A politician who understands our issue

Via email from daughter Jaime I received a link to this March 2, 2018 speech by Nick Freitas, delegate to the Virginia house of Representatives.

I sometimes think politicians don’t have a clue about much of anything. This guy does a good job on our issue:

Some of the comments from YouTube:

This guy is brilliant, articulate and dead right. On all counts. Logic, truth and facts are his friends, as they are the deadly enemies of the Left.


I was waiting for a bald eagle to land on my shoulder during that speech.


Democrats walked out during the speech, claiming they were offended. Dems are such a joke.


We need to push sanctuary cities and sanctuary states for undocumented AR15s. Stop the breaking up of innocent ARs from their families.

DH Gaston

The day the adult stood up.

Larry Hickey

Quote of the day—Gary Johnson

I always thought that honesty would rule the day. I always thought that integrity would rule the day. I always thought that telling the truth would rule the day. And it doesn’t.

Gary Johnson
2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidate
February 2018
Gary Johnson: ‘I Always Thought Telling the Truth Would Rule the Day. And It Doesn’t.’
[After years of behaving as if this hypothesis were true I finally concluded that it was irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe]

Quote of the day—thezman

The American Left was not caused by socialism or radical ideology. The causal relationship was the other way around. The hive-like behavior was a constant, a part of the American biology. When the socialist paradise collapsed, the Left switched to sexual and racial utopianism. That means when the current rage heads burn what’s left of society, only to not arrive at the promised land, they will find some new fantasy to embrace. The Hive is eternal.

March 7, 2018
The Eternal Hive
[Via email from Peter G.

One of my hypothesizes has been that the political left always needs something to hate. From before the U.S. Civil War until the 1960s there target was primarily their slaves, then the freed slaves, then capitalism and blacks in general. In the 1960s blacks were replaced by gun owners. As the collapse of the USSR and other socialist and communist political systems fell from grace whites and men were added and capitalism was deemphasized.

Z Man’s claim also appears to match my observations.

If Z Man is correct, one extrapolation indicates that the end is near and it won’t be pretty.—Joe]

Facts can be confusing

This post was inspired by a cartoon sent to me by Will S.


It was only in the last few thousand years that facts and logic began to have a toehold on our understanding of world around us. Even then rational thought would lose its footing and slide back down into the dark ages for a few hundred years at a time.

My hypothesis is that there is a reason for this. Reliance on facts and rational thought created an evolutionary advantage which allowed for the survival of a greater number of less fit people. These less fit, emotionally driven, people drag society down again.

The repeated rise and fall of reliance on rational thought is like a cleaning process. Each time the gene pool was cleaned it became a more biased toward rationality and human society became more advanced.

I had hoped that we need not go through another dark age but there are times when I fear we are nearing another downward slide. How else can you explain the continued infatuation with socialism? What other political system has experienced so many attempts and resulted in so many catastrophic failures? How else can you explain the masses of people who blame private ownership of firearms for the massacres of school children when government disarmed the adults, failed to prosecute the villain prior to his attack, and failed to come to the rescue even though they were close by? The government which failed at ever step of the way is now supposed to be tasked with the job of attacking those who held no responsibility for the creating the circumstance, or failing to stop the attack. This is not the result of a rational thought process. This is crazy talk and to me is a strong indicator that the slippery slope into another dark age is only a small misstep away.

Quote of the day—J.D. Tuccille

Social media at the moment is full of gun opponents celebrating efforts to isolate the NRA and its membership. It also features gun supporters flashing images of their new membership cards in that organization. NRA members now vow economic retaliation against the companies that succumbed to similar threats from anti-gun activists. The big losers are bound to be those companies who felt obliged to publicly pick a side in the new economic phase of the growing culture war.

But pick a side, they did, and many more will come under pressure to do the same in the days to come. The political tribes are restless, and they’re eager to do as much damage as possible to their cultural enemies with the only tools left to them.

J.D. Tuccille
February 27, 2018
Culture War Is All That’s Left When Gun Policy Battles Become Pointless
[Via email from Stephanie.

Tuccille’s analysis rings true with me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Borepatch

You meet different sorts of people who advocate for gun control.  Some of them are hard core control freaks who just want to crush flyover country, but if you’re like me you don’t run across them very often.  Mostly you run across people who aren’t shooters or gun owners, who haven’t thought about the issue very much, but who are disturbed about the constant media drumbeat about shootings and who just want to “do something”.

We need these people on our side, or at least standing on the sidelines.  How do we separate them from the gun control pack.

My last post was how I approach this: I’m not opposed to gun control, I’m opposed to stupid and useless gun control.  This is a mind virus that I’m trying to infect them with.  I want to sow seeds of doubt in their minds to get them out of the gun controller’s camp and onto the sidelines.  Hopefully (if the virus really takes) it will begin the process where they actually start to think about things and they may even end up on our side.
It’s a battle for the (very large) middle ground.  In the long run, we’re not viable without it

March 2, 2018
A Gun Rights Mind Virus
[In a lot of ways I think this is a great idea. Particularly since, as near as I can tell, all gun control is stupid and useless.

But, it ignores the principle aspect. Suppose it was found it was not “useless” to implement policy of summary execution for anyone to be caught on video committing a crime of violence, i.e. violent crime dramatically dropped. A little later lawmakers decided to extend the policy to possession of a gun or ammunition and violent crime dropped even further.

The safety net of the right to keep and bear arms just went away. Stupid? Almost for certain, particularly since summary execution is now viewed as acceptable. What next? Political speech? But the question of “stupid” is going to be subject to debate. We are now on a slippery slope well into tyranny hell with no recourse.

Bottom line is that I like it but it needs to be tempered with at least a bit of philosophy that respects the fundamental, natural, right to self-defense from both criminals and a runaway government.—Joe]

More interesting Facebook stuff

The other day I posted about Facebook claiming a comment of mine was spam, asking me to review it, and then deleted it before I had to chance to review it.

Today, I posted a Random thought of the day:

If bakers of wedding cakes can be forced to bake custom wedding cakes for homosexuals because gay marriage is legal, doesn’t that mean stores which sell firearms can be forced to custom order an AR-15 for you because you are legally allowed to own one?

My blog software automatically makes a Facebook post with a link back to my blog. It did that today with the previous post but it doesn’t show up on Facebook. I have seen this before but just thought maybe there was error of some sort and the Facebook post failed. This time, I know that’s not the case.

From Statcounter:

Date: 3/1/2018 15:10
Link: http://m.facebook.com
Title: Random thought of the day | The View From North Central Idaho
Url: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/03/01/random-thought-of-the-day-104/

This was two minutes after my blog post went live. I knew it took a minute or two before a blog post showed up on Facebook. I thought it was probably just some sort of normal processing delay. Now I suspect my blog posts are reviewed by a human before being allowed to go live on Facebook. It could be an automated process but that shouldn’t take two minutes.

We have known for a while that Google blocks shopping searches for AR15s (compare with AR10s).

So, what can we do about this sort of crap? Any ideas that are better than boycotting them?

Update March1, 2018 19:22 PST: Another visit to my blog post via Facebook came in 14 minutes after the first one:

Date: 3/1/2018 15:24
Link: https://www.facebook.com/
Title: Random thought of the day | The View From North Central Idaho
Url: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/03/01/random-thought-of-the-day-104/

It could not have been because of the original version of this post or inspired because of it because this post was not made until 16:10. Although it could have been that someone saw my blog post and referenced it themselves on Facebook. This is somewhat supported by the fact that another visit occurred at 18:48:

Date: 3/1/2018 18:48
Link: https://www.facebook.com/
Title: Random thought of the day | The View From North Central Idaho
Url: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/03/01/random-thought-of-the-day-104/

It makes perfect sense

Students Participating in Gun Control Walkout Are Arrested After They Throw Rocks, Damage Cars:

Some California students who were participating in a school walkout in response to not having nationwide gun control laws were arrested after they began to throw rocks and cause property damage.

KCRA reports at least five students were arrested on Friday after they started to jump the fence to leave school property and began throwing rocks at both civilian and police cars. According to KCRA, charges include “battery on an officer, resisting arrest, taking an officer’s baton and vandalizing vehicles, including patrol vehicles.”

You might think this ironic. But actually it makes perfect sense. Of course criminals want the public disarmed. They don’t want to get shot.

Elaboration on the inherent violent nature of the modern liberal

In response to my post Why are liberals so violent? I received a comment from John Schussler who said:

I’m fascinated by your characterization of liberals as inherently violent. In the link you point to you say:

“The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.

Why are liberals so violent?”

You pick the most extreme far left commie anarchist examples you could find and then generalize that liberals are violent? In the statistical distribution, you’ve picked some examples that are several standard deviations off the norm and decided to redefine that as the norm. That’s not a rational idea. Sorta like liberals pointing to the KKK and Stormfront and calling them the conservative norm. Why are you doing that?

In the comments I elaborated some but Schussler, with a fair amount of justification, said:

You’re not answering the central question: why are you picking statistical anomalies and generalizing them to the norm? The ELF, ALF, etc. are a tiny fraction of the “left.” Calling them the norm is absurd.

I didn’t actually say they were the norm. But I can see how that might be the interpretation. I decided to elaborate and try to more clearly explain why I see the modern liberal as inherently violent.

In the context of politics “liberal” has dramatically changed in the last 150 years. I did not intend to say classical liberalism was inherently violent. With broad civil liberties and emphasis on economic freedoms it is in fact inherently non-violent.

Modern liberalism is characterized by support for “social justice” and a mixed economy.

The modern liberal appears to have no hesitation to use government to take wealth from one group of people and give wealth to another group of people. This shows up in a extremely wide range of government policies from art, education, food, health care, housing, roads, Internet access, social services, and even cell phones.

The modern liberal sometimes claims support for “civil liberties” but are very selectively in the liberties they defend. They have no hesitation, and in fact appear extremely eager, to ban as many guns as quickly as they can. They appear to be eager to ban speech they declare “hate speech”. They demand people be limited in the both monetary and non-monetary support they give political candidates. This is a limit on free speech. They demand people of certain religions support activities those religions have strict doctrine against (Catholics with regard to birth control, and abortion). They demand government force Christian fundamentalist bakers make wedding cakes for homosexuals. They demand people not be allowed to purchase carbonated drinks larger than some particular size. They have made failure to recycle a crime. They have made it a crime for two people to agree on a fair wage if the wage is below a certain minimum and they have attempted to create an upper limit as well and in many respects have succeeded. They demand business licenses for nearly every activity that involves the exchange of money. They even shutdown children selling lemonade on the sidewalk in front of their homes because they did not have a business license. I don’t think I have ever heard a modern liberal politician demand there be less regulation, lower subsidies, or fewer restrictions on free speech or guns. More government intervention is always the solution.

The list of prohibited actions and mandatory behaviors is so extensive that the joke from the USSR, “that which is not prohibited is mandatory”, is easily seen as being applicable to us in the utopian view of the modern liberal. The modern liberal contributes to this environment far more than the modern conservative or, especially, libertarian (classical liberal).

Each law, each regulation, and each tax requires enforcement. One must either be profoundly ignorant of what enforcement means or accepting of it when they advocate for these restrictions on liberty. The person who demands the government punish people for failing to recycle or punish a child for selling lemonade is one who is willing to use the government to physically take money from them or drag them off to jail.

As George Washington said in a speech of January 7, 1790:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

Modern liberals are willing to use force, violence, even if it is by proxy, to make others conform as precisely as possible to their view of proper behavior. This is an inherent part of their political philosophy. This use of (government) violence to achieve their goals must be an inherent part of their nature or they would have reservations about such extensive use of government.

I believe the reason we see violence in the activities of liberal supported groups such as Occupy Wall Street, the Ferguson unrest, and Black Lives Matter because it is part of a continuum. At the low end of spectrum we have fines and regulations which are ultimately enforced via government force to take the money, physically stop a prohibited activity, or threaten forcible imprisonment for failure to engage in a mandatory behavior. In the middle part of the spectrum we have groups of people engaging in vandalism, blocking of streets, and looting. At the high end we have actual terrorist organizations such as ALF, Eco-terrorists, and The Weathermen.

I do not see a similar continuum in those who identify as conservative or libertarian.

Government has its own agenda

Via a private message from Don Kaag we have this explanation for why the local police didn’t do anything about the murdering scumbag in Florida when they were told dozens of times prior to when he shot up the kids.

If These Tweets Are True, Broward FL Law Enforcement Has A LOT To Answer For!!

I stumbled upon was a Broward County law enforcement system in a state of conflict. The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes.

The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein.

So police officials, the very highest officials of law enforcement (Sheriff and Police Chiefs), entered into a plan.

The primary problem was the policy conflicted with laws, and over time the policy began to create outcomes where illegal behavior by students was essentially unchecked by law enforcement. Link.

Initially, the police were excusing misdemeanor behaviors. However, it didn’t take long for felonies, even violent felonies (armed robberies, assaults and worse) were being excused.

Only then a Parkland school shooting happened. For Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel this had to be an “oh shit” moment; but not for the reasons the media initially thought. If people start digging, they’ll discover the shooter was one of those previously excused students

2013/2014 – Praise for the program: Link.

2017 – The program continues. Still chasing year-over-year reductions. Worse and worse crimes being excused. Link.

2018 – Parkland School Shooting. 17 dead. Political cop (SRO) cowered from the shooter; now retiring. School board wondering ‘what went wrong’.
Entirely predictable. Link.

The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is an essential part of life. Government has it’s own agenda and many times that agenda has nothing to do with protecting the rights of individuals. The Second Amendment enables individuals to protect themselves from all predators. This includes four legged predators, two legged predators, and the multi-headed monster called “government”.

When the dealing with corrupt and/or predatory governments the Second Amendment is Plan B when Plan A, the First Amendment, is insufficiently convincing that change is required.

Quote of the day—Don Kaag

I’m tired…

I’m tired of typing in the same constitutional arguments on gun control every time there is a shooting anywhere in America.

Tired of citing the same statistics of declining gun crime in America—except in cities controlled by Democrats for decades, with the nation’s strictest gun laws—to liberal people who think the Constitution is an outdated document.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am done discussing this topic. It is like shouting into the wind. No minds will be changed.

If and when you manage to get together the votes to retake the Congress and the Presidency to affect radical change, and to propose and pass and sign and ratify a constitutional amendment abrogating the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, we will reengage.

Because then there will be a genuine shooting revolution.

See you on the barricades…

Don Kaag
February 21, 2018
Private Facebook post (used with permission).

[Kaag is a former Marine. I’m glad he is on my side.

My fear is that unless we keep talking and keep taking new shooters to the range and converting minds we will lose anyway. Our enemies will always play to their strengths and our weaknesses. They will do their best to never get in a shooting war. They know this is our point of greatest strength. Their greatest strength is the mainstream media.

We have other strengths we must enable and utilize. SCOTUS is not yet our friend but with one or two more Trump appointed justices it will be. The Federal district and appeals courts have long been unfriendly as well but this changing with hundreds of new appointment made and to be made during the next few years. In another three to seven years the courts have a good chance of swinging the direction of the tide. This will require we vote, encourage others to vote, and to persuade our Senators to approve the justices which adhere to the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

Sometime after we win the battle for the courts is when I expect we could, literally, be “on the barricades”. This will be when the political left enables us to use our greatest strength.

The political left has totally lost their cool in regards to the current political setting. You can see Trump Derangement Syndrome nearly everywhere. The gun issue had people rushing the stage chanting “Burn her!” to Dana Loesch when she engaged in a discussion about the Florida school shooting on CNN. Loesch didn’t do the shooting. She didn’t encourage the shooter to murder 17 people. She didn’t give the shooter the guns or ammo. She didn’t even know of the murdering scumbag loser until she heard it on the news. What do you think the mobs will do when told the Second Amendment doesn’t stop at the school property line? Or that able bodied people on welfare for years must finally get a job or go hungry? Or that in addition to paying for their own food they must pay for their own health care? Or that most of the government grant money is going away and those people are going to have get private grants or get a real job?

One of the strongest political currencies of the political left is street violence. Violence is part of their nature. When they are losing with little hope of recovery they will use it and they will not hold back.

The barricades will have to be strong, the ammunition plentiful, and the aim true. I expect the mobs will be epic.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ben Shapiro‏ @benshapiro

Only the government should have guns to protect us. We can’t expect government employees to confront armed criminals. Pick one.

Ben Shapiro‏ @benshapiro
Tweeted on February 23, 2018
[Shapiro has a logical response and expectation.

Unfortunately this is not how the minds of many people work. I have posted about the problem many times before. Many people do not have a process to determine truth from falsity (see also these posts). The truth depends upon how they feel. I have a lot of experience with dealing with people like this. I literally have decades of experience.

In regards to the first two sentence quoted above, the way their mind works is as follows: They have a feeling in regards to each sentence independent from the other. They both feel true to them. Therefore both sentences are true.

It used to be that I literally would be told that I should do two different things which were mutually exclusive. I would have to be at two places at the same time to accomplish them. When I would point this out they would get angry and say things like, “You always have to get your way!” Their feelings trumped the laws of physics. If you look into the characteristics of some personality disorders you will find that they create situations where their associates/family/friends/etc. “can’t win”. They will demand others adhere to their rules/requests/whatever but when you look at the requests you will discover it is impossible to comply with all of them. You will always be in a position to be found at fault and punished.

My counselor when dealing with these things in my personal life, Staci, told me there are two characteristics that are common to all personality disorders:

  1. The more close the relationship the more severe the symptoms. A spouse and their children will have a more difficult relationship than extended family which will be worse than co-workers which will be worse than with strangers. They can frequent “hold it together” while at work or dealing with strangers and still make life a living hell for their spouse and children.
  2. They will not, or perhaps more accurately cannot, admit they are to blame for anything. If you point out to a normal person they could have handled a situation differently and that would perhaps have resulted in a better outcome they can reflect on it, think it through, and accept they may have made some contribution to the poor outcome. The person with the personality disorder is unable to do this. Among other things this results in the “can’t win” requests. They may have made requests that are physically impossible to comply with. Yet, it is your fault the requests were not complied with.

Hence, I see a lot of evidence that many anti-gun people have mental health issues. Look around with just a hint of the correct filter and you can see it too.

They created “Gun Free Zones” around schools and over the years hundreds of children and teachers have been murdered. This is your fault. It is beyond their ability to recognize they contributed in any way.

They banned guns in Chicago/D.C./etc and have horrific murder rates committed with firearms inside those political jurisdictions. Just outside those jurisdictions such as in Indiana and Virginia, where guns are legal, the murder rate is much lower. We conclude the laws where the crime rate is lower should be emulated in the high crime areas. The anti-gun people conclude their gun control isn’t working because guns are available outside their gun free paradise—it is the fault of Indiana and Virginia “lax gun laws”. This is your fault. Again, it is beyond their ability to recognize they contributed in any way.

These people are “nuts” and we should not be trying to negotiate or compromise with them. They cannot determine truth from falsity in a manner normal people would recognize as valid.

As I was advised by Staci, life with these people will never be easy. If you can’t terminate the relationship then you will always have a “fiery relationship” with them. It is beyond their ability to think and behave in a normal manner. The best way you can deal with these people is to set limits and enforce them. You tell them, “If you behave in this manner we will not tolerate it. This is what we will do in response.” Then, if they misbehave anyway, you do what you said you would do. They have to have consequences for their misbehavior.

The most appropriate limits I have come up with are 18 USC 241 and 242. It’s long past time to enforce them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Hayes

Prediction: the president will approach gun safety legislation the same way he has approached DACA. He will lie about what his own position is and attempt to blame others for nothing getting done.

Chris Hayes
Tweeted on February 21, 2018
[H/T to streiff who wrote President Trump’s Gun Control Ideas are so Bad I Don’t Think He Even Believes Them.

I’ve been thinking something similar although I wouldn’t have put it in those words.

I assume President Trump knows we are in a (Fifth Generation) war. If you are in a state of war and you don’t use deception as one of your weapons you aren’t fighting to win. Telling the ATF to make up some regulation to ban bump stocks could get the anti-gun people to quiet down for a while or encourage them to overreach. See, for example, what Sebastian and his commenters are saying. The ATF may come back in a month or two with the same thing they did earlier, paraphrasing, “Banning bump stocks requires legislation, we cannot create such a rule within the confines of existing law.” With just a few weeks the anti-gun people will run out of steam and we can resume our drive for concealed carry across all state lines, taking suppressors off of the NFA list, and even other things like being able to purchase guns in other states and getting rid of the stupid “sporting purpose” requirements.

If things don’t cool off enough and we do get regulation and even legislation banning bump stocks it isn’t that big of sacrifice if we avoid legislation on “assault weapons” and “high capacity feeding devices”. And if it does go the route of a regulation change that should be a lot easier to defeat in the courts if someone has a real interest in taking it to court. I expect any ban on bump stocks will result in grandfathering existing stock. And since they don’t have serial numbers on them they can’t easily be registered. And 3-D printers mean that you as long as you keep your mouth shut you can make one at anytime in the future and it will be essentially impossible for anyone to prove you didn’t own it prior to the ban.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chad Prather‏ @WatchChad

Help me understand why you want a guy you’ve been calling Hitler for over a year to collect all your guns.

Chad Prather‏ @WatchChad
Tweeted on February 17, 2018
[That is a reasonable ask. But I’m pretty certain Prather knows the answer. The people calling Trump “Hitler” are projecting. They know they wouldn’t be at risk if gun were confiscated. But they know they are at risk when attempting to implement their political goals. They are planning for the future when they regain political power and implement their “(final) solution”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Ronald Reagan
January 20, 1981
Inaugural Address
[It was true then and it is true now.

Government create the victim disarmament zones. The solution to the problem is to remove government from the problem.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE

Because for govt to do so, it acknowledges firearms as a legit tool for defense from tyranny. In doing so on practical levels it empowers the populace. If I want dominance, I can’t have young minds that aware. Gun control, is about PEOPLE CONTROL. #StayWoke #BlackGunsMatter

Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on February 15, 2017
In response to Valerie @swannoir27 who said, “It’s always seemed obvious to me, we could protect our schools. Why aren’t we?”
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Viscount Halifax

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.

Viscount Halifax
Referring Winston Churchill’s speech in the movie The Darkest Hour.
[For Valentine’s Day Barb and went to this movie (she chose it). It is a very good movie.

Mobilize the English language and send it into battle. This what gun owners need to do. It is either that or face our own darkest hour and/or a bloody war.

I have often thought something like that is what I was doing. I try look at things, change the point of view, and articulate a vision which makes obvious we have the high moral high ground, we should always attack, and we must always make our enemies defend.

But I had never articulated it even one tenth as clearly and succinctly as Halifax did in the movie. The movie inspired me. Henceforth, I will make better use of words. If these words are properly crafted into powerful weapons of war we can win the battles needed to defeat the forces of evil in this country and avoid a war of bullets and blood.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Phil Murphy

Good news, we have among the smartest, most progressive gun laws in the nation. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that they can be stronger. There’s no reason why we can’t strengthen them.

There’s a myth out there that if you strengthen gun safety laws you somehow chip away the Second Amendment. I don’t believe that … This is not a zero sum game.

Phil Murphy
Governor of New Jersey
February 13, 2018
Gov. Phil Murphy talks gun safety at South Jersey roundtable
[From the perspective of wondering what color the sky is in his universe I would like to hear him answer the question, “What sort of law do you believe would ‘chip away the Second Amendment?’”

I am of the firm belief that the only thing which will stop the New Jersey slide down the gun control slippery slope is hitting bottom with a complete ban on all firearms and/or the arrest and prosecution of their politicians.—Joe]

Reining in the Washington Governor’s Emergency Powers

Washington State emergency powers need to be respectful of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Firearms Policy Coalition has a form letter to sign and send to your state Senator:

Proposed floor amendment 545 to SSB 6006 repealing the unconstitutional power to arbitrarily ban firearms possession during a declared state of emergency would bring state law into compliance with current case law on the matter. Laws and declarations similar to Washington State law concerning citizen possession of firearms during a declared state of emergency have been found to be unconstitutional.

The fact our state has never acted on this emergency “power” to restrict the lawful possession of legally owned firearms has left it on the books, unchallenged, as a litigant would lack standing on this unused law.

A relic of the 1960’s, laws of this nature were enacted to empower the government against those that may choose to exercise their freedoms clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Washington State Constitution.

In addition, in upwards of 600,000 Washingtonians are extensively background checked and legally certified to carry firearms by the State of Washington. Is it to be assumed that this imagined “emergency power” also extends to these individuals? If so, it would be a stunning reversal for the state to summarily revoke these licenses in such an action. There would surely be both legal and political consequences for elected officials and the state if such an action were to ever occur.

During a declared emergency when 911 response resources would surely be stretched thin, citizens would likely be on their own to defend themselves and others. As recent geological research has outlined, Western Washington is one of the world’s most dangerous earthquake zones. A large earthquake could separate citizens for days or even weeks from vital emergency services.

Tell your representative support SSB 6006 if it is amended by calling at 1-800-562-6000 and then send them an email today!

Click on the link above, fill in a few items, then click the submit button to send a very quick email.