PDA

View Full Version : WA State voters: critical upcoming votes on I-594 and I-591 in November



maximus83
09-01-14, 18:08
I assume most Washington state shooters are aware, but if not, we have two critical state ballot initiatives to vote on in November. Please inform yourself and vote on these initiatives, we absolutely need to be involved in preserving our 2A rights in Washington state, where they are constantly under attack.

I-594 (http://wagunresponsibility.org/about-594/)
This is a gun control measure, backed by large out-of-state donations from Michael Bloomberg, in-state donations the Microsoft triumvirate of local boys (Gates, Balmer, Allen), and other gun control groups. It is ostensibly a "reasonable" measure that is supposed to be about background checks for all gun purchases including private transfers. However if you read the actual initiative text carefully (rather than just skimming the "legislative analysis" linked on the above landing page), you'll see that this is in effect a backdoor registration scheme that will (a) not stop criminals from obtaining firearms, and will (b) massively increase the number of lawful gun owners who accidentally run afoul of the law by mistakenly "temporarily transferring" a firearm to a friend to shoot while n the woods, hunting, etc. This law will absolutely not reduce firearm access by committed/career criminals, but it will enhance further government monitoring of firearm ownership and will increase the number of lawful gun owners who will run afoul of the law through no fault of their own. It is simply a wedge strategy: an early stage of legislation whose goal is to move a step closer to registration and confiscation schemes.

Recommendation: vote no on I-594. It may sound harmless on the surface, and that is how it is being sold and presented to low information voters. It is actually extremely subversive of our 2nd Amendment rights in WA State and if passed, this approach will be used by gun control advocates to extend their strategy in other states.


I-591 (http://wagunrights.org/)
This is a defensive measure by pro gun-rights groups in WA state that essentially wants to (a) limit background checks to nothing beyond the current federally imposed system, (b) prevent WA state from intruding into temporary firearm loans to friends or in-laws while you are shooting, and (c) prevent WA state from engaging in heavy handed monitoring and confiscation tactics to enforce this or future laws.

Recommendation: vote yes on I-591. Nothing in this measure prevents basic background checks from occurring now or in the future, but it does protect our fundamental 2A rights and protects against the many excesses of the new I-594 law, if passed.


Interesting possible outcome: It has been speculated that WA voters (not the sharpest knives in the drawer :-) ), may well pass BOTH I-594 and I-591. That would put the two new laws in direct conflict, which would then probably have to be resolved in the courts. The best possible outcome is that I-594 fails and I-591 passes. What I expect to happen is that both will pass, and there will be some interesting court battles ahead.

KTR03
09-02-14, 09:47
Constantly under attack seems a little strong. I have a bunch of cans and I have.SBRs pending. Other than that, I agree with your predictions.

maximus83
10-21-14, 23:45
I think I won't back down from constantly under attack. They can grant you rights to 'own' all kinds of stuff, like suppressors and SBRs. While at the same time increasingly restricting where you can carry, how you can acquire stuff, what ammo you can get, how many taxes you pay, what permits you need, what data they track, what kinds of situations you can purchase in, etc. The left have figured it out: we don't have to deny your right to BUY guns. We'll just make it impossibly complicated, and expensive, to own, carry, shoot, and feed them with ammo. And we'll make it really really easy to run afoul of the law, so that we can confiscate your stuff whenever we need to.

We are in trouble--looks like a good chance the worst possible outcome will be realized. It's expected from polling analysis that 594 will pass, and 591 will fail. This may turn around, but on historical precedent, this doesn't look good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/14/washington-measure-to-increase-gun-background-checks-bleeds-support/

wrcpete
10-28-14, 20:04
I have been doing what I can to spread the word but many many of the people I am surrounded buy read the initiative on the ballot and believe its a good thing to vote for without actually reading it or asking what it means. It's frightening and sad. :(

HackerF15E
10-28-14, 21:21
Latest polls I've seen show 594 with 60%+ favored and 591 with less than 40% favored.

JG007
10-29-14, 10:45
If people don't at a minimum at least have a yes/no sign in their yard, then they don't really appear to care what happens

Quiet
11-05-14, 00:23
Election results... (http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Measures-All.html)

I-591 = failed
Yes 545,985 (45.44%)
No 655,531 (54.56%)
Total Votes 1,201,516 (100%)

I-594 = passed
Yes 724,057 (59.72%)
No 488,288 (40.28%)
Total Votes 1,212,345 (100%)

Congrats Washington, you now have worst firearm transfer laws than California.

bzdog
11-05-14, 00:58
Argh. But not unexpected. People vote on the soundbite, and 594 had the soundbite and the airplay. :-(

-john

SomeOtherGuy
11-05-14, 09:04
I see that the bad one, 594, passed. Is it as bad as the NRA-ILA warns in the piece below? If it really works that way, it sounds absolutely terrible.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/8/how-michael-bloomberg-is-twisting-the-gun-control-debate-in-the-evergreen-state.aspx

nova3930
11-05-14, 12:15
Damn, that's terrible. 594 was one of the worst firearms laws I've ever seen and that's saying something...

archad
11-05-14, 15:42
I can't it even passed my county Asotin. This is terrible for Washington state.

wrcpete
11-05-14, 20:14
Well, now what? . :( ( something like 31% voter turnout, now thats sad. )

SeriousStudent
11-05-14, 20:21
This really sucks for you guys, I was sorry to read about this last night.

What is next? Do you have a local organization file a lawsuit to try and delay it?

MorphCross
11-05-14, 23:27
This really sucks for you guys, I was sorry to read about this last night.

What is next? Do you have a local organization file a lawsuit to try and delay it?

I really have to ask, how is a law like this going to be enforced? Is the state going to set up a database to track all gun purchases? Is the state going to pay for random house checks to make sure you haven't sold your private property to whoever you deem competent to own? The logistics of such a law are mind boggling. Does the law treat it as a Felony crime to transfer privately without a Background Check or will it be treated as a misdemeanor?

Obviously the above is sarcasm, Law abiding gun owners simply will have to go to an FFL and pay for a transfer rather than risk being charged.

NWPilgrim
11-06-14, 00:55
I really have to ask, how is a law like this going to be enforced? Is the state going to set up a database to track all gun purchases? Is the state going to pay for random house checks to make sure you haven't sold your private property to whoever you deem competent to own? The logistics of such a law are mind boggling. Does the law treat it as a Felony crime to transfer privately without a Background Check or will it be treated as a misdemeanor?

Obviously the above is sarcasm, Law abiding gun owners simply will have to go to an FFL and pay for a transfer rather than risk being charged.

I doubt they plan to enforce it except at "gun shows" of course. The real insidious aspect of laws like this are they will slam it on you if they catch you with a gun sold to someone else since the law passed and now in your possession. If you are pulled over and innocently consent to a search of your truck during a traffic stop, or there is a fire at your house and the police happen to notice a rifle on your workbench sold to some else and no transfer record to you. Laws such as this can make a large number of people criminals overnight without them even knowing they did something wrong (best friend dies and his wife gives you the shotgun he used to go duck hunting with you, etc.).

wrcpete
11-06-14, 15:15
And here we go....
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024963246_backgroundcheckfoloxml.html

NWPilgrim
11-06-14, 17:59
And here we go....
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024963246_backgroundcheckfoloxml.html


Confident in voters’ support of I-594 to expand gun-purchase background checks, advocates of stricter gun laws announced their intent to push lawmakers in Olympia next year for more changes.

Maybe my old home state needs to go the way of Colorado, pass a bunch of gun laws that piss off the general population, and then have the liberals thrown out. I left WA in 1995 because the liberals in Seattle and Olympia were so whacko, and now it is much worse.

I really wish anthropogenic global warming was fact instead of some made up wet dream. Then we could amp up the pollution, warm this globe up and bury the coastal cities under 100 ft of water. Seriously, something has to change this ridiculous situation wherein a couple of large cities chock full of dependents/liberals rule over vast areas of rural/conservative populations.

bjxds
11-06-14, 21:52
Well, now what? . :( ( something like 31% voter turnout, now thats sad. )

AND the SAD thing is: that holds true for most elections. It is FUKKN hard for me to believe that 70% don't give a shit about most issues. The most telling statement is that the anti 2A groups touted this as a 1st step. There are those that will not be satisfied with anything other than total abolishment of legal gun ownership, and of course those either believe bad people wan't do bad things to them or their family, and if they do someone else will be in a better position to protect them. And I thought Washington was one of the better left coast states.

SomeOtherGuy
11-06-14, 22:36
Seriously, something has to change this ridiculous situation wherein a couple of large cities chock full of dependents/liberals rule over vast areas of rural/conservative populations.

Go back to the concept of a republic, not our current mob democracy that 1 pulse = 1 vote, regardless of how stupid, entitled, useless, criminal, etc., and that the majority of votes can do whatever they want, regardless of constitutional law or basic morality.

I wouldn't hold your breath though.

foxtrotx1
11-07-14, 10:34
The law is nigh unenforceable except at gun shows.

Even if the police find a gun at your place that has no record of transfer, they can not assume it was privately purchased AFTER the law has passed.

We see the same thing with Colorado's stupid mag ban. No way to tell the mags are new unless the mag design didn't exist before the law passed.

The reason this law will burn has to do with the 18-21 year old rules. It's now impossible to get a handgun between the age of 18 and 21 under the new law. It is not federally illegal, so there is a good chance this will be seen as a violation of the second amendment in my opinion.

platoonDaddy
11-09-14, 16:41
Dang, what a friggin shame.

My former neighbor for years retired in Newman Lake, he is a gun collector & big time hunter. There is no doubt in my mind he voted Yes on 594, he is a living breathing progressive who only votes the party line.

From the NRA alert, it is my understanding that if his son visits him for a hunting trip, he can't loan his son a firearm unless it goes through a FFL. Is this correct?

RyanB
11-11-14, 03:31
No there is an exception for hunting though badly worded and another for sons, better worded. Stepsons aren't covered and we aren't sure yet if you can loan someone a gun before they head to the field, like dropping it at their house on Thursday for a weekend trip. Probably not.

platoonDaddy
11-11-14, 06:39
No there is an exception for hunting though badly worded and another for sons, better worded. Stepsons aren't covered and we aren't sure yet if you can loan someone a gun before they head to the field, like dropping it at their house on Thursday for a weekend trip. Probably not.

OMG, that is friggin bad! Unbelievable it received so many votes, actually after two elections that obama won, I will believe anything.

What about letting someone shoot your firearm for a few rounds on the firing line? .

pingdork
11-11-14, 12:22
OMG, that is friggin bad! Unbelievable it received so many votes, actually after two elections that obama won, I will believe anything.

What about letting someone shoot your firearm for a few rounds on the firing line? .

If it's at an established range it's ok, but I suppose for those of us who shoot in the woods it's not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bzdog
11-11-14, 16:21
OMG, that is friggin bad! Unbelievable it received so many votes,

I think it's because the soundbite defined the narrative.

Most people didn't investigate what it was, the just heard the soundbite "close loophole; keep criminals from buying guns on Internet" [sic].

Whell, shure! Loopholes are bad! Criminals getting guns is bad!

And that is the state of politics, today.

-john

platoonDaddy
02-22-15, 09:20
Is this true or a BS story?

Many gun owners are worried they might lose their guns in light of I-594 passing. The surprising thing is many gun owners are now voluntarily getting rid of their own firearms.

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/spokane-county/2015/02/20/gun-owners-sell-back-guns-feels-i-594-too-vague/23748117/

223to45
02-23-15, 16:12
Is this true or a BS story?

Many gun owners are worried they might lose their guns in light of I-594 passing. The surprising thing is many gun owners are now voluntarily getting rid of their own firearms.

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/spokane-county/2015/02/20/gun-owners-sell-back-guns-feels-i-594-too-vague/23748117/


First I have heard about it.

But if people are so scared they are selling them back, then those people to stupid to own in the first place.

I594 changes nothing for what is a already owned.

Bolt_Overide
02-24-15, 10:12
And the Californication of the great state of Washington is now complete. So glad I left 14 years ago before it got really bad.

WickedWillis
02-24-15, 11:34
Is this true or a BS story?

Many gun owners are worried they might lose their guns in light of I-594 passing. The surprising thing is many gun owners are now voluntarily getting rid of their own firearms.

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/spokane-county/2015/02/20/gun-owners-sell-back-guns-feels-i-594-too-vague/23748117/

I actually saw them talking about this on KREM the other day. It really blew my mind the level of fear and misunderstanding these guys had, and the shitty fact is no one at any local shops were willing to correct them and educate them. We just had a Gunshow right across the Idaho border up here last weekend, and 90 percent of all of the license plates were from Washington. The Spokane gun community is pretty much done with Spokane.

223to45
02-24-15, 11:35
And the Californication of the great state of Washington is now complete. So glad I left 14 years ago before it got really bad.
As bad as it can get here sometimes, we are along ways from that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

SomeOtherGuy
02-25-15, 15:18
First I have heard about it.
But if people are so scared they are selling them back, then those people to stupid to own in the first place.
I594 changes nothing for what is a already owned.

The people who are members on M4C won't be scared off by these legislative changes, but some large chunk of casual owners may be. And if gun ownership goes from say 75% to 25%, it will be much, much easier to get even worse laws passed, and you can rinse/wash/repeat the cycle of gun bans. Think long-term strategy by people who hate you. I have no idea if the story of people getting out of guns is correct, but it would be very worrisome if it is.

bzdog
02-26-15, 00:39
My bet is, yah, more people are selling guns to gunshops, but these people were going to sell the guns anyways, they simply elected to sell to the shop instead of to a private party because they didn't know what they needed to do or just didn't want to deal with regard to private sales.

In other words, it seems doubtful any serious numbers are "getting rid of all their guns", but rather, it is changing *who* they are selling to as you might have predicted.

-john

bzdog
02-26-15, 00:52
And the Californication of the great state of Washington is now complete. So glad I left 14 years ago before it got really bad.

Actually, the overall picture is pretty reasonable save a few acts of randomness.

State Constitution: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired

^^^ Note "individual citizen"

Duty to retreat: No

Open carry: Yes

Shall issue CCW: Yes

Max time limit for CCW wait: Yes

CCW class req: No

SBR: Yes

Silencer: Yes

CCW must inform LEO: Only if asked

Postings have weight of law? No

Mag restrictions: No

"AWB": No

May cities enact more restrictive gun laws than state law? No

Now the traffic on the other hand...

-john