Totally coincidental and entirely appropriate, considering the email I received last night, this morning Oleg sent me this (the picture is of Barron):
He also posted about I-594 on his blog.
I would like to make a minor correction to his text. We didn’t lose any rights with I-594. We have specific enumerated rights, supposedly protected by the Second Amendment and the State of Washington Constitution, being infringed by I-594.
I want the perpetrators prosecuted.
I received an email from a reader with a attached document from the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife dated December 2 and addressed to “Hunter Education Instructors” with the subject of “Analysis of Initiative 594.”
The part of most interest to me is the following:
Although we are still evaluating I-594, it does not initially appear that student-to-student transfers of firearms would fall within the general WDFW exemption for law enforcement agencies. For students under eighteen, however, temporary firearms transfers for educational purposes are exempt if the student is under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult (such as a Hunter Education Instructor) who may lawfully possess firearms. Students eighteen and older are not entitled to this exemption. However, regardless of the age of the person, temporary transfers that occur at an established, authorized shooting range are also exempt, if the transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at the range. If adult student-to-student transfers are not exempt, then adult students may, without triggering I-594’s background check/transfer requirements—
- Use inert firearms or air rifles (which do not meet the definition of a firearm); or
- Hand their functional firearms to an instructor who then hands it to the other student.
In summary, the transfer/background check exemption I- 594 applies to the following transfers of firearms to or from WDFW Hunter Education Instructors while in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority for purposes of the Hunter Education Program:
- Between WDFW employees and Hunter Education Instructors
- From one Hunter Education Instructor to another Hunter Education Instructor
- Between Hunter Education Instructors and NGOs
- Between Hunter Education Instructors and students
WDFW is the “State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife”. The volunteer instructors to WDFW are considered “law enforcement” or else they would not receive the the exemption described above. And notice that students are not allowed to transfer the guns between themselves. They must transfer the gun to an instructor who then transfers it to another student.
Private instructors, such as myself, would not have an exemption unless we were at an “authorized range” (“authorized” is undefined). We cannot do classroom work that involves gun handling at any location other than an “authorized” range. Even then it is in doubt unless we are using the guns that are “kept at all times” at the range.
So, now you have it. All those proponents of I-594 said we were alarmist and crazy for saying things like this would require a background check. Now we have word from the State of Washington that says, in essence, “You gun nuts were right about I-594 and the anti-gun people lied to get it passed.” But that is to be expected. Anti-Second Amendment people have long had a culture of deception.
Update: The complete letter is posted here.
Update2: It is important that you also read The Cluemeter: Washington State violates the Letter of Initiative 594. It appears that WDFW may have misunderstood the definition of “law enforcement officer” as it applies to I-594.
While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.
Josh Sugarmann
Executive director of the Violence Policy Center
December 1, 2014
Connecticut dodges answers on Sandy Hook school tragedy
[I find it very telling that ‘freedom’ is in quotes.
Sugarmann has no respect for, and perhaps does not even recognize the existence of, individual freedom. If he did then he would recognize that the freedom of individual gun owners is dependent upon there being a free market offering for sale the types of firearms the individual wants.
For example, would we have freedom of religion if the book publishing industry were only allowed to publish religious texts if they were consistent with Islam? Protecting the freedom of the gun industry to design, develop, and manufacture whatever gun or accessory there is a market for protects the specific enumerated right of the individual to keep and bear arms of his choosing. Sugarmann has clearly stated he does not want individuals owning handguns or “assault weapons.” This rhetoric is a means to that end.—Joe]
Ammunition is not protected under any stretch of any amendment.
samsingh
December 1, 2014
Comment to L.A. City Council tentatively approves new gun control measures
[This constitutional scholar has further study to do.—Joe]
Via David Hardy we have:
telephone surveys result in numbers that are significantly too low, as by an eighth to a tenth, even when the ownership is completely legal.
These were old studies (1990 and 1995) but let’s assuming they are still valid.
This is where gun ownership is legal and doesn’t count situations such as Chicago or D.C. where gun ownership is highly problematic. So lets go with the “low by an eighth” number or:
0.875 x OwnershipRate = ReportedRate
OwnershipRate = ReportedRate/0.875
OwnershipRate = 1.14286 x ReportedRate
The reported rate for 2014 is 34% so the true ownership rate is approximately 39%.
Of course. You guys have the freedom 2 kill 1 another with your penis extensions. Congrats!
Sandra Lägel @WittyGentlelady
Tweeted October 16, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
The problem we have is not with death, so much as it is the violence, which is ironic since we seem to want to curb the very right and the very tool that protects us from said violence.
L.Bearer
January 20, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
After all the Ferguson shooting “protests”, property damage, injuries, and general mayhem from all the people coast to coast why aren’t Bloomberg, Moms Demand, The Brady Campaign, and the other violence prevention groups speaking out? They usually are dancing in the blood before it has even had time to cool. If they were as interested in preventing violence in general as they are with preventing “gun violence” they would be demanding the repeal of the First Amendment and an end to open government.
If we had a government truly doing it’s job in violence prevention when Wilson shot his attacker they would have brought in a sanitation crew that would have cleaned up the mess and confiscated any video that showed up. Then, as needed, they would have brought in for “questioning” anyone that said anything about the incident. That’s what the Gulags are for. It should be a police matter and not a citizen concern. Those common sense, reasonable changes to our laws would prevent almost all violence of this nature.
That these groups aren’t demanding that sort of infringement on the First Amendment tells you something about them. It tells you they are hypocrites and/or they know they need to destroy the Second Amendment before they can move on to the First Amendment.
I am inclined to believe it is a matter of destruction of the Second before the First Amendment. This is because they aren’t demanding changes in the law with regard to the police shooting someone. They apparently don’t have a problem with the police possession of guns. They just don’t want private citizens to have guns. Guns in the possession of police will come in handy when they move on to infringing the First Amendment.
We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them. We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.
…
The state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.
Rep. Dan Muhlbauer
(D-Manilla)
January 7, 2013
Iowa Lawmaker on ‘Semi-Automatic’ Firearms: ‘I Think We Need to Start Taking Them’
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
He may incoherent and possibly even hallucinating about guns with legs running down the streets. But his vote in the state legislature is worth thousands of times more than yours is in the ballot box.—Joe]
The anti-Second Amendment people will frequently claim that all you have to do is say, “I felt threatened” and you can get away with murder in “Stand Your Ground” states. Of course this isn’t true. But they believe it and of course, in their world view, their beliefs trump facts.
Larry Correia used to teach self-defense classes professionally and wrote up in great detail the legal criteria for legally shooting someone in self-defense. It should go in your list of links to send to those who think a license to carry is a license to murder.
The short version is someone must have the Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy to inflict great bodily harm or death upon an innocent person before you can use lethal force to defend against them. I used teach Means, Opportunity, and Intent. But it amounts to the same thing.
We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely.
While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures.
Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.
We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.
Steve Dowson
Detective Chief Inspector
Lancashire, England
August 10, 2014
Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife
[Via a Tweet from Chris Knox.
No. This is not satire. Here is another link to marvel at.
Read carefully. Notice how they measure success in terms of symbolism and good intentions? Measuring success in terms of crime rates is not even hinted at. No mention of the futility.
This is a culture that has some serious mental problems. They apparently cannot distinguish between their fantasy of good intentions and the reality of criminal behavior. Do they also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin?
This would be our future if we were to surrender to the anti-Second Amendment people.—Joe]
Criminals and gang bangers throughout the Washington State are also planning to return their stolen or purchased-with-drugs guns to comply with the new law.
Jeff Soyer
November 20, 2014
WA: Another Example of Why “Universal Gun Background Checks” Laws are Foolish
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Yesterday I received an email from someone concerned about leaving someone alone in the car with a gun. Could that be construed as requiring a background check?
I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure the answer is no. “Transfer” is defined (Sec 2. (25)) as:
“Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
So I think leaving someone alone in the car with a gun should be exempt.
Also, on Facebook this morning Joe Waldron (former(?) CCRKBA lobbyist) commented in regards to the flare and nail guns post:
The definition of “firearm” in I-594 is the same definition that has been law in Washington since 1994. They didn’t come after your flare and nail guns (or projectile fireworks) then and they’re not going to come after them now. Let’s not get distracted.
Let’s not jump the shark too many times, okay?
Say Uncle, Bitter, and The Gun Feed all linked to my post I-594 covers flare and nail guns. The Gun Feed did so with a top of the page headliner:
Blog traffic is higher than normal.
I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks.
I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
…
Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns.
One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:
We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.
Gerald Ensley
Senior writer/columnist Tallahassee Democrat
850-599-2310 or gensley@tallahassee.com
November 23, 2014
Stop the insanity: Ban guns
[Via email from Carl Stevenson.
Never let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
And to Mr. Ensley, I would like to suggest you take point when you take those guns.—Joe]
Via email from Kirk Parker we find still more absurdity in I-594:
The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.”
Notice the key words “or device” in the definition.
Walmart and many sporting goods stores sell 12-gauge flare guns used for signaling straight off the shelves.
These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.
I-594 requires background checks for these sales, loans and transfers.
Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.
These nail guns have actually been used in the past to murder people. I-594 requires background checks on these sales, loans and transfers.
I keep wondering about how the severability clause (Sec. 12) in I-594 is going to handle these things when the courts start stomping on this piece of trash. It says:
If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
The courts can’t rewrite the definitions of “firearm”, “gun”, and “transfer”, can they? Isn’t it limited to just striking certain portions of it? If so then how can the transfer restrictions, or even background checks, be retained? Doesn’t this increase the chances the entire thing must be thrown out? If the legislature wants to try and rewrite it with a 2/3 majority do we have enough votes to block the rewrite so the entire thing must be thrown out?
Guns are just viagra for these guys. They’re incapable of sustaining an erection without one in their hand (a gun, I mean).
formerChild
October 13, 2014
Comment to NRA Warns Men: If You Let Your Wife Do Gun Control, Your Peen May Fall Off
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
The article and most of the comments are Markley’s law material. It’s as if they are obsessed with genitalia. I never spent much time around hard-core racists, but didn’t/don’t they have some obsession with the size of black men’s penis’s too? I wonder if there is some sort of feeling of inadequacy in the mind of the bigot which they need to project onto their victims.—Joe]
The police (and paramedics) are dandy when they arrive. But in the immediate moment of attempted felonious or otherwise violent action being committed upon ones self, persons one is responsible for or the imminent threat thereof a more immediate tool is both appropriate and desirable even in this day and age. It is my observation that a .45acp JHP placed center of mass at approximately 900fps will, more often than not, bring such unpleasantry to a swift halt, though on occasion repeated application of the lesson is required.
Ray Carter
November 21, 2014
Comment on Facebook.
[Or as John Fogh once said:
Nothing says, “Please don’t rape me.” like multiple jacketed hollowpoints.
—Joe]
Something we should all understand, and the sooner the better; the anti WANTS to be stopped. Believe it. Just like the errant little child, testing his parents’ strengths and weaknesses by misbehaving, the leftist is testing you, wanting more than anything to find the good, principled, rock solid father figure that he never had, so he’ll be loved and corrected like he never has been. Every time you cave or compromise like a shitty, girlish, drunken Republican on anything, the leftist is disgusted with you, and will ramp up the volume and rattle the cage even harder. It’s a search, you see, for even one good, principled individual.
Lyle
November 21, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii
[It is true that our anti-freedom opponents have a nearly unending demand for the government to force us to do things. So why not give them what they want by government forcing freedom upon them?—Joe]
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Anthony W. Ishii
Senior United States District Judge
August 22, 2014
Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California
[This ruling in Federal court may impact the five day waiting period on handguns in Washington State which appears to be extended to ten days under I-594. California intends to appeal this ruling but the stay on enforcing this order is about to expire and it appears California will have to drop the waiting period for certain categories of people during the appeal.
SAF was one of the plaintiffs in this case and with their strong presence in Washington State perhaps before the end of the year we will see another lawsuit over the waiting period there. It would be nice to get a quick slap down on I-594 even if it were a just minor part of the injustice inflicted upon us.—Joe]