Interesting

I was looking at the Revised Code of Washington firearm definitions and found some interesting things:

(9) “Firearm” means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

Does this mean that if you, as a non-FFL, sell or give someone something, say the lower receiver of a modern sporting rifle or a handgun without a barrel, that is incapable of firing a projectile they don’t have to go through the NICS check and fill out a 4473 as required by I-594?

(15) “Machine gun” means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.

Emphasis added.

I find two things of interest here.

  1. Some people can pull the trigger on a revolver faster than this.
  2. If someone were to limit the rate of fire on a belt fed gun to no more than 4.9 shots per second it would appear (I am not a lawyer!) to be legal under Washington State law.

Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

The communists were very careful and deliberate in ensuring that the actions of the internal police were made valid through law and rationalized as a part of “class struggle.” Such laws were left so open to interpretation that literally any evil committed could later be vindicated. Man-made law is often a more powerful weapon than any gun, tank, plane or missile, because it triggers apathy within the masses. For some strange reason, when corrupt governments legalize their criminality through legislation or executive decree, the citizenry suddenly treats that criminality as legitimate and excusable.

Incremental prosecution and oppression is effective when the establishment wishes to avoid outright confrontation with a population. Attempt to snatch up a million people at one time, and you will have an immediate rebellion on your hands. Snatch up a million people one man at a time, or small groups at a time, and people do not know what to think or how to respond. They determine to hope that the authorities never get to them, that it will stop after a few initial arrests, or they hope that if they censor themselves completely, they will never be noticed.

Brandon Smith
February 24, 2016
A Warning To The Feds On Incremental Prosecutions Of The Liberty Movement
[I believe Smith is correct about human nature. In Washington State and some others it’s against the law, I-594, to loan your hunting rifle to your life-long friend for the weekend. If you were to assume the claimed motivation for the law is to reduce violence crime is true then it’s an incredibly stupid law. But I suspect many people avoid breaking that law and if they were prosecuted would blame themselves rather than the law and those who voted for it.

As you follow your nature please remember what Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn said:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

It’s entirely natural to follow the law. But sometimes that which is natural is not what is best for you or society as a whole.—Joe]

I-594 being ignored

I reported some on this last December but KING 5 News has more:

But analysis of federal data by the KING 5 Investigators raises questions about how effective that law has been.

Only 2% of background checks in Washington in 2015 stemmed from “private party” sales of guns, according to data in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check – or NICS – system.

That number is surprising to researchers Philip Cook of Duke and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who study gun violence.

They say that their own research – and studies by others – have shown that up to 40% of gun sales nationwide are between private citizens. They’re skeptical that the 2% reported to the FBI is an accurate picture of the private gun market in Washington state.

“I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

In other words, the data could indicate that many gun sellers and buyers are evading the law.

And that doesn’t even count the “transfers” covered by the law which don’t involve a sale. I’ll bet they would be unable find anyone who did a NICS check on someone they loaned a gun to for a short period of time. I-594 is probably, and justifiably so, going to be ignored as much as other stupid laws such those against recreational drugs, underage drinking, and oral sex.

I-594 results

From Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

BELLEVUE, WA – Friday marks the one-year anniversary of the effective date of Initiative 594 in Washington State, but the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says it does not appear the measure has been effective at all in preventing any crimes, noting that there have been “no arrests, no prosecutions and no convictions under this statute.”

“The law didn’t prevent a 15-year-old in Snohomish County from buying what may have been a stolen gun that he mishandled last weekend to accidentally shoot his younger brother,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “It didn’t prevent the July murder of Donnie Chin in Seattle’s International District. It didn’t keep a gun out of the hands of a known teenage gang member who is now facing charges relating to an August shooting in which the victim was walking with his son in Seattle.”

“Despite public records requests to agencies around the state, we can find no record of any enforcement of this new law in the year since it took effect,” he continued. “The only discernible impact of the law has been to inconvenience honest gun owners and add more red tape to gun shows.

“There is something else about last year’s election that nobody has questioned,” Gottlieb observed. “When you do some math, the numbers don’t add up and never did. The initiative campaign cost more than $10 million, when it theoretically should not have cost a dime. The proponents claimed that background checks are supported by 80 to 90 percent of the public, yet the measure passed by less than 60 percent of the popular vote, in which only about half of the state’s voters actually returned ballots.

“If you have overwhelming public support for any issue,” he explained, “you shouldn’t have to spend a fortune to convince people to actually vote for it. Now the law seems to be gathering dust, without preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands.

“It is particularly disappointing that the media, which supported I-594, has failed to ask these questions,” Gottlieb noted. “I-594 is a trophy, a flimsy sham that has allowed anti-gunners to claim they did something about violent crime when in fact they haven’t accomplished anything. We don’t believe it will survive a court challenge, and in the meantime it penalizes law-abiding citizens while the criminals laugh and ignore it.”

Let me repeat, with emphasis, “no arrests, no prosecutions and no convictions under this statute.” This is despite, as predicted, we have people openly saying they will not comply.

So what does this mean? It means the prosecutors know that as soon as they prosecute someone it will revive our lawsuit. That lawsuit, if allowed to go forward, has a decent chance of success. The anti-gun people would rather have the law stand and never be enforced than to defend the law in court. They know the law only affects those who are virtually no risk of criminal behavior and they are okay with that, if not knowingly had this harassment as their original goal.

Quote of the day—John Stossel

No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.

Bootleggers, “robber barons” who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed.

John Stossel
May 13, 2015
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
[This is what I expect will happened with I-594 and its cousins. People will mostly ignore it. The police will “have better things to do” and the prosecutors will only charge people with violating it if the criminal has more serious offenses as well.

Even if we can’t get it thrown out by the courts (the chances are still decent, just not as good as they were before the recent ruling) many, many people will ignore it because it is so stupid. Then eventually a friendly legislature will dispose of it.

This process will soon be visible in the State of New York in regards to The SAFE Act (H/T to Sebastian).—Joe]

Stolen gun numbers

This is interesting (from here):

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that an average of 232,400 firearms are stolen each year, based on data from 2005 through 2010. Eighty percent are never recovered

And how many “gun crimes” are there each year? In 2013 for robbery (125,366), aggravated assault (146,045), and murder (8,438) these add up to 279,849.

If, on average, each gun was used in only two crimes before being disposed of the criminal market could easily supply those needs from the guns never recovered.

Does anyone really think the criminal who steals a gun is going to do a background check on anyone before they use it in violent crime or sells it to someone who uses it in the commission of a violent crime?

“Universal” background checks of gun sales are for people who believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy. The resources spent on such foolishness should be used on something that has a chance of working..

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Why should it be your responsibility as a seller to verify the intentions of the buyer any more than it is for the seller of a car or a crowbar?

The basis of this background checks notion is the idea of collective responsibility, the uncivilized idea that you should feel responsible for the wrong acts of someone else.

Paul Koning
January 23, 2015
Comment to Carrots versus Sticks?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Carrots versus Sticks?

[The following was written by Brian Keith and posted here for the first time.—Joe]

Carrots Vs Sticks?
Or, why other gun rights activists make you so angry and what you can do about it

I spoke at the December 13th I Will Not Comply rally. As the first speaker, I encouraged thousands of armed citizens to shout “I Own Guns!”

At the January 15th rally, I was behind the scenes. I helped organize the I Will Not Comply people for some of the photos that were taken, and went with them through the Capitol to smooth feathers.

In both cases I was surrounded by people whose idea of the good life is roughly similar:

All peaceful adults should be allowed to defend themselves as they see fit.

(I say “allowed” because I am discussing our vision of the future and the specific reality we want to see happen. “Allowed” refers to the choices of the government and not to the nature of our unalienable rights.)

And yet, quite a few people at the Dec 13 rally are angry at the people at the Jan 15 rally. Many boycotted Jan 15.

And the reverse is true as well. Plenty of people didn’t go to Dec 13 for reasons ranging from the organizer not getting a permit to the planned civil disobedience to a disregard for Washington’s organized gun groups.

I met some good people Dec 13. And I met some good people Jan 15. And we all share the same stated goal.

So why are some of us at each others’ throats?

——

We see this same theme throughout history. A political minority wants more acknowledgment of their rights. Some people want to work within the current political system, while others take a more hard line approach.

I call these groups the Carrots and the Sticks.

The Carrot says “I’ll work with you on your terms, follow your rules, and in exchange you’ll give me more political power.”

The Stick says “Your rules exist to keep me powerless. I will break them and I dare you to try to stop me.”

(When I say rules, I speak of the political process as it is. Mentioning that the US Constitution or the Washington State constitution guarantee the right to keep and bear arms does us no good. It is true that they do, but what of it? We do not actually get to practice that right. So I speak of what actually is, now, and not what ought to be.)

Carrots usually achieve victory when they have Sticks backing them up. Alex Haley, Malcolm X’s biographer, referred to this in regards to Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK had some power through nonviolence. But the organization Malcolm X gave much of his life to had the numbers of trained men ready to do damage to earn freedom. And that bolstered MLK’s cause. The powers that be would much rather deal with Carrot than Sticks.

This is not to say that the Carrots like the Sticks that help them win. Simply to say that, in the absence of Sticks, the Carrots have little back up plan.

One Carrot that did win without Stick support is Gandhi. But he also said he would choose violence over cowardice if those were the only two options. Perhaps if his team had more guns they would have also pursued a Stick strategy.

In the American Revolution, many people tried the Carrot strategy for many years. Read the Declaration of Independence and you can see the transition of those men from Carrots to Sticks.

——

We have Carrots and Sticks in the gun rights movement.

Alan Gottlieb is the quintessential Carrot. I’ve never read him advocating breaking the law. In a conversation with him on Jan 15, I asked him why he wasn’t trying to stop background checks. I acknowledged that he had done more than any other individual in my lifetime to further the cause of freedom. So why was he compromising on background checks?

To paraphrase, he responded that politics is the art of the possible, and that repealing 594 was not politically possible at this time.

Fight political battles you can win. That’s the Carrot point of view.

Mike Vanderboegh is the quintessential Stick. He advocates breaking the law. He smuggles illegal magazines in to states that have banned them.

His tagline is “When freedom turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote.”

——

Carrots get mad at Sticks when the Sticks make noise and rock the boat. The Carrot needs the boat steady, so he believes, so that he can get more political power.

Sticks get mad at Carrots when they compromise and value popularity or wealth over freedom. Sticks want freedom now, because compromise is what got us in this mess!

——

The Dec 13 rally was the biggest armed civil disobedience rally in the history of our country. The thousands who attended effectively nullified the Transfer prohibition of 594. When confronted with thousands of people not following the law, the State Patrol decided not to enforce the law, and many other law enforcement agencies have followed suit. Sticks: 1.

But a law enforcement organization choosing to not enforce a law at an event is not the same thing as protecting people at other times and in other places from that law. Matt Shea introduced a bill to repeal 594. And many other Carrots are on the move- from Gottlieb’s court case to get some parts of 594 thrown out to a law enforcement group’s attempt to make having your Concealed Pistol License count as your background check. None of these efforts have born fruit yet, but they are the only way we can continue to experience the freedom we claimed on Dec 13. Carrots: 1.

Gottlieb & the Carrots may have been able to get an injunction for the Transfer prohibition of 594. But Gavin Seim & the Sticks demonstrated that the law is unenforceable in a way no politician can ignore, and they did it fast. We are more free for their efforts.

Gavin and Mike could, in theory, introduce legislation repealing 594. But it’s Representative Matt Shea who actually did that, and it is he and his non-offensive demeanor that people can rally around. Few politicians can rally to the cause of a man who talks on the radio about how everyone should own tanks. When Matt Shea & the Carrots win with this bill, we will be more free for their efforts.

——

I titled this essay Carrots Vs Sticks? because I don’t think we have to be as angry at each other as we are.

Carrots: The Sticks are the only way we’ll ever get more free. It is only the threat of armed resistance that has stopped law enforcement in California, Connecticut, New York, and now perhaps Washington from enforcing clear laws banning guns and magazines. Sticks may embarrass you, but their principled stance is what buys you political capital as well as fundraising money. By all means keep trying to talk your way out of bad laws. It might work now, and it is almost always talking it out that eventually secures a state of liberty for the people. Stop badmouthing the people who have the guts to live free and demonstrate to the nation what freedom looks like. Remember, there were ten times as many people at the I Will Not Comply rally as at the Let’s Use The Political Process rally. Respect the courage of those who demand their rights.

Sticks: Don’t hate the Carrots for being politicians. It’s really rare for the people as a whole to get more free simply as a result of violating unjust laws. Rosa Parks didn’t write any laws. Nor did Malcolm X. They just resisted. Stay principled yourself, and by all means call out corruption when you see it. Stay professional in your demeanor as you commit felonies and make people uncomfortable. Be unfailingly kind and polite. Keep on doing what you know is right. And respect those who work in different ways to achieve freedom. (And wear suits and professional clothing when possible. I know you are more comfortable in your Carhartts- so am I. But you are the front lines of liberty. Dress like it.)

——

So what happens now?

Sticks will get angry at me for defending Carrots. And Carrots will get angry at me for defending Sticks.

And both will get angry at each other for being irresponsible short-sighted jerks.

And Bloomberg, Gates, and the rest of the anti-freedom crowd will grab the popcorn and laugh themselves silly.

Because every ounce of energy we direct at denigrating a fellow gun rights activist is energy we’re not directing at winning.

Carrots and Sticks have different tactics for winning.

If you really want freedom, take a page from the other guy’s book.

Are you a Carrot who puts your energy in to the political process?

Awesome- now go to the next rally at the Capitol with your long gun and demand to be heard. It’s February 7th at 10am. Don’t think the I Will Not Comply people are reasonable? Great- go and talk with them. Convince them of your point of view. https://www.facebook.com/events/1547594748829848

Are you a Stick who puts your energy in to demanding your rights in a public way?

Great- now go call your Legislator and schedule a meeting with them to talk about Matt Shea’s bill to repeal 594. It’s House Bill 1245. Find your legislator at http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

——

We need Carrots and Sticks working together full throttle to win back our rights. We all want the same thing. Let’s go get it.

Naïve, stupid, crazy, or malicious

Some people “want to make it harder for bad guys to get guns”. Okay. I understand the sentiment. I can even understand that some people are more “practical” than principled.

People with far different principles than I have long made a “principled” case that economic central planning is better than a free market. Such a system “will make everyone more equal.” But that “principled” approach is easily defeated by pointing out the practical results of those experiments. Tens of millions murdered by their own governments and shortages of even essential products.

We have the principled approach of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. What data do they have which contradicts this? Why can’t they understand it’s a fool’s mission to keep guns away from the bad guys?

This is from a UK paper article titled How did the Paris terrorists get hold of their weapons?:

In 2010, police in Belgium stated: “Counter to what you may have heard, it’s not easy to get hold of a Kalashnikov.” To prove them wrong, a reporter for Belgian newspaper La Derniere Heure managed to do so in less than six hours.

The evidence is overwhelming that black markets supply any product which is both technically possible and people have the money for. The price might be higher and the quality may be lower. But where there are buyers there will soon be sellers.

The examples are all around us as well as in history. Think of prohibition. Think of recreational drugs. As I have said before, “The average high school dropout can get all the recreational drugs they want within an hour anytime of the day, any day of the week. So just how effective you think a background check would be in reducing the abuse of recreational drugs?”

The people that insist that background checks, bans, restrictions on ammunition sales, and “gun free zones” cannot be right in the head. They have to be willfully naïve, incredible stupid, have mental issues, or they are malicious.

When you are dealing with people like this there is no value in compromising. There is no value in “agreeing to disagree”. There is no value in “respecting their opinion.” These people need to be defeated. They need to be put in their place. They need to be made an example of. They need to be made politically irrelevant. They need to be prosecuted. They are prejudiced bigots. They need to be swept into the dustbin of history. The should be despised as a 21st Century version of the KKK because this is what they are.

Quote of the day—betterway006

Frankly I don’t really care what the bill says.  If it all impedes the manufacturing, sales, ownership, transfer, etc. of guns I’m in favor.

betterway006
January 15, 2015
Comment to Hundreds at Capitol protest new gun-purchase background checks
[The “bill” being commented on was initiative I-594 in Washington State.

I’ll do my best to make sure this is used as evidence against them at their trial.

Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

594: Rally For Your Rights

Sean Flynn and I woke up at an obscene hour this morning and drove to Olympia Washington for the rally to oppose I-594. As you might imagine from the number of QOTDs he has provided and the numerous posts that mention him it was a pleasure to have him as a companion for the drive.

At the rally last month I didn’t talk to anyone and only recognized Mike Vanderboegh (his thoughts on today’s rally are here). This time I saw and talked to a number of people including Barron and Janelle, Gay Cynic, Dave Workman (I didn’t really talk to him, just nodded “Hi!”, his thoughts on the rally are here), Anette Wachter and Charles, Alan Gottlieb, Brian Keith, and numerous other people I recognized.

I believe my speech went okay. Joel Connelly from the Seattle PI made mention of me in his blog post about the rally. He said I was “from a group called Boomershoot” which doesn’t really make any sense, but did correctly note I quoted Any Rand from Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness. I suspect he intended that to mean that I could be dismissed without further thought because in a couple sentences he said, “About the day’s only reflective remark came from State Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, a Democratic legislator who actively opposed I-594”.

Brian Keith told me my speech got a bigger response than all the speeches prior which was my impression as well. I’m nearly certain there was only one speech after mine that got a bigger response from the crowd.

The text of my speech is “below the fold”. If you are a regular reader of my blog there isn’t any new material here.

WP_20150115_009
Me giving my speech. Photo by Sean.

IMG_2038
Barron and Janelle

IMG_2025
Some of the LGBT contingent.

IMG_2029
Some of the I will not comply contingent.

It’s instructive to see the selection of photographs the Daily Herald (Everett, Washington) posted of the rally. It’s all guns and images that reinforce the stereotypes the anti-gun people want to believe are true. They didn’t include any pictures of ordinary people standing around listening and applauding like what I saw:

IMG_2035

After the rally I visited the offices of my representatives then attended a luncheon with other activists and some lawmakers.

Continue reading

Coalition of Gun Rights Speakers Scheduled for Jan. 15 “594: Rally For Your Rights”

Via wagunrights.org:

RallyForYourRights-1-1-15

Join us in Olympia on Thursday, Jan. 15 for “594: Rally For Your Rights” starting at 9 a.m. The event will showcase Evergreen State activists showing their support for gun rights while at the same time contacting and hearing from and meeting with their local lawmakers to discuss their concerns.

Scheduled speakers will include State Sen. Pam Roach (R-31st), State Rep. Brian Blake (D-19th), Rep. Liz Pike (R-18th) Rep. Lynda Wilson (R-17th), National Rifle Association Senior State Liaison Brian Judy, plus Adina Hicks, executive director of Protect Our Gun Rights Washington, Paige Biron with the Pink Pistols and Rick Halle with the Gun Rights Coalition, Alan Gottlieb (Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), Paige Biron (Seattle Pink Pistols). Rick Halle of the Gun Rights Coalition will act as the Master of Ceremonies.

In addition, Bill Burris, representing the Washington Arms Collectors, Gun Owners Action League of Washington and the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association will appear, along with Joe Huffman from Boomershoot.
The Rally For Your Rights, the first 2015 Legislative Rally against I-594 is sponsored by Washington State Rifle & Pistol Association, I Love Guns & Coffee, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership and the Washington Arms Collectors. The event will be attended by individuals from all of the previously mentioned groups, including WAFLAG, WaGuns.org, the Gun Rights Coalition and the Seattle chapter of Pink Pistols.

Protect Our Gun Rights chairman Alan Gottlieb also released a statement today in anticipation of the rally and the 2015 legislative session.

“I’m honored to have been invited to share the concerns of more than a million Washington gun owners who are now feeling the effects of all the problems with Initiative 594,” Gottlieb said. “This poorly-written measure, which is now being challenged in federal court, has already created confusion for legions of law-abiding citizens.

“I’m hoping to meet with my own state legislators,” he added. “I want them to hear from me not only as an activist but also as a taxpayer and constituent. This will be an important event because it will give concerned gun owners from all over the state a rare opportunity to meet their representatives face-to-face, while they are all gathered in Olympia.

“Like it or not,” Gottlieb – a Bellevue resident – observed, “gun owners have rights, too. We will not be silenced by elitist billionaires, nor will we quietly accept being treated as second-class citizens because we exercise our Second Amendment rights. I hope gun owners join us in Olympia to Rally for our Rights.”

Help will be provided at the rally for citizens in locating their state lawmaker and scheduling a visit to meet with them. Citizens may also locate their lawmaker by going to app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/ or contact the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000.

Quote of the day—THE NYCEO

Listen you nuts….go get that surgery to enlarge your private parts so you can put the assault rifle down. Enough is enough.

THE NYCEO
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Keith

Our community must hear us proudly declare that we own guns.

It may make some of our fellow citizens uncomfortable. But so can two guys walking down the street holding hands. Our owning guns is not subject to their discomfort.

It may make some of our fellow citizens nervous or upset. But so can an interracial couple sharing a kiss in a park. Our owning guns is not subject to their emotional state.

Brian Keith
December 13, 2014

[This was part of his speech at the #IWillNotComply rally in Olympia.

See also my comments to his QOTD here.—Joe]

SAF sues to derail Washington State gun control initiative 594

Full article here.

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Wash., that challenges the constitutionality of portions of Initiative 594, the billionaire-backed 18-page gun control measure passed by voters Nov. 4 that could be the most important election issue of 2014.

“The broad and poorly constructed restrictions in I-594 render the enactment unconstitutional,” the lawsuit contends. So far, the complaint notes, the plaintiffs are not aware of any arrests, citations or prosecutions since the law took effect.

At the Olympia demonstration, hundreds of gun-toting activists either participated or watched as unloaded firearms were swapped back and forth under the eyes of onlooking State Patrol troopers.

“Shortly after I-594 passed,” the complaint says, “the Washington State Patrol, through its spokesman Bob Calkins, announced that the agency was not planning any arrests or citations of individuals planning to protest the passage of I-594 by trading firearms amongst themselves without subjecting the changes in possession to background checks.” Calkins at the time said, “We don’t think that we could prove that that’s a transfer.”

Help Undo the Damage of I-594!

Via email:

WASHINGTON STATE GUN OWNER ACTION ALERT

Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.

 

Protect Our Gun Rights

Help Undo the Damage of I-594!

 

I-594 – Rally for Your Rights
January 15, 2014
9 am – Rally On Capitol Building Steps
11 am – Meet With Elected Representatives

 

CORRECTIO: Sorry about the mix up in the previous email! The correct link for locating your legislator is: http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/, (no www).

On January 15, 2015 starting at 9 a.m. a coalition of local and national gun rights groups will host the first 2015 Legislative Rally against I-594 on the front steps at the Washington State Capitol Building in Olympia.

The grassroots event will include hundreds of supporters of the Second Amendment rights with speakers Adina Hicks (Executive Director, Protect Our Gun Rights), Rick Halle (National Coordinator, Gun Rights Coalition), Paige Biron (President, Pink Pistols of Seattle), Alan Gottlieb (Founder, Second Amendment Foundation), Joe Huffman (Boomershoot), Bill Burris (WAC Board member, WSLEFIA Spokesperson), Rep. Brian Blake, and others that will kick off a day sharing the concerns of Second Amendment supporters with legislators throughout the Capitol campus.

After the rally, attendees are encouraged to visit their individual legislators to educate them about the many flaws of I-594 and promote other firearms rights issues.

For help scheduling meeting with your legislator, please call Adina Hicks of POGR at (425) 351-4088.

Business casual or formal attire is the norm on the capitol campus when the legislature is in session. Our aim is for gun owners to make their voices heard and petition their government for redress of grievances, not to put on a sideshow for the media to easily twist.

Help will be provided at the rally to those unsure of who their legislator is and how best to meet with them. In the meantime you may locate your legislator by going to http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/.

You may also contact your representatives via the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000 to educate them on the facts.

We will have many other announcements to follow in the weeks to come.

To support the activities of Protect Our Gun Rights your contributing membership and support is necessary to continue our important work. Please help today!

 

WWW.WAGUNRIGHTS.ORG

 

 

 

 follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend 

Paid for by:  Protect Our Gun Rights
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Protect Our Gun Rights
12500 NE 10th Pl.,
Bellevue, WA 98005

Protect Our Gun Rights
Tel: 800-486-6963
Fax: (425) 451-3959

wagunrights@liberty.seanet.com

 

Quote of the day—Brian Keith

I am a walking no-violent-crime zone.

When I carry a handgun, I ensure the safety of all of those around me.

I don’t replace the police- far from it. I’m the guy you want around when evil strikes so that everyone can stay alive long enough for the police to arrive.

Brian Keith
December 13, 2014

[This was part of his speech at the #IWillNotComply rally in Olympia.

Brian sent me an email a couple days after the event. Part of the email said:

Maybe I’ll get to meet you at the next gun rally. I know my Dad and I would have liked to shake your hand, as we read you almost every day.

I thought about using your bigotry meme as the main theme for my speech.

I went instead for the “I own guns” theme as it is accessible without much thinking.

I did add the bit on at the end about two guys holding hands or an interracial kiss. That definitely comes from reading you.

I almost had tears rolling down my checks from reading that. I can’t begin to say how rewarding it is to make an influence like that on people.—Joe]

A chink created in GCA68

Via Dave Hardy and WSJ. This is a really big deal:

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

This creates a significant chink in GCA68:

In this case of first impression, we consider not the what, where, when, or why of the Second Amendment’s limitations—but the who.6 Specifically, does the Second Amendment forbid Congress from prohibiting firearm possession by all individuals previously committed to a mental institution?

It also reviews the level of scrutiny being applied by other courts, expends several pages on it, and:

We conclude our explanation of choosing strict scrutiny with a reminder of intermediate scrutiny’s shaky foundation in Second Amendment law.

Strict scrutiny it is!

With strict scrutiny the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. The fact that someone was once confined to a mental institution does not mean they should necessarily be prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life.

The same could easily be said of those who have committed non-violent felonies.

This ruling could help end the “sporting purpose” test and the Lautenberg Amendment.

Although this was in the sixth circuit and not the ninth which covers Washington State you can see how strict scrutiny would mean the end of the most onerous portions of I-594. How can a law preventing students in a classroom from passing a an unloaded firearm to another student be considered “narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest”? The only way that can be true is if the state interest is that there not be a right to keep and bear arms.

What if?

What if there were a county in Washington State that publically announced they would not enforce the I-594 provisions (H/T to Say Uncle and Miguel) against people who were not prohibited from gun ownership?
 
Could people travel to that county, do a private sale, and return to, say, King County and be immune from prosecution by the tyrants in King County because the “crime” occurred in a county out of their jurisdiction?

If that were the case then wouldn’t it mean I-594 is essentially unenforceable everywhere unless there were witnesses or compelling evidence that such travel and sale did not occur?

I asked this question of a lawyer friend who said, in part:

I’m not sure that the King county courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the county borders. Of course, the King county prosecutor could always charge their residents with criminal conspiracy or racketeering (if they somehow discovered that an offense had occurred).

A couple of things I’ve been working on re: 594: I’m trying to get a model ordinance going at the county level that designates areas where shooting occurs (someone’s backyard for instance) as an “approved range” if no other zoning ordinance would be violated.  I’m hoping to get this going in Whitman soon- maybe it will spread. If you know people who live in “good” counties that might be interested in taking this to their commissioners, send them my way.

If you are one of those people that live in a “good county” send me an email and I’ll forward it on to my lawyer friend.

The anti-gun people think they are clever and that we are just “stupid, uneducated rednecks.” I wonder how long they will hold onto that belief as we start “driving trucks” through their stupid law and laughing at them.