he just hung up. It has started, and vote is not till November !
Forgot to include the quote with my reply, oops. :o

Good luck!!

stonecutter2
April 21, 2014, 04:23 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
Right, but the trick is to not just create more criminals out of people who are doing nothing but obeying the law and enjoying their freedoms. Registration schemes have the potential for that.

I've started huge debates elsewhere regarding registration, that ended up full of scathing accusations and rhetoric ...so all I'll say here is - if you don't want it, defend your position and take action.

Every American can work to make this country whatever they want it to be.

bikemutt
April 21, 2014, 06:16 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
That's all fine and good, problem is, with the lone exception of the Sandy Hook nutcase, those crazies all passed the background check when they bought their guns. Sandy Hook didn't feel like waiting so he killed his mom first, then took her guns.

All the background checks in the world aren't worth a thing if mentally unstable individuals aren't known to the system. And it's almost a sure bet if an effort is made to enroll more of them earlier, the ACLU will be up in arms.

And criminals, what to do with those pesky persons, they don't even know what a background check is, no more so than bank robbers know what a withdrawal slip is.

In summary, this initiative will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of crazies or criminals.

David4516
April 21, 2014, 07:03 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals


I mostly agree with this. But I think you could change this to read:

"We are responsible for keeping criminals out of society"

What I mean by that is, if you have a person who is so dangerous that you cannot trust them with a weapon, then why are we letting them out of jail and back into society?

Some folks have such a high probability of becoming a "repeat offender" that it just boggles my mind they get let out at all.

I also don't see how this law would be effective at all in stopping crime. Bad guys will continue to obtain their weapons by either theft or the black market. The is no way that they're going to do a background check. And on those rare times when a criminal is dumb enough to try a background check, and fail it, they are almost never prosecuted.

I think this law, if passed, will only do two things:

#1: Create a registry of all gun owners (to be used for later confinscation I'm sure)

#2: Raise alot of revenue for the goverment (what is the background check fee these days? $10?)

bikemutt
April 21, 2014, 08:26 PM
I'm sure some of Bloomberg's $50M will find it's way here, watch their new language, now they talk about "illegal" guns. They will try to tie this to "illegal" guns, you know, not "legal" guns. I guess they don't want to offend "legal" gun owners. Too bad we're just collateral damage on hizzoner's highway to heaven.

2bfree
April 21, 2014, 08:53 PM
I'm sure some of Bloomberg's $50M will find it's way here He has already given them 30,000. to get started.

Hacker15E
April 21, 2014, 09:53 PM
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...

The burden of proof is on the ones proposing the new laws to explain exactly how those new laws would do this.

As of currently, I have yet to see a cogent explanation of that.

2bfree
May 13, 2014, 01:02 PM
Just keeping it on your Minds.
" virtually every firearm transfer - with very few and limited exceptions - would be required to go through a licensed firearms dealer under the provisions of I-594. I-594 will specifically regulate transfers, not sales. Under the language of I-594, in virtually all cases, a person merely handing his or her firearm to a family member or a friend cannot do so without brokering the transfer through a gun dealer with the accompanying paperwork, fees, and in the case of handguns, state registration. I-594 also doubles the state waiting period on handgun sales from five to ten days and extends it to every private transfer of any handgun!

2bfree
May 31, 2014, 12:33 PM
Another I 594 Kick Off :banghead:
"Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman asks in his article on May 15 Just How Many Kick-off’s does a gun control group need? – citing several kick-off’s thrown by the anti-gun Seattle liberal elitists and I-594 promoters populating “Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility” over the last year or so."
https://washingtonarmscollectors.org/2014/05/just-how-many-kickoffs-does-a-gun-control-group-need/

2bfree
July 4, 2014, 02:49 PM
The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS), the state’s largest and oldest law enforcement group representing more than 4,500 active duty police officers and sheriff's deputies, dealt a serious blow to Evergreen State gun prohibitionists this morning, confirming to Examiner via telephone that it will oppose Initiative 594 and support Initiative 591, making it the second statewide law enforcement group to take that position.
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-wacops-votes-to-oppose-gun-control-initiative-back-i-591

ohbythebay
July 7, 2014, 02:51 PM
WHat can we do to get the word out more about 591 YES/594 NO ?

2bfree
July 15, 2014, 05:52 PM
Poll shows I594 in the lead, likely to pass. hard to overcome the big money behind it.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/07/15/3289332/poll-strong-support-for-gun-background.html?sp=/99/289/&ihp=1

ohbythebay
July 15, 2014, 06:02 PM
Tell me how I can help....thanks

2bfree
July 15, 2014, 08:51 PM
You can tell all you know what is bad about I594 and good about I 591 + donate here. http://wagunrights.org/

The_Next_Generation
July 15, 2014, 09:14 PM
Tell has many fence-sitters as you can to vote no on 594. Yeah, a vote for 591 would be great, but at this point its probably easier to just get them to vote no on 594.

If this passes, it'll be an all-time low for WA...if it weren't for the climbing opportunities on Mt. Rainier and programming jobs in the Puget Sound area, I would move. The rest of the state is in good-shape, I will stay and fight for my rights!

R.Greene
July 18, 2014, 05:03 PM
Someone please help me - how do you explain to the average person who is not a gun owner/shooter/enthusiast that prop 594 is a bad idea? You know someone who doesn't care about guns is not going to read the 18+ pages of the actual proposition text.
This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ] How do you get someone to not say, "Sounds like a good idea, why not?" Yes [x] CHECK!

2bfree
July 18, 2014, 06:24 PM
You might listen to this for a few ideas.
http://kiroradio.com/listen/9974473/#

Theohazard
August 13, 2014, 04:02 PM
Someone please help me - how do you explain to the average person who is not a gun owner/shooter/enthusiast that prop 594 is a bad idea?
Just point out that merely handing a gun to a friend would be illegal under most circumstances. Lots of non-gun people are still interested in going shooting, but taking them shooting at a non-officially-sanctioned range would be illegal.

I have a bunch of non-gun-owning friends whose politics lean toward the anti-gun side of the spectrum. But they've still expressed interest in going shooting. And since I don't shoot at an official range, I've been pointing out to them that we need to go shooting before I-594 makes it illegal.

Leanwolf
August 13, 2014, 11:58 PM
Another left wing mega-billionaire (Microsoft) and his wife donate upward of one million $$$$ to the I-594 campaign to destroy Second Amendment Rights in Washington.

Wannabee tyrants can't allow the worker peasants, serfs, and slaves to be armed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/08/12/New-Clippers-Owner-Steve-Ballmer-Wife-Have-Spent-600K-Backing-Gun-Control

L.W.

Old Dog
August 14, 2014, 03:32 PM
Washington state has long had a great tradition of no laws that hamper private transactions involving firearms. Alas, this appears ready to come to a screeching halt.

Should this law pass (and it looks most regrettably this will happen), there will be so many unintended consequences it won't be funny.

There is so much of this law as written that will be unenforceable. As always, it will be the normally law-abiding citizen that will suffer.

Not all that long ago, I had occasion to loan a pistol to a woman who'd suffered horrific long-term physical abuse at the hands of an ex-boyfriend ... She felt compelled to arm herself as this cretin kept stalking her. We took her shooting, gave her a gun to keep with her in her home. A restraining order was in effect, yet as a non-CPL holder, she was subject to the waiting period. With 594, guess what'll happen ...

TMCCOY
August 24, 2014, 11:17 AM
I sent an email off to a few of my "valued" democratic leaders here in WA state and in return, I rec'd one form response from Maria Cantwell that espoused all the efforts of the anti-gun group. Clearly, they don't intend to listen to the people on the other side of the issue.

2bfree
August 24, 2014, 02:55 PM
Yes she is also for an assault weapon ban and 10 round mags.
Remember, I 594 is a public vote, our state leaders had a chance to vote on I 594 and I 591 and decided not to and send it to the people.

bikemutt
August 24, 2014, 07:05 PM
I've read i-594 cover to cover and am wondering what other Washingtonians consider the most innocuous elements, and the most odius?

2bfree
August 25, 2014, 12:57 PM
There is nothing in the 18 pages of this proposed law that I like. There is not one thing in it I would vote for if it was all by itself. So, nothing more innocuous or odious.

bikemutt
August 25, 2014, 10:04 PM
There is nothing in the 18 pages of this proposed law that I like. There is not one thing in it I would vote for if it was all by itself. So, nothing more innocuous or odious.
I'm not voting for it either but you and I plus two or three friends aren't going to make it go down to defeat. Even the best Trojan horse has an Achilles heal, if we don't identify that come November, you know the rest of the story. These guys have mega millions to push their message, we don't.

TMCCOY
August 26, 2014, 10:35 AM
I read Bill Gates is jumping on the Bloomberg wagon contributing $1M. I wonder where the pro 2A Billionaires are.

2bfree
August 26, 2014, 02:07 PM
I'm not voting for it either but you and I plus two or three friends aren't going to make it go down to defeat. Even the best Trojan horse has an Achilles heal, if we don't identify that come November, you know the rest of the story. These guys have mega millions to push their message, we don't. The Trogan here is all media, radio, tv, print, is being sold as just a background checks law. No mention that it also includes registration with the state all future handgun transfers, a 10 day waiting period, no longer being able to take a friend to the range and let him try your gun, being able to loan a hundgun to a daughter if she is being stalked, also no exclusion for those who have a CPL having already passed a more intensive BGC + finger printing.
Those are just a few of the things I 594 will do. I have no idea at this point how to beat it. They have over 6 million so far and the media is not going to change.

leadcounsel
August 26, 2014, 03:00 PM
Yep, it's terrible.

Share this information with all WA voters.

https://www.voteno594.com/initiative-594/

Trent
August 26, 2014, 07:56 PM
Click here for Nasty anti-gun opinion propaganda piece (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-nra-pissed-off-the-wrong-nerd-genius.html)

(URL actually contained foul language so I embedded the link)


Ugh. Definitely confirms Bill gates at 1 million, but also indicates Paul Allen (microsoft co-founder) kicked in another $500,000.

Midwest
August 26, 2014, 08:03 PM
I read Bill Gates is jumping on the Bloomberg wagon contributing $1M. I wonder where the pro 2A Billionaires are.
Here is the article

Bill Gates, wife give $1 million to gun control

This story even made the website of the local NBC affiliate in Cincinnati, WLWT.

http://www.wlwt.com/money/bill-gates-and-his-wife-give-1-million-to-gun-control-push/27739896#!bKMBbA

"Previously, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen gave $500,000 to the group, while recently retired Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gave $250,000 and his wife Connie contributed $330,000.

It's not just Microsoft billionaires throwing big bucks at the gun control campaign. Tech venture capitalist Nick Hanauer contributed an additional $1 million, according to the filing, on top of his earlier contributions of $335,000."


.

bikemutt
August 26, 2014, 08:25 PM
One theory I have for this "giving" is the NRA has traditionally been the 800 lb giving gorilla in the room, essentially swooping in to convince voters and congress critters to dump the proposal de jour at the last minute.

Well, NRA went bat-breath after President Obama, they still do. I always figured this was a bad idea on their part, but I'm just a lowly member. Doesn't matter who your guy is, the group pounding him is the enemy.

Think about it for a minute, this is payback. They've watched the NRA-won game plays, they get it, timely big money wins every time.

Praxidike
August 27, 2014, 12:21 AM
What are the chances of this passing?

leadcounsel
August 27, 2014, 04:22 AM
What are the chances of this passing?

Let's see - in one of just two states that managed to legalize pot, WA is fairly liberal. Colorado has fallen to anti-gunners in the last decade. There's a good chance WA falls too unless people get out in droves to fight these idiots.

bikemutt
August 27, 2014, 09:34 AM
What are the chances of this passing?
The best hope for defeating I-594 is passing I-591. 591 essentially says WA will not adopt any transfer requirements that exceed those required under federal law. It would effectively neuter 594. The rabid anti-gunners will vote for 594 and against 591, the reverse is true for pro-gunners.

So, as usual, it will be the folks in the middle who decide the outcome, that's who the 594 ad campaign will be targeting, the ads I've seen so far are slick and decidedly mainstream in nature.

The 591 side needs to figure out how to get through to the same voter block. I wish them luck, most of those voters probably don't care one way or the other.

2bfree
August 27, 2014, 01:30 PM
the ads I've seen so far are slick and decidedly mainstream in nature.
All the TV ads that are currently running supposedly have no connection to I 594 . I have not been able to find out where they get their money. http://www.backgroundchecksmakeadifference.com/

bikemutt
August 27, 2014, 03:21 PM
Ah yes, it's the old connect-the-dots scheme. Convince as many as possible that "universal" background checks reduce crime, save lives, then later, when time is getting tight, connect 594 with "universal" background checks. Never mind what else it does, the positive connection has been made.

About the only counter point I can imagine is connecting Bloomberg with an overbearing nanny, then connect him with 594 later, who knows, it might work.

OilyPablo
August 27, 2014, 08:49 PM
How about some out of state help? I for one sent money to Colorado.

https://www.voteno594.com/

https://www.voteno594.com/initiative-594/

Donate Here: http://wagunrights.org/

JTHunter
August 28, 2014, 01:12 AM
This is a good example where certain people have more "dollars" than "cents" (sense)! :cuss: :banghead: :D

OilyPablo
August 29, 2014, 10:23 AM
Here is a list of myths about I-594:

http://pws.cablespeed.com/~pablomail//small594.pdf

By all means, print and distribute.

bikemutt
August 29, 2014, 07:51 PM
thanks OilyPablo, good reference.

marv
August 29, 2014, 07:56 PM
Since Bill Gates has donated a gazillion bucks to the cause in WA, shouldn't we be boycotting Microsoft?

bikemutt
August 29, 2014, 08:08 PM
Bloomberg just kicked in (another?) million dollars today according to local news sources.

Maybe boycott Bloomberg news too?

Look, boycotts will not work in this case. Maybe unwrapping outrage over having constitutionally protected rights sold down the river to the highest bidders will.

I smell the Achilles heal.

OilyPablo
August 29, 2014, 08:17 PM
I think both are a start.

Praxidike
August 30, 2014, 12:09 AM
I was concerned at first, but now I believe that voters there should get what they are asking for. All they hear is "background checks for criminals" and "closing thew loophole for criminals" without reading or understanding the ramifications of the other things that are purposely NOT being promoted. To that, I say that they should get what they deserve which is going to be them or a family member with a criminal record. Once they realize everything they voted for, it will be too late.

Even CA isn't this strict when it comes to allowing other (friends, partners, family, etc) borrow or shoot firearms... I hope they get what they bargained for and the negative publicity, ranting, raving, and stories about WA soccer moms and dads who never been in trouble but are suddenly felons will work in our favor.

OilyPablo
August 30, 2014, 12:31 AM
I believe that voters there should get what they are asking for.

Who is this "they" you are speaking about pancho?

Methinks if this was you, you would not so willingly wish this on yourself. And gee thanks for that.

steelerdude99
August 30, 2014, 07:59 AM
I was concerned at first, but now I believe that voters there should get what they are asking for. All they hear is "background checks for criminals" and "closing thew loophole for criminals" without reading or understanding the ramifications of the other things that are purposely NOT being promoted. To that, I say that they should get what they deserve which is going to be them or a family member with a criminal record. Once they realize everything they voted for, it will be too late.

...

Most gun control advocates in WA are not worried as they don't expect to be affected by 594 passing as they don't typically have a firearm in the first place. (Yes, we all know there are gun control hypocrites who are against everyone else owning firearms) But anyhow, all the money being pushed towards 594 passing is not going to affect the pro-gun 10% or the ant-gun 10% vote. 594 backers are going after the votes of 80% who may own a firearm, but are undecided on how strict the law should be.

As a non-WA resident... I am hoping that if 594 passes that at least 591 passes as well ... just to gum up the works. Just making the numbers of each initiative close to one another (594 vs. 591) in the same election will undoubtedly cause some level confusion. As I am very far from WA and don't see local advertising, I wonder if 594 backers are advocating just "594 passage" OR "594 passing along with voting NO on 591" (??).

Polls don't matter; it's voter turn-out that maters.

chuck

crazysccrmd
August 30, 2014, 04:44 PM
I vote in WA, but don't live there and haven't seen any of the ads. I'm sure they are completely sensationalized with lots of young kids playing and short on factual information. I wish we could pass a law requiring TV and print ads for political issues to only state the facts about the law without the spin. That might make people actually think about what they are voting about.

Praxidike
August 30, 2014, 06:47 PM
Who is this "they" you are speaking about pancho?

Methinks if this was you, you would not so willingly wish this on yourself. And gee thanks for that.
"They" are the voters of WA who voted this into law should it pass.

OilyPablo
August 30, 2014, 06:49 PM
Yes, well let's still work on defeating it. Most people here still have not even heard of it.

Praxidike
August 30, 2014, 06:49 PM
I vote in WA, but don't live there and haven't seen any of the ads. I'm sure they are completely sensationalized with lots of young kids playing and short on factual information. I wish we could pass a law requiring TV and print ads for political issues to only state the facts about the law without the spin. That might make people actually think about what they are voting about.
You're exactly right. people do not know what they are voting for. If this does not become law, then great. If it does become law, then there will be backlash after the fact which will work in our favor.

I don't think that there should be a law about misleading political TV and print ads. I think that there should be a law that voters are only allowed to vote on a new law IF they actually read the law instead of getting all of their info from TV ads.

TMCCOY
August 31, 2014, 11:52 AM
Despite what some think, Gov't is at the top of the food chain. Stop feeding it with more power by how you vote...

Bobson
September 1, 2014, 04:40 AM
I live in Snohomish County, WA. I haven't seen or heard any ads for either 594 or 591, ever. Everything I know about them, I've read here. I don't know how regularly they're aired, or what, but I think the only chance we have to combat 594 (and maybe this is already super obvious to everyone) is by using social media to get the word out.

Is everyone posting the "real" info about 594 on at least a semi-regular basis on Facebook?

Yeah, most of us probably have friends who already have many of the same views as us anyway, but if those friends keep sharing/liking informative posts, eventually there will be fence-sitters who see it. That's the most sure way to get the real info widespread for free, IMO. So be blasting FB and whatever else with the truth about 594, and encourage everyone to vote No. Meanwhile, praise 591 and encourage everyone to vote yes. Post them weekly, at least. Keep them factual and concise, but clear and convincing.

As we get closer and closer, we should be posting these things with increasing regularity. For the final two weeks before the vote, I'll be posting every single day.

OilyPablo
September 1, 2014, 09:38 AM
Bobson - good plan.

For awhile King 5 was blasting the pro background check ad.

Meanwhile - donate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZOvOgmaMgA&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZOvOgmaMgA&feature=youtu.be

Mjolnirs
September 3, 2014, 06:56 PM
I live in the Central region of Washington State.
This bill will not pass here, but unfortunately, King County swings this whole state.

Mjolnirs

Bobson
September 4, 2014, 03:45 AM
Recently, I read that if both 591 and 594 were to pass, they would somehow "cancel" each other out. I'm not sure if that was the exact wording used, but that was the gist of the comment.

Can anyone elaborate on this? It doesn't make much sense to me, as 591 seems to only be about emphasizing that Constitutionally-defined "illegal searches" are ...still illegal.

Should I be telling people to vote No on 594 AND vote Yes on 591? Given the option, I'd prefer that both initiatives fail, rather than see both initiatives pass. Obviously an ideal outcome is that 591 passes while 594 fails, but that seems ridiculously optimistic at this point. I'm concerned that if I'm vocal about both initiatives, people who only half-listened may be confused come November, and on the chance that I would have influenced any votes, they unintentionally vote No on 591 and Yes on 594... what a nightmare.

Probably best to just stick with, "Vote no on 594" (plus reasons) at this point, right?

OilyPablo
September 4, 2014, 07:27 AM
Should I be telling people to vote No on 594 AND vote Yes on 591?

I am. But yes follow up with, "Vote NO on 594 no matter what".

I now wish Gottlieb wasn't doing the 591 thing. ALL money seems to go to that, not fighting 594.

Ryanxia
September 4, 2014, 08:12 AM
Fight your hardest, for we can only lose Freedom once.

silvermane_1
September 5, 2014, 04:53 AM
i despise both I-591 and I-594, but I-591 is the "lesser evil" of the two. :(

Red Wind
September 5, 2014, 06:33 PM
Fight your hardest, for we can only lose Freedom once.

The Truth. If this passes, all of Washington State ,becomes in a precarious position.

OilyPablo
September 5, 2014, 06:48 PM
We could use a little help here!

Red Wind
September 5, 2014, 06:59 PM
We could use a little help here!

We will do our very best.

EMNofSeattle
September 7, 2014, 04:23 PM
If you don't live in WA, call the NRA and say you're ashamed that they're not vigorously fighting 594, they've spent only 25k so far and they claim they won't go above 125 thousand to fight a yes campaign that has 5 million on hand. I have called and said I'll cancel my membership if they don't find it and 594 wins.

However if gun owners across the country threaten the to do the same over this maybe they'll pump in some ads. They produced a really good ad, but I haven't seen it on TV, only the Internet.

Bobson
September 7, 2014, 06:19 PM
That's a great idea, EMN. Wish someone had thought of that six months ago, but maybe it's not too late.

bikemutt
September 7, 2014, 08:31 PM
The central tenent of 594 is that under present state law violent felons and the mentally ill can buy a gun "no questions asked". It doesn't matter if anyone actually sells guns with no questions asked, or if felons and crazy people seek to exploit the "loophole", if it can happen, it might.

If someone like the NRA came along with more money to fight 594 than bloomberg and company have to push it, what sort of message, or messages do you imagine it would take to win?

I think we need ideas more than we need money, time is short, get creative please.

Bobson
September 8, 2014, 01:50 AM
The central tenet of 594 is that under present state law violent felons and the mentally ill can buy a gun "no questions asked".
Well I hate to say it, but... that's correct - at least in theory. Isn't that true in every single state in America, as no state has a "universal background check" law (IE, a law prohibiting the private sale of firearms without a background check)?

Doesn't bother me at all.

I'm not in favor of the background check thing, but I can totally understand why many people are. My concern is all the extra garbage being shoveled into the bill without it being out in the open.

bikemutt
September 8, 2014, 08:01 AM
I'm not in favor of the background check thing, but I can totally understand why many people are. My concern is all the extra garbage being shoveled into the bill without it being out in the open.

And that's the problem with fighting 594; it does some "good" in the form of UBC (I'm not saying I think that's good), and it does some bad. Well, most acts, initiatives and laws are like that, some good, some bad. The proponents of 594 are certainly not going to trot out the bad part and their accomplices in the media sure aren't.

The opponents of 594 would be committing political suicide going after the UBC end of this dragon; "so you think it's OK for violent felons to buy guns no questions asked?". I think the only strategy that has a chance of turning this megasaurus around is to identify the top 3 bad elements and go after them in earnest.

I believe most voters in the middle will not support a change which they believe does more harm than good, but they have to be convinced in the first place.

Personally, I think the #1 worst element of this proposed law is the undue burden it seeks to put on law abiding citizens who may find themselves in need of a timely self-defense. I'd like to rename 594 the "Violent Domestic Partner Empowerment Act".

phil dirt
September 8, 2014, 08:07 AM
Here in Washington State, Seattle and King County voters pretty much run the entire state. Plus, we've got ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Paul Allen, the owner of the Seattle Seahawks, Bill Gates of Microsoft and numerous other fat cats are pouring in money to push I-594. Most everyday, the anti-gun Seattle Times runs another totally biased editorial. So far, the NRA seems to have pretty much written us off, so no money there, at least not yet. Thus, we are being out spent about ten to one.

I'm trying to stay optimistic, but we need a lot more money. If we lose this fight, Bloomberg and his ilk will have won another battle, and gun owners in other parts of the country will be next.

silicosys4
September 8, 2014, 05:02 PM
I have the unfortunate feeling that come November, I'll be finding another state to live in. This is a huge step and not one I'll stick around for. If they get away with this one, give it 10 years and Washington will be another NY or California, and I'm about 80% sure it will pass by the numbers.

Dammit...we JUST got SBR's too.

As others have mentioned, this is being steamrolled pretty hard by the I-5 corridor. I've seen a few of the ads on tv, but I have the feeling they are keeping those ads in the corridor where they will be seen by the most anti's....as soon as you get out of the corridor its almost all pro2a. They really aren't trying to convince anybody, they are just reminding the corridor to get out and vote, and to remember what to vote for...they know they already have the votes.
My only hope is that there is a sleeping giant in the rural areas that might be woken, something to end this democratic kingdom that is washington state politics. Pretty much a long shot though.

OilyPablo
September 8, 2014, 08:21 PM
So many people just don't vote. Arrgh.....

bikemutt
September 8, 2014, 09:06 PM
Saw the first(to me) lying ad from 594 today, criminals who fail a BG check buying guns off gunbroker.com (online to use the parlance).

Don't know about anyone else but I sure had to pass a BG check on EVERY gunbroker.com purchase I've ever completed.

This is good, lying is a sign of weakness. Keep lying.

Bobson
September 8, 2014, 09:10 PM
I have the unfortunate feeling that come November, I'll be finding another state to live in. This is a huge step and not one I'll stick around for.
Ditto. I'll stick around until I finish school, but this is a law I'm not willing to live with.

Ryanxia
September 9, 2014, 09:37 AM
If you don't live in WA, call the NRA and say you're ashamed that they're not vigorously fighting 594, they've spent only 25k so far and they claim they won't go above 125 thousand to fight a yes campaign that has 5 million on hand. I have called and said I'll cancel my membership if they don't find it and 594 wins.

However if gun owners across the country threaten the to do the same over this maybe they'll pump in some ads. They produced a really good ad, but I haven't seen it on TV, only the Internet.
They've spent $25,000 to help you and you're whining that you're going to cancel your membership? I'm sorry but the NRA is not a big brother that will solve all your problems. Members of each state need to be taking the bull by the horns.
The NRA does a lot on the national level as well as state but they can't be involved in every issue. The fact that you got some help from them already is something to be thankful for.

Good luck to all of you.

silicosys4
September 9, 2014, 12:35 PM
They've spent $25,000 to help you and you're whining that you're going to cancel your membership? I'm sorry but the NRA is not a big brother that will solve all your problems. Members of each state need to be taking the bull by the horns.
The NRA does a lot on the national level as well as state but they can't be involved in every issue. The fact that you got some help from them already is something to be thankful for.

Good luck to all of you.

All fine and good...unless you live in Washington and have watched MUCH more money being spent elsewhere to protect other people's rights, and then watch the NRA pretty much ignore the same threats to yours that they made a huge effort against for others.

$25,000 is an insult when I guarantee there are much higher amounts than that in membership dues coming out of Washington state.

You know what? There is probably more coming out of my freakin county alone.

If Washington I-594 were getting much more publicity nationally, the NRA would be much more involved, I guarantee it

I am not a member so I can watch the NRA use my dues to fight for OTHER people's rights in OTHER places, then COMPLETELY drop the ball when the pooh hits the fan in my state.

Sorely dissapointed in the lack of NRA support in Washington. Right now I am having to really keep a calm head when I think about renewing my membership and remember the fight that the NRA has given nationally
because they sure aren't doing squat where it actually impacts me.
emailing them now to complain

Bobson
September 9, 2014, 03:45 PM
If 594 passes, couldn't we have it forcibly repealed (or whatever the correct term for that is) on the grounds that it openly violates the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986 (which made it a federal crime for either state or federal government to maintain a firearm registry)?

OilyPablo
September 9, 2014, 03:56 PM
It could be challenged on various fronts. Including violations of the initiative process laws which includes statutes that limit the topics of individual initiatives. The fact that the initiative contains wrong information about sales vs. use tax for example.

bikemutt
September 9, 2014, 08:44 PM
Wasn't the 10 day waiting period just ruled unconstitutional in California? Goodness knows if CA says any restriction on 2A rights is unconstitutional, it could happen here.

Ryanxia
September 10, 2014, 07:54 AM
silicosys4 - I understand your frustration, but do you understand that the NRA and the NRA-ILA are basically two separate organizations? To the best of my knowledge regular membership dues do not go towards the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) which was created to combat Bills like I-594. That's why I try to encourage people to donate to the NRA-ILA so we have more money to work with.

Did some digging. This is from an old letter.
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.

Due to various laws, the NRA-ILA is a separate entity and it does not receive any funding from normal membership dues. The NRA-ILA's funding comes from separate member donations specifically contributed to support our lobbying and political activities.

Normal member dues support training, education, shooting sports activities and the cost of the magazine.

Again, thank you for your inquiry and please do not hesitate to share any of your thoughts or concerns in the future.

Sincerely,
Kyle C
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

bikemutt
September 10, 2014, 07:51 PM
Looks as if the NRA has sent in more than the paltry $25k mentioned earlier: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2014/09/10/nra-sends-more-money-to-fight-i-594/?syndication=rss

Ryanxia
September 11, 2014, 09:08 AM
FTA bikemutt linked:
But today, the state’s disclosure site shows donations that bring the NRA’s contributions to nearly $200,000. The NRA donated $100,000 on Aug. 18, another $31,500 on Aug. 27, and $35,000 on Aug. 7.

Sweet. :D

OilyPablo
September 11, 2014, 09:12 AM
I feel like finally people are starting to realize the insidious nature of this poorly written initiative. I'm really reaching. ...stretching. ..for me to have convinced over 20 people AND have TWO bumper stickers on my car is way outside my typical comfort zone. Oddly it feels good. Keep up the good fight! !

David4516
September 11, 2014, 05:47 PM
I honestly think 594 is going to pass, by a landslide.

People hear "background checks" and will want to vote "yes" without looking at the fine print.

I sure hope I'm wrong...

I am trying to tell people that if this passes I can't take them to the range to shoot with me, because if I let them shoot my guns we'll both become felons.

Also I saw this article about 594 today, thought I'd share:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/10/WA-state-Gun-Control-Ballot-Measure-May-Turn-Shooters-at-Ranges-Into-Criminals

David4516
September 11, 2014, 05:52 PM
Also I'd like to put "no on I594" signs in my yard and bumper stickers on my car. But if I do that I might as well put up a sign that reads "wait until I leave for work and then steal all my guns". How can I publicly show opposition for this without inviting burglars into my home?

OilyPablo
September 11, 2014, 05:52 PM
Well everyone can help. Convince those people to vote no. No on I 594.

OilyPablo
September 11, 2014, 05:57 PM
Also I'd like to put "no on I594" signs in my yard and bumper stickers on my car. But if I do that I might as well put up a sign that reads "wait until I leave for work and then steal all my guns". How can I publicly show opposition for this without inviting burglars into my home?
Put the signs on the road.

bikemutt
September 12, 2014, 07:15 AM
Also I'd like to put "no on I594" signs in my yard and bumper stickers on my car. But if I do that I might as well put up a sign that reads "wait until I leave for work and then steal all my guns". How can I publicly show opposition for this without inviting burglars into my home?
Put them in any anti-gun neighbor's yard?

Just kidding...

OilyPablo
September 12, 2014, 08:35 AM
I figure I will risk it for 7 weeks. We ALL need to move out of our comfort zones.

http://seattleguns.net/showthread.php?202052-SGN-WaGuns-GUN-RAFFLE!-To-benefit-pro-591-anti-594-efforts

Ryanxia
September 12, 2014, 09:15 AM
I figure I will risk it for 7 weeks. We ALL need to move out of our comfort zones.

http://seattleguns.net/showthread.php?202052-SGN-WaGuns-GUN-RAFFLE!-To-benefit-pro-591-anti-594-efforts
Your link doesn't work for non members of that site.

OilyPablo
September 12, 2014, 09:32 AM
Understood. Meant for local guys. Easy to join the site though.

SGN/WaGuns GUN RAFFLE! -- To benefit pro-591, anti-594 efforts

In an effort to further the fight to keep our rights, some VERY generous individuals have donated firearms and ammo to support the cause!


This is a joint SGN-WaGuns raffle; we will be selling raising money on both sites. We're all in this anti-594 fight together!

Here's how this will work:

- You can buy one chance (i.e., one "ticket") to win for $5. You can buy as many chances as you like.
- The raffle will end at 9:00 p.m. on Monday, September 29th. At that time, we will draw as many names as there are prizes (currently seven). The first name drawn will have his choice of prize; the second name will get second choice, and so on until all are spoken for.
- The winners of firearms win the right to buy the selected firearm for $10. The firearm is not free; it will cost the winner $10. (This is for legal reasons.) Note that the non-firearm prizes do not require a $10 purchase price.

100% of all money raised (less any PayPal or credit card fees, and not including the $10 purchase price of each gun) will be passed along; 50% will be given to Protect Our Gun Rights (POGR) (committed to passing I591) and 50% will be given to WeCARE (committed to defeating I594).

http://www.594badlaw.com/

http://wagunrights.org/

Bobson
September 12, 2014, 03:23 PM
I honestly think 594 is going to pass, by a landslide.

People hear "background checks" and will want to vote "yes" without looking at the fine print.
Not surprising, given this is what the ballot will read:


Initiative Measure No. 594 concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers.

This measure would apply the currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
How is that legal? Anyone familiar with the bill knows this is horrendously misleading. I understand a bill can't have its full text there on the ballot, but if a bill serves to change several different things, who gets to say which of those are represented on the ballot? I mean... that's BS. It would be like a history book detailing Obama's presidency by informing the reader that he's black, and leaving it at that.

OilyPablo
September 13, 2014, 06:50 PM
If you have a stomach for this sort of thing:

http://www.katu.com/politics/Town-Hall-Special-Guns-in-America-274991541.html?tab=video&c=y

Local guys: I have some signs and stickers from the show today. If you are anywhere near Duvall, shoot me a PM/email.

steelerdude99
September 14, 2014, 07:59 AM
Potential Ballot text of I-594
How is that legal? Anyone familiar with the bill knows this is horrendously misleading. I understand a bill can't have its full text there on the ballot, but if a bill serves to change several different things, who gets to say which of those are represented on the ballot? I mean... that's BS. It would be like a history book detailing Obama's presidency by informing the reader that he's black, and leaving it at that.

It's a slick system ain't it? It's like a contract where the entire text is omitted, but still legally binding. Another bad part of I-594 is that keeps the gun grabber's "hands clean" politically. They can potentially get what they want and not even have to pay at re-election time like a few in Colorado did. After all the people spoke and got what they wanted.

If anyone ever doubted they true intent of I-594, see page 10 of the bill where if you inherited a firearm, you have 60 days to get it registered.



(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws.


I don't live in WA state; I just see the potential for such a bad law to be introduced elsewhere. I-594 would be the model for a law along with "a path to enactment" for other states to get gun laws on the books without political fallout. Then in a few years after the transfers have been going on for a while and they know who has what (i.e the registry grows), they can go after persons who cannot prove that they did not improperly transfer (i.e. no transfer entry). Maybe in ten or so years, WA can pass a law saying that if you did not transfer it via I-594 you may register your firearms to avoid being improperly prosecuted for something you owned prior to I-594.

It's not about if someone may own or have access to firearms; it's about keeping track of each and every firearm. Then after catching those who violate I-594 twice (2nd offense is a felony), make them prohibited persons which will reduce the total number of firearms in the state.

chuck

PS: I did not see it anywhere in the I-594 text, maybe Bill Gates with his I-594 gift sees the potential for the added computer resources on a system that will "have to" run on Windows servers.

Guy B. Meredith
September 17, 2014, 04:12 AM
Hey, I haven't read the details of who can loan what to whom, but is it possible this could increase the number of firearms in Washington? If a person cannot borrow a firearm, s/he will have to buy one instead?

And what about shopping for a firearm? If you are trying to decide between 6 firearms can you borrow firearms for trial or do you need to buy all six to try them out?

Might be fun to ask pro I-594 people whether they want to encourage an increase in firearms and mention this question.

Ryanxia
September 17, 2014, 08:08 AM
Hey, I haven't read the details of who can loan what to whom, but is it possible this could increase the number of firearms in Washington? If a person cannot borrow a firearm, s/he will have to buy one instead?

And what about shopping for a firearm? If you are trying to decide between 6 firearms can you borrow firearms for trial or do you need to buy all six to try them out?

Might be fun to ask pro I-594 people whether they want to encourage an increase in firearms and mention this question.
It's an interesting thought but the consequences from this Bill passing far outweigh any potential uptick in sales.

OilyPablo
September 17, 2014, 08:25 AM
No doubt there will be changes in behavior. Could be some uptick in New sales. People eschewing used guns to avoid the hassle of private sale used guns. Much more consignment of used guns may negate that.

What worries me is the initiative is so poorly written even if an otherwise law abiding citizen tries to comply they run afoul. Then there are the unintended consequences. Even the best laws can have one or two. This thing is such a mess we could be creating a whole new criminal class from lawful people. It's the bad. And the drooling gun haters just say they won't enforce this or that part or the first offense part will let you off the hook if there was no malicious intent. But they keep your gun.

bikemutt
September 17, 2014, 09:15 AM
One thing I thought of that may have I-594 sponsors running for the exit door is hiring our State's Initiative Writer-in-Chief, Tim Eyman, to craft a new state Income Tax on Billionaires for the next go round. I have a feeling it would be very popular among the electorate.

hso
September 17, 2014, 10:11 AM
WRT attacking 594 and addressing the UBC provision, take the approach that criminals don't acquire firearms from sources that a UBC would impact anyway. UBC is a red herring or, more accurately, a Trojan Horse to wrap a palatable lie around the more draconian measures.

I advise listing the most draconian elements that are hidden from the public and using those as the points to focus on. When UBC is brought up, point out that nationally it has been shown that UBC serves no constructive purpose and that it is only used to candy coat the trash that politicians who fear monger to advance their careers stick in this sort of legislation. We can point to the continuously falling violent crime rates and murder rates in the absence of UBC as reason enough to not cling to that false hope and take on the poor quality of the other snakes in the box.

David4516
September 17, 2014, 11:42 AM
Assuming that 594 does pass, will it affect the way you shop for guns, and if so, how?

For example, can I even pick up a gun at a gunshow to see if it fits my hand? Or would that be considered a "transfer"? Do you have to buy a gun before you can even touch it? I might be reading this thing wrong but I suspect that if it passes this will be the case.

What about ranges that "rent" guns? I assume that will be outlawed? Or will the range have to "sell" you the gun, and then "buy" it back for that to work?

Another example: Say I take a new person to the range, maybe they've never shot before and don't even know IF they want to buy a gun, so I'll let them try some of mine first to get a feel for it (I've done this before a few times). Can I hand them my gun to try? Or will this be illegal even though they're going to pass it back to me in 2 minutes anyway?

I know it's unlikely that a LEO will be standing there at the range just waiting for this to happen so they can bust me, but still, I don't think most people will take that risk, they'll err on the side of caution.

Maybe I'm being way too pessimistic but I have this fear that if I-594 becomes law it will KILL recreational shooting in WA state...

OilyPablo
September 17, 2014, 12:07 PM
Assuming that 594 does pass.....

Maybe I'm being way too pessimistic but I have this fear that if I-594 becomes law it will KILL recreational shooting in WA state...

That is a goal for some.

2bfree
September 22, 2014, 12:37 PM
NRA-ILA workshop on how to defeat I 594. Sign up here.
https://www.voteno594.com/RSVP

September 27
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Elks Lodge
6313 75th St W.
Lakewood, WA 98499
(253) 473-4127



Monday
September 29
7:00 PM – 8:30 PM
Spokane VFW Post #51
300 W. Mission Ave
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 327-9847



Tuesday
September 30
7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Hal Holmes Center
209 N. Ruby St
Ellensburg, WA 98926
(509) 962-7240

OilyPablo
September 22, 2014, 08:05 PM
Thanks for posting that 2bfree!

TMCCOY
September 25, 2014, 10:20 PM
"One thing I thought of that may have I-594 sponsors running for the exit door is hiring our State's Initiative Writer-in-Chief, Tim Eyman, to craft a new state Income Tax on Billionaires for the next go round. I have a feeling it would be very popular among the electorate."


I think this is a great idea. What would next steps be to introduce such a tax? Can hardly imagine the greedy officials ignoring a new tax. ;-)

Dain Bramage
October 1, 2014, 11:10 AM
No on I-594 rally scheduled at Westlake in Seattle on Oct. 18. All Washington state High Roaders should try to attend. I'll be there with two of my boys.

Facebook No On I-594 Rally Page (https://www.facebook.com/events/380277405459329/380278145459255/)

OilyPablo
October 1, 2014, 07:37 PM
Thanks for posting that!

phil dirt
October 1, 2014, 07:58 PM
If every gun owner in the USA sent $1.00 to help us in this fight against the gun grabbing billionaire, ex- Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, we would win this fight. He has out spent us 10 to 1 to buy this election. If Washington gun owners loose, you can bet many other states will be next. He's already looking to give millions to the anti-gunners in Nevada and Arizona, just like he did in Colorado. Please help us. Send as much as you can afford to: Protect Our Gun Rights, 12500 NE 10th Place Bellevue, WA 98005.

Dain Bramage
October 3, 2014, 05:06 PM
Thanks for posting that!

You're welcome. Tell everyone you know.

Buzzard
October 3, 2014, 06:44 PM
I've seen a lot more "No on 594" signs popping up lately. The "Yes 591/No 594" sticker suddenly appeared at campus in the last week. Four or five were on faculty cars. Even more telling, I've yet to see a single pro-594 sticker or sign around town.

Ryanxia
October 6, 2014, 09:04 AM
I've seen a lot more "No on 594" signs popping up lately. The "Yes 591/No 594" sticker suddenly appeared at campus in the last week. Four or five were on faculty cars. Even more telling, I've yet to see a single pro-594 sticker or sign around town.
That's great news. WA residents are doing awesome, keep it up!

David4516
October 6, 2014, 04:30 PM
Any idea where one can obtain a "No on 594" sign?

I managed to get my hands an a bumper sticker...

Edited to add:

I still don't want to stick the sign in my yard for security reasons but I'd like to plant one someplace in town were lots of folks will see it. Is it illegal to just put up a sign on the side of a public road?

OilyPablo
October 6, 2014, 05:54 PM
Put it near other political signs on PUBLIC property.

bikemutt
October 7, 2014, 04:48 AM
NRA has released this Vote No on I-594 video, appears to pretty much touch on all the major concerns of this bad law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcEWomwiwds&feature=youtu.be

OilyPablo
October 7, 2014, 07:13 AM
Keep rallying people. I feel we are just getting traction. Keep it up.

I need more signs!

Carl N. Brown
October 7, 2014, 12:09 PM
I am in Tennessee, but I have been following the UBC thing. What people don't seem to realize is that a bill may sound good in its title or summary, yet be a terrible law with unintended consequences.

Tennessee did not pass a proposed leash law, which lead to proponents bashing the opponents as members of a good old boys network opposing sensible animal protection. However, not all animal lovers agreed: "People may call these 'animal protection' bills and bemoan the fact that they didn't pass but there were darn good reasons why all of these bills deserved to die. Just because something sounds good or makes you feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean it's really good for animals or animal owners."
-- Wednesday, April 2, 2014 "Good Ol' Boys? Not So Fast" http://tnpetlawnews.blogspot.com/

The bill would establish a minimum leash length of 10 feet; a shorter leash would be a crime with legal penalties. Buried in the bill were no common sense exemptions for short leashes on veterinary tables, or other situations where a shorter leash would help not hurt the animal. Not to mention the fact that you could encourage people to use humane leashes without needing a formal law.

The I-594 Universal Background Check Bill in Washington State has a nice sounding proposal for background checks for private non-dealer used gun sales same as required for licensed dealer sales.

But it has very limited provisions for temporary transfer of possession with exemptions from background checks for hunting instructors, firearms safety instructors, etc., handing a gun to a student in a typical hunter safety / firearms safety class setting. The 18 pages of the Washington State UBC are full of nonsense beyond BG check for all gun sales.

I believe there are exemptions for temporary transfer of possession at formal commercial gun ranges, very narrowly defined. What I and my family and friends do on the mountain--try out each other's guns in informal, private shooting sessions on family property--would be a crime under the I-594 rules requiring transfer of possession (even temporary) through a licensed dealer with a background check. For example, it would be a crime to loan a hunting companion your spare gun if theirs broke.

Personally I think people who profit from controversy support these innocent sounding bills deliberately poison pilled to raise objections from those who bother to read them, whether they are the ten foot leash bill or the universal background check bill. Power or money or both can be acquired through generating political conflict, then exploiting public ignorance of the facts or details.

happygeek
October 8, 2014, 08:30 PM
Forgot to mention in my previous post about I-594; under this proposed law, suppose your buddy comes over to visit. You pull your new gun out of the safe to show him, lock the slide back, check it's empty, and hand it to him. He says "I can't handle it, I-594 just passed" and hands it right back to you. Bam, you're both felons now.

When you handed it to him that was the first "transfer", a gross misdemeanor under I-594. When he handed it back that was the second "transfer", a felony under I-594.

To legally show him your new gun and let him handle it (forget shooting it, just handle it), the two of you have to head over to your friendly local 01 FFL, pay the $30 going rate for a transfer, fill out a 4473, wait for NICS to clear, and pay the 9.3% WA usage tax. Now your buddy can handle your gun. To legally get your gun back, repeat (yes, pay $30 + the usage tax, fill out another 4473, call NICS right back, all of it).

Note: I failed to clarify in my first post, when I say "transfer" I'm talking in the I-594 sense. When I say transfer (no quotes) I'm talking in the 1968 GCA sense, the 1968 GCA being the big Federal law that governs everything from dealer licensing to sales to records that are kept for 20 years.

Another sidenote: It gets even better. Suppose you're a single guy and share an apartment with a room mate. Suppose you go out of town for awhile on vacation, and he has the combo to your safe because he stores some documents in there he doesn't want to lose if there's a fire. Is that a "transfer"? Are you willing to bet your and his not going to jail that it isn't? Because you are.


I've come to the inescapable conclusion that this thing isn't a bad bill by accident, it's setup to create as many insta-felons as possible. After all, felons can't own guns.

bikemutt
October 8, 2014, 08:46 PM
I've come to the inescapable conclusion that this thing isn't a bad bill by accident, it's setup to create as many insta-felons as possible. After all, felons can't own guns.

Well, really felons shouldn't own guns, they most certainly can however. And , they most assuredly don't plan on submitting to a background check in order to get one.

Ryanxia
October 9, 2014, 09:26 AM
Well, really felons shouldn't own guns, they most certainly can however. And , they most assuredly don't plan on submitting to a background check in order to get one.
He meant felons can't legally own guns, we all know they can get them.
And the statement that they shouldn't is a personal opinion. Personally I have no problem with someone who got caught downloading music as a teenager being at the range next to me or being able to protect his family.

happygeek
October 9, 2014, 08:05 PM
^ Thanks, I should have clarified that.

What I meant is that I can't help but come to the conclusion that the whole point of laws like this is to make as many people as possible into felons. They've already got the 1968 GCA law in place. Pass enough laws like this ...

bikemutt
October 9, 2014, 11:01 PM
And the statement that they shouldn't is a personal opinion

If we're adding the word "legally" lets do it in both places, "felons legally shouldn't own guns" :)

Ryanxia
October 10, 2014, 11:17 AM
If we're adding the word "legally" lets do it in both places, "felons legally shouldn't own guns" :)
Yep, I thought of that after. I was thinking you meant in a moral sense.

2bfree
October 21, 2014, 03:22 PM
Well I mailed my ballot off today, please do the same. If you are not registered to vote, it's to late now, and, well, shame on you.

OilyPablo
October 21, 2014, 03:30 PM
Same here.

A couple things:

Plenty of people never send their ballots in. Urge them to, give them stamps if necessary. Most people put stuff like this off. Talk to them, there is still time to tell people how bad 594 is.

If you are not registered to vote you can still do it in person registration up until Oct 27. Around here you can go to the office in Seattle or Renton.

Jackal
October 21, 2014, 04:48 PM
Sadly, I'm pretty sure its going to be passed anyway, regardless of what we do. Too much money behind it and the I5 corridor owns our state. They are a blue island in a sea of red. Now, what I'd LOVE to see is this become a universally ignored law, just like the cellphone while driving law thats almost never enforced.

OilyPablo
October 21, 2014, 04:55 PM
Never give up!!

ohbythebay
October 21, 2014, 07:07 PM
I REALLY hope you are wrong...it will be awful for WA state. Such a step backwards.

Ryanxia
October 22, 2014, 08:41 AM
I've seen a lot of effort of WA residents to block this thing. I think it will pay off. If by chance it doesn't, this is the noose slipping around your necks, something has to be done either way..

bikemutt
October 22, 2014, 11:57 AM
Completed my ballot today, big fat NO on 594.

I still have yet to see a TV ad urging a no vote on 594, then again I don't watch much TV.

Have to say I'm surprised at how 594 seems to be given a pass when they claim criminals and domestic abusers can go online and buy a gun, no questions asked, no BG check required. I've bought countless guns online, every one of them was shipped to a dealer and required a BG check. Can anyone here explain this "loophole"? Why doesn't the media do their job and challenge this claim when it's so patently false (to me at least)?

Theohazard
October 22, 2014, 01:02 PM
Can anyone here explain this "loophole"
I agree that it's infuriating when I hear people say that. I first heard it back when the Manchin-Toomy background check bill was being debated in the Senate. What they're doing is twisting the truth to sound much different than it actually is.

Technically, you can go online, meet a prospective gun seller, and then go meet him and buy it. So, according to their logic, you're "buying a gun online". But what that makes it sound like is that you can go to a website like Bud's, pay for a gun, and have it shipped to your house without a background check, and we all know that's false.

The problem here is that most people in this country don't understand all the complexities of guns and gun laws; after all it's a complicated subject. So even the people who aren't actively trying to mislead people still have a hard time understanding the legal complexities of a subject they know very little about. "Buying a gun online" or "the gun show loophole" are over-simplifications of a more complicated issue, and as a result they're misleading. But they're simpler ways to describe the current laws, and so you hear them repeated much more often.

Old Dog
October 22, 2014, 01:11 PM
Now, what I'd LOVE to see is this become a universally ignored law, just like the cellphone while driving law thats almost never enforced. Who's gonna ignore it? The law will kill private transactions and, as written, will undoubtedly spawn unintended consequences that we won't be able to stop ...

BTW, don't know where you're at, Jackal, but in my little pocket of Pugetropolis, drivers get pulled over all the time for DWTOCP ...

Jackal
October 23, 2014, 12:27 AM
BTW, don't know where you're at, Jackal, but in my little pocket of Pugetropolis, drivers get pulled over all the time for DWTOCP

Olympic Pen, where some of the worst drivers in the world exist and never get punished (Oly Pen law enforcement: "Oh, your 85 years old, driving 35mph in a 55 down the wrong side of the road while talking to your grandchildren on your cellphone? Have a nice day and be safe".) . As to ignoring the "law", I know quite a few "good ole boys" that will completely ignore it and continue trading amongst themselves.

Praxidike
October 23, 2014, 03:30 AM
Olympic Pen, where some of the worst drivers in the world exist and never get punished (Oly Pen law enforcement: "Oh, your 85 years old, driving 35mph in a 55 down the wrong side of the road while talking to your grandchildren on your cellphone? Have a nice day and be safe".) . As to ignoring the "law", I know quite a few "good ole boys" that will completely ignore it and continue trading amongst themselves.
What new guns laws that have been enacted over the past couple of decades have been "universally ignored?" 9.99 times out of ten, people get accustomed to the new laws and conform.

hso
October 23, 2014, 09:23 AM
We do not want to take the approach, "Meh. No one's going to pay any attention to this anyhow.". That's how You find yourself facing LEOs and/or a Judge and the rest of us with more and more restrictive laws.

Wyatt
October 23, 2014, 11:19 PM
Anyone catch the news today that Ex Bellevue councilwoman Margot Blacker was caught stealing "No on I - 594 signs from yards. She has also donated to the yes campaign.

OilyPablo
October 23, 2014, 11:24 PM
Happened last week all over local forums.

Wyatt
October 23, 2014, 11:40 PM
Maybe so, but I didn't see it posted on this I-594 thread and I don't see all that much WA news coverage.

OilyPablo
October 23, 2014, 11:52 PM
No problem, I just read the words "news today" as "new today".

Here: http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/police-former-city-councilwoman-stole-gun-groups-c/nhpSp/

The_Next_Generation
October 24, 2014, 03:19 PM
Great, another school-shooting in WA. This time at a high school (Marysville). Not many details yet, except that the shooter is dead and several others may have been wounded or killed. Of course this is sad, but this would be the perfect event to get voters emotional enough to pass 594 and then some.

Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/10/shooting-reported-at-marysville-pilchuck-high-school/

OilyPablo
October 24, 2014, 03:35 PM
Timing. Amazing.

Billy Shears
October 24, 2014, 04:32 PM
Great, another school-shooting in WA. This time at a high school (Marysville). Not many details yet, except that the shooter is dead and several others may have been wounded or killed. Of course this is sad, but this would be the perfect event to get voters emotional enough to pass 594 and then some.

Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/...k-high-school/
Yeah, I hate to say it, but any slender hope you Washingtonians had of avoiding this probably evaporated the instant this little piece of s#!% punk pulled the trigger.

ohbythebay
October 24, 2014, 04:54 PM
Yeah, I hate to say it, but any slender hope you Washingtonians had of avoiding this probably evaporated the instant this little piece of s#!% punk pulled the trigger.

Probably right ..almost seems too setup...a friend of his said he was perfectly normal yesterday ...14 year old.

crazysccrmd
October 24, 2014, 08:42 PM
I've already mailed my ballot so there's at least one no vote.

barnbwt
October 24, 2014, 08:50 PM
I doubt Bloomberg, black helicopters, or anyone else motivated a person to shoot up a school, much less themselves :rolleyes:. But such thoughts creep in when the sum of all fears comes to pass :(

It will be interesting to see exactly how much ammo the anti's will throw at this one. They often like to make noises about letting events speak for themselves, but we all know they are quick to exploit tragedy to further their agenda. Washington has had an inordinate amount of money pumped (pump-ing) into the State for I-594, and I'm sure it will continue.

But will the flow increase as a result of this shooting? The next few weeks will be illustrative of exactly how much additional influence the anti's have to work with (or rather, can illicit from their backers). If Bloomie et. al. dumps another big chunk on top the pile as a final putsch, we'll know he was holding back thus far. If the flow remains the same, we'll know that they are stretched about as thin as they can go, barring extraordinary circumstances (Newtown), which is very good intel for the SAF/NRA's of the country.

One thing that does bother me is the reports I've seen that the NRA has consistently kept their distance from the race. Is the NRA really that toxic in WA? I don't believe the tripe about them 'giving up' on the state from some folks, since it obviously isn't nearly that far gone, yet, but I do believe they would avoid pumping in money to prevent claims of their meddling/influence from tainting the Resistance there.

Perhaps the main lesson the NRA should take from this event (and others) is that they have a serious image problem in a lot of places, that flat out denies them access to the debate. We have the NRA for hustling money/senators, the NRA-ILA for pushing for progress in courts, maybe we need another branch to essentially "evangelize" guns to the cities while remaining as distant from the politics of the NRA as possible? I mean, that's basically what Bloomberg et. al. has been doing all along with the myriad anti organizations sharing the same root...

TCB

Nwflycaster
October 25, 2014, 01:43 AM
I sent my ballot in today, so there's one more no vote. But I don't have a good feeling about this one. The NRA has been completely silent, I've been seeing commercials for supporting this piece of crap 10 - 15 times a day for two months and have yet to see a single ad against it. Its going to be damn tough to defeat if the masses don't know the truth about both sides of this disaster.
I send emails and post on Facebook but I don't carry the loud voice of the NRA. If you're listening speak up before it's too late.

bikemutt
October 25, 2014, 07:47 AM
The NRA is unequipped to fight this battle in Washington State.

Washington has increasingly relied on the Initiative process as a way to govern itself. Whether it's $30 car tabs, privatizing liquor sales or legalizing Marijuana, Initiatives to the People have proven to be a potent force. It's a way of getting your way on issues too thorny for the legislative body to address.

The NRA knows how to win political battles when they can attack a Person who is seeking to be elected or reelected. I-594 is not a Person, there is no one to demonize. If we discovered tomorrow that Michael Bloomberg wears female undergarments under his suit, it wouldn't matter one bit, he's not on the ballot.

The Initiative process is a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways. I-594 simply demonstrates it also has a sharp point. We've been very cleverly outmaneuvered this time I'm afraid.

Now, where the NRA and others may be ultimately helpful is challenging the constitutionality of the horrible law after the fact, perhaps even garnering a temporary injunction while the battle is fought.

steelerdude99
October 25, 2014, 11:25 AM
...
Now, where the NRA and others may be ultimately helpful is challenging the constitutionality of the horrible law after the fact, perhaps even garnering a temporary injunction while the battle is fought.

Even the wording that goes on the ballot is suspect. It's hard to condense an 18-page law to one, two or three sentences to fit on a ballot. However, in this case what the voter sees should at least say: Makes it a criminal offense to transfer a firearm from one person to another, even between family members, without a background check. The background check and transfer must be performed by an FFL at a cost of $20.00-$50.00 per firearm.

The bottom line is that most of the public will not know just what they are voting for or against.

chuck

Buzzard
October 25, 2014, 01:31 PM
Plenty of the Letters to the Editor in my local paper are waxing eloquent about 594's virtues. It's kind of obvious none of them have read the bill. Several stated no additional charges for BG checks would occur. Several others stated no registry would be set up under 594 and how many school shootings would be prevented. Another cited the "40%" figure that has been debunked many so times. Then again, this same paper did an OpEd about the wonders of 594.

One local news station did a super-brief burp about both laws while covering the Marysville shooting, and they played it right down the legal rail. "591 does not expand background checks, and will ensure Washington state follows Federal law in regards to them. It also prevents firearm seizure without due process. 594 expands background checks to include every firearm transfer, even between family members, and creates a handgun registry database."

And I did finally catch a pro-594 TV spot. They showed someone typing "gunbroker.com" in while mentioning internet sales are never subject to background checks. I honestly laughed.

Plenty more No-594 signs have popped up around town, too. I still haven't seen a pro-594 sign or sticker, and I'm at a college campus three days a week.


Edit: The wording on the ballot was rather suspect for both bills, I thought. The 591 language came off like it was trying to abolish all background checks, while the 594 wording was exceptionally disingenuous to the bill's actual intent.

barnbwt
October 25, 2014, 09:54 PM
"And I did finally catch a pro-594 TV spot. They showed someone typing "gunbroker.com" in while mentioning internet sales are never subject to background checks."

Just curious; I know all's fair in love and politics, but at what point does 'mischaracterization' of the opposition or circumstance up for debate become something punishable, if ever? It's not like the people of Washington won't reap damages themselves if they pass a law under flagrantly misrepresented pretenses, so...

It'd be like our side flatly stating I-594 is confiscation, and putting that on the TV ads, or something :confused:. If I were Gunbroker, I'd be raising some serious hell with the PAC, too, for defamation/libel --they clearly require that all users' interstate sales of firearms be transferred through FFL holders (so does federal law, but whatever) consistent with local laws.

"Washington has increasingly relied on the Initiative process as a way to govern itself...It's a way of getting your way on issues too thorny for the legislative body to address."
It's also a way to short-circuit the front line defensive measures against unconstitutional government overreach; as much as we disdain legislators, they do tend to put some effort into ensuring their bills won't readily be challenged in court, and that means at least the pretense of constitutional justification. Initiatives need only popular backing to pass, constitutionality to be decided later in the courts at great expense. This mess in WA is destined for the courts, almost no matter what the outcome is, which translates as; the lawmaking process failed. It pains me to hear they are using that tactic more and more; it is almost precisely what has turned California into an ungovernable heap.

TCB

crazysccrmd
October 25, 2014, 10:09 PM
I would love to see the Initiative process be done away with or severely remodeled. Maybe turn it into a way to direct mandatory action by the elected legislature on particular matters rather than a way to bypass the legal process. That would at least somewhat ensure properly structured laws. Right now it's basically a way for whoever has enough money to get a new law passed, especially since truthful advertising isn't a requirement.

Pointshoot
October 27, 2014, 11:45 AM
One bit of hope we have in WA state is that it takes a motivated group of people to get something passed. Of course, that little punk who did the school shooting didn't help our cause. (And you can bet there will be no inquiries aired as to whether he was on psych drugs or not. Most of these mass shooters are on psych drugs.). But hopefully there are enough intelligent & motivated 2A supporters voting and talking to others to dump this thing.

ohbythebay
October 27, 2014, 12:01 PM
It was horrific and it may sounds callous, but would love to see a commercial that points out I594 would have done nothing to prevent it - the .40 firearm was legally obtained (by the father) and technically, under the new law he can transfer (temp) to his son without an FFL. He was under age but it was not about ownership.

Still praying for the right outcome on I594. Also sending prayers to the family and friends impacted by this horrible event in WA.

barnbwt
October 27, 2014, 10:41 PM
Would have no effect, other than in the minds of the like-minded. After the Santa Monica shooting, CA politicians were practically up front that the GVRO law they were ramming through would have prevented nothing, but still said that incident was proof more 'reasonable' restrictions were needed. There's no convincing these folks, or honestly, those who would be led by them; there's only domination. A lot of the electorate will simply follow whoever has the power/initiative/most followers, making their courtship more a matter of strategy than policy (let alone philosophy). States with robust popular initiative processes for legislation are arguably the most vulnerable to this behavior in the electorate.

TCB

CoalTrain49
October 28, 2014, 10:09 AM
States with robust popular initiative processes for legislation are arguably the most vulnerable to this behavior in the electorate.

True enough.

These initiatives are subject to mass amounts of cash from outside the state by special interest groups and individuals. It end runs the legislative process where bills can be vetted by law makers. I-594 is a train wreck that can't be enforced and has not been endorsed by any LE group in the state. The reason is they know the resources are not there to enforce it. It's basically an unfunded mandate. If everyone who voted for it had an additional 0.1% added to their property tax it probably wouldn't get a single vote.

Ryanxia
October 29, 2014, 08:18 AM
We're right around the corner for election day, good like guys.

bikemutt
October 29, 2014, 07:57 PM
So, I have a question for the more mathematically inclined WA members.

Today, as is customary, I met 3 buds at the rifle range for some R&R. One brought a pistol only, two brought one pistol and one rifle, one brought one rifle.

We each shot our own firearms, and then got to shoot the others firearms accordingly. We all left the range with the firearms we came there with.

What we are uncertain of, assuming 594 passes, is how many Gross Misdemeanors and Serious Felonies did we rack up today?

Now, if that seems as if it has a simple answer, what if we'd all decided to do this lawfully and left the range prior to swapping firearms, each time, and drove to a local gun dealer 20 minutes away in order to get background checked, at $30 per check, how much would that have cost us?

I know, the answer to the second question is a lot less money that the first question will cost. Just great.

Whatever happened to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness here in Washington State? There is still hope this abomination goes down I suppose.

Bobson
October 29, 2014, 11:37 PM
What we are uncertain of, assuming 594 passes, is how many Gross Misdemeanors and Serious Felonies did we rack up today?
Zero, as I-594 specifically grants an exception for the "temporary transfer" of firearms at "official" firing ranges; eg, allowing a friend to shoot your rifle at an "actual gun range" (as opposed to shooting in one's backyard, even where legal - which is not included in the exception).

That doesn't make 594 any better, and I'm certainly not a supporter of it in ANY way; but I'm not going to lie to make it seem worse than it is. Just like I wouldn't lie about a rapist by calling him a murderer - rape is bad enough.

bikemutt
October 30, 2014, 03:39 AM
if the if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located"

So how do you know if the range is "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located"?

Bobson
October 30, 2014, 04:51 AM
In all fairness, I am speculating here, but that seems to refer to a legitimate business, where you would pay for admission or use of the property, etc. If they've got a business license they could show you, you're good to go.

Like I said, I'm speculating; but that seems like the common sense answer to me.

bikemutt
October 30, 2014, 08:06 AM
Well, I'd be good to go at half the places I shoot at, half is better than none I suppose :(

Oh, thanks for the clarification bobson, we (meaning my small group) was under the impression the only range exemption was for sanctioned competitive meets.

ohbythebay
October 30, 2014, 08:53 AM
There is no exception of that kind in the 18 pages. Only if the range FF Licensee conducts the transaction which would also require them to do a background check.

It also doesn't address things like:

I have 25 acres and shoot on my property all the time - I invite 3 friends to shoot with me - BING - broke the law

My son is in the Navy and brings home buddies. They love to see my gun collection. I carefully check to make sure the guns are unloaded. I hand it to my son (allowed) and he hands it back. I hand it to his buddy. Misdemeanor. He hands it back. Felony.

the full text is here
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

Wyatt
October 30, 2014, 05:41 PM
My son is in the Navy and brings home buddies. They love to see my gun collection. I carefully check to make sure the guns are unloaded. I hand it to my son (allowed) and he hands it back. I hand it to his buddy. Misdemeanor. He hands it back. Felony.

I know there has been debate on the definition of transfer. Supports of this initiative claim sharing guns while out shooting will not be prohibited. If you believe sharing is considered a transfer, I do not think there is an exemption with family like you listed above. I think it is a misdemeanor or felony (depending on the number of times) no matter if it involves family or strangers. The believe the family exemption is only for gifts or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

My brother has a rifle in his safe being stored for a friend who inherited it from his deceased father. If this passes, he will have to return the gun even though the owner is not comfortable with it in his house or has a proper way to secure it.

It is going to be an interesting vote. The poll numbers were starting to change, but with the recent shooting, it is going to be a tough sell.

bikemutt
October 30, 2014, 06:39 PM
My brother has a rifle in his safe being stored for a friend who inherited it from his deceased father. If this passes, he will have to return the gun even though the owner is not comfortable with it in his house or has a proper way to secure it.


I just spoke with a friend of mine who has a similar situation; he has a monster safe, two of his good friends who are apartment dwellers keep rifles at his place because it's a much safer place.

That will have to stop if 594 passes.

Theohazard
October 30, 2014, 08:36 PM
What we are uncertain of, assuming 594 passes, is how many Gross Misdemeanors and Serious Felonies did we rack up today?
Zero, as I-594 specifically grants an exception for the "temporary transfer" of firearms at "official" firing ranges; eg, allowing a friend to shoot your rifle at an "actual gun range" (as opposed to shooting in one's backyard, even where legal - which is not included in the exception).
From my reading of the law, it does look like there would be a whole mess of gross misdemeanors and felonies even at an officially recognized range. I recently re-read the law, and it looks like the range exemption requires the firearm to be stored at the range at all times. So if you bring your own gun to the range and let your buddy shoot it, that's illegal, but if you use rented range guns that's OK.

OilyPablo
October 30, 2014, 11:37 PM
594 = stupid mess.

EXAXAXAXACTLY as intended.

Jackal
October 31, 2014, 12:46 AM
I live on the Olympic Peninsula where there is effectively no official shooting ranges. Pretty much everyone shoots on their own property or on state land. There are going to be SO many people breaking these new "laws" its going to be amazing.:rolleyes:

JRH6856
November 1, 2014, 05:13 PM
This is what the New York Times has to say on this in an editorial yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/the-peoples-choice-on-gun-safety.html):

" Should Mr. Bloomberg prevail in Washington, “we are very concerned that he will replicate this across the country,” a spokeswoman for the N.R.A. told The Olympian newspaper, aiming to portray Mr. Bloomberg as an intrusive bęte noire in local politics.

In truth, a vote of approval would bring the sheer power of the voice of the people to the fore. And it would be significant evidence of large-scale popular resistance to the gun culture the N.R.A. has so assiduously promoted."

steelerdude99
November 1, 2014, 06:00 PM
This is what the New York Times has to say on this in an editorial yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/the-peoples-choice-on-gun-safety.html):

" Should Mr. Bloomberg prevail in Washington, “we are very concerned that he will replicate this across the country,” a spokeswoman for the N.R.A. told The Olympian newspaper, aiming to portray Mr. Bloomberg as an intrusive bęte noire in local politics.

In truth, a vote of approval would bring the sheer power of the voice of the people to the fore. And it would be significant evidence of large-scale popular resistance to the gun culture the N.R.A. has so assiduously promoted."

Not so fast NYT. Just because WA state is quick to use a referendums, does not mean all states legislatures will give up their votes to the "voice of the citizen". Especially when the question asked on the ballot barely represents the proposed law. It's bait and switch, pure and simple.

chuck

CoalTrain49
November 2, 2014, 02:14 PM
I honestly think there will be some push back if I-594 passes. I'm sure SAF already has plans for the courts to have a look at it. The fact is only about half of all inititives in WA. that pass get past the courts intact.

Third, the outcomes of cases suggest that courts have played an
important countering and filtering role in Washington's initiative
process. Courts struck down, either in part or in their entirety, 53%
(eight of fifteen) of Washington initiatives challenged in court over the
past four decades.

Reference
http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1696&context=sulr

About page 1072 there is some good reading about the courts and how they view the initiative process.

crazysccrmd
November 2, 2014, 02:31 PM
It would be mildly entertaining if both 594 and 591 pass. One law requiring significantly expanded background checks and one prohibiting expanded background checks.

bikemutt
November 2, 2014, 02:59 PM
I was gassing up earlier today when a very nice older gentleman who was using the pump next to me approached concerning my NO on 594 bumper sticker. I figured here we go, this guy is going to chew me a new one. Turns out he said he and his wife just voted NO on 594 and YES on 591. At 82 years old he remembers Pearl Harbor like it was yesterday even though he was just a wee boy at the time. We had a long talk about guns, gubmint and lighter things.

Bobson
November 3, 2014, 12:58 AM
I recently attended the last section of a 40-hour CE course in King County.

One of the students in class was a very outspoken, gay Democrat. I only say she was gay because I've never met a gay conservative - not because I have something against gay people. ANYWAY.

On the last day of class, which happened to be the day of the shooting at MPHS, she and I were working together on finishing a project, and the shooting came up in our conversation. I decided to be up front about my beliefs, and said I believed teachers should have the option of being armed in public schools. She gave me crazy eyes for almost a full second, and I expected I was about to get an ear-ful. Then she agreed with me and we talked about it for a few minutes.

I-594 didn't specifically come up, but it did give me some hope. I figured if this lady (white, educated, upper-middle class, gay, and living in a somewhat ritzy area of King County - several very-liberal demographics) agreed with me about guns, maybe things aren't nearly as bad as we think.

Of course, ultimately, time will tell.

Buzzard
November 3, 2014, 05:00 PM
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Measures-All.html


Here's a link to keep an eye on both measures tomorrow.

OilyPablo
November 3, 2014, 08:17 PM
Buzzard - thanks for the easy link. I have to admit, many, many people have come up to me and said they voted NO the last few days. It has made me pretty hopeful. I know I will be let down, but still.

David4516
November 4, 2014, 05:18 PM
Especially when the question asked on the ballot barely represents the proposed law

This is what my ballot said:

-------------------------------------

This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

-------------------------------------

Doesn't mention anything about registration, increased waiting periods, etc, that are included in 594. Possibly the worst case of bait-and-switch I've ever seen. If this passes I will seriously consider moving to another state...

R.Greene
November 4, 2014, 06:30 PM
591 summary is similarly misleading :

"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.
Should this measure be enacted into law?"


This might seem like it gets rid of all background checks. It does not.

The_Next_Generation
November 4, 2014, 09:36 PM
This might seem like it gets rid of all background checks. It does not.

Tell me about it!

I had to explain to all of my roommates that there was already a "national standard" that required BG checks on all sales/transfers by an FFL, because they thought that if 591 passed nobody would get checked :fire: :banghead:

ohbythebay
November 4, 2014, 11:12 PM
So far, we are winning 61% no, 39% yes on I594

So is 591

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Measures-All.html

Oops...well that flip flopped quick...guess I have to just check in the morning..sigh

OilyPablo
November 4, 2014, 11:22 PM
It's over. 594 wins.

We lost.

suemarkp
November 4, 2014, 11:40 PM
When does it take effect if it passes (which it looks like its doing)? I may want to sell a few more things while it will be cheaper.

Wyatt
November 5, 2014, 12:26 AM
30 days after voter approval!

David4516
November 5, 2014, 12:45 AM
I had a feeling 594 would pass but thought it might at least be a close call. Looks like 594 will pass with overwhelming support. Great...

Now I'm going to have to hire a lawyer just to explain to me what I can and can't do without violating this law. I've tried to read it myself but it's so darn vague that I might be misunderstanding it...

Also I am wondering if I have to register all my firearms now? I know the law does not specifically require this, but if I get caught with a gun that hasn't been registered, will they automatically assume that I obtained it via a now illegal transfer and prosecute me?

:banghead:

Wyatt
November 5, 2014, 01:23 AM
No requirement to register currently owned guns, although pistol sales via FFL's in WA are already registered with DOL and State Patrol! Don't worry about guns currently owned that were purchased through private sales. In theory, guns you posses that are manufactured after early December 2014 will legally need to show a "paper trail" to you unless gifted. Although illegal and not advocated, one could continue to buy and sell older firearms without doing the background check and there would be no a way to prove when the gun was traded!

I don't believe law enforcement will actively do firearms checks on every weapon they see. If however the gun is part of an investigation and is new production, you better have done the transfer or you could be prosecuted as a by-product of another crime.

If you are concerned about registration or paperwork, you have 1 month of private sale exemptions left!

carnaby
November 5, 2014, 01:26 AM
I594 is entirely stupid and unenforceable. There is no way to know who is the owner of a given firearm, hence there is no way to know if a transfer has taken place unless a transfer is part of a law enforcement sting. Those are the facts, use them any way you like.

The_Next_Generation
November 5, 2014, 02:04 AM
Is there any way to fight this? I mean, the majority won.

What happened to our "constitutional republic"?

silicosys4
November 5, 2014, 02:21 AM
I am hoping for a backlash similar to what happened in Colorado. Washington has been under the control of the democrats for far too long.

If Colorado's laws were restrictive to firearm related businesses, think of what this will do. My LGS has no idea if they will now have to fill out transfers on employees each time they handle their own merchandise for cleaning, reorganizing, etc..

Bobson
November 5, 2014, 03:55 AM
Edit-

Nobody wants to be the guy who the state decides to make an example out of. I've been in that situation before (thankfully I was in the military, so while it was serious, it had no civilian repercussions); and let me be the one to say, there's nothing like knowing you're being kicked extra hard because you're the first guy to get caught screwing up.

Even with the fact that this is a largely unenforceable law, it's only going to be a matter of time until that happens.

Be safe out there. Nothing good will come of this.

David4516
November 5, 2014, 04:40 AM
silicosys4,

This situation is very different from Colorado. In Colorado you had elected officials enacting gun control via the normal goverment process, and in the following election cycle those officials were voted out.

In the case of WA state and I-594, this was enacted directly by popular vote. Clearly the people of WA think this is a good thing and the odds of there being any "backlash" are pretty slim.

I am originally from Oregon and am thinking maybe I should move back there...

crazysccrmd
November 5, 2014, 05:56 AM
Looks like my home state might be added to the list of places I'm not willing to live anymore.

ROCK6
November 5, 2014, 06:31 AM
Yeah, I'm still Active Duty and nearing retirement with WA as my state of residency...I'm not sure I want to move back home. I wonder about the irony if the Marysville shooting occurred after I594, the only outcome would be that the father illegally transferred the pistol to his son and would be prosecuted under I594. I see many cases hitting the courts surrounding the new law. I hope WA can figure this out before I make my decision in the next couple years:cuss:

ROCK6

hso
November 5, 2014, 07:19 AM
It passed so this phase is over.

Open a new thread here with a viable plan of action to overturn it or start a discussion on what the law may mean in Legal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!