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.

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!