Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Jonathan Wolf

Posted on by

As many as 520,000 Americans own bump stocks, according to ATF estimates, meaning that Trump’s most significant gun control policy achievement to date outstrips Obama’s by nearly a full order of magnitude, as measured by the number of individuals affected.

Jonathan Wolf
December 26, 2018
Second Amendment News By The Numbers: Bump Stock Ban Makes Trump More Of A Gun Control President Than Obama Ever Was
[When talk of the bump stock regulation “review” came out I was certain that it was just a delaying action to let the noise die down. At worst I thought a bump stock ban would be traded for carry reciprocity and maybe even removing suppressors from NFA34.

I’m extremely irritated that we have to spend scarce resources fighting this in the courts. I would much rather those resources be directed at removing restrictions on semi-auto firearms at the state and local level.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric “Nuke ‘em” Swalwell

Posted on by

I talk to young people across the country, and they say we have consensus on what to do about gun violence. We have consensus about what to do on immigration and the Dream Act. We have consensus on what to do to address climate change.

I don’t know if those pieces of legislation will make their way to the president’s desk, but once in for all, you’re going to see votes in the House of Representatives on issues that the American people have consensus on. So we’re going to start to go big.

Eric “Nuke ‘em” Swalwell
U.S. Representative
December 24, 2018
House Dems to focus on gun control, immigration and climate change, Swalwell says
[Yes, this is the same guy who said a conflict between the government and gun owners would be decided by the nukes.

I find it telling that he get his “consensus” on these extremely controversial subjects from “young people”. Does seek foreign and economic policy advice from children too?

Being as it is unlikely anything along these lines will make it through the Senate and to the President this might be a good thing. All the politicians with “young people” as their top policy advisors will expose themselves for targeting in the next election.—Joe]

Fascism

Posted on by

Operation Choke Point was an attempt to cut off gun (and other politically disfavored) related business from financial services. Operation Choke Point has “effectively” ended but that doesn’t mean the fascists have given up. Andrew Ross Sorkin is advocating another angle:

How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings

The New York Times reviewed hundreds of documents including police reports, bank records and investigator notes from a decade of mass shootings. Many of the killers built their stockpiles of high-powered weapons with the convenience of credit. No one was watching.

…

Mass shootings routinely set off a national debate on guns, usually focused on regulating firearms and on troubled youths. Little attention is paid to the financial industry that has become an instrumental, if unwitting, enabler of carnage.

A New York Times examination of mass shootings since the Virginia Tech attack in 2007 reveals how credit cards have become a crucial part of the planning of these massacres. There have been 13 shootings that killed 10 or more people in the last decade, and in at least eight of them, the killers financed their attacks using credit cards. Some used credit to acquire firearms they could not otherwise have afforded.

The credit card companies aren’t jumping on the fascist bandwagon yet:

Banks and credit-card networks say it is not their responsibility to create systems to track gun purchases that would allow them to report suspicious patterns.

“We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods or services,” said Amanda Pires, a Visa spokeswoman. “Our role in commerce is to efficiently process, protect and settle all legal payments. Asking Visa or other payment networks to arbitrate what legal goods can be purchased sets a dangerous precedent.”

A spokesman for Mastercard echoed that sentiment, emphasizing its protection of “cardholders’ independence” and the “privacy of their own purchasing decisions.”

…

John Shrewsberry, chief financial officer of Wells Fargo — which counts the National Rifle Association as a client — has dismissed the notion that banks should regulate the use of its credit cards for gun purchases.

While no friend of gun owners, the ACLU appears to be on our side on this one:

And a policy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union recently expressed concern about how efforts to prevent mass shootings could infringe on individual rights.

“The implication of expecting the government to detect and prevent every mass shooting is believing the government should play an enormously intrusive role in American life,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at the A.C.L.U. Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, wrote in July.

But, of course, the fascist dismisses these concerns:

Not all the concerns involve privacy or politics. Some are practical.

Would they dismiss freedom of (some) religions or association on a “practical” basis? For example, people in prison who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of two. Wouldn’t it be “practical” to preemptively put scarce law enforcement and surveillance resources on Democrats?

In October Gab was targeted for supporting free speech. Among other things that happened Pay Pal would no longer do business with them. Boomershoot processes credit cards through Pay Pal. This has long been something that bothered me because Pay Pal won’t allow you to us them for gun sales but other options went away (Google) or were very difficult to implement (Amazon).

After Pay Pal shutdown Gab I started looking for another credit card processor. I ended up with Wells Fargo. It’s more expensive than Pay Pal but they didn’t have a problem with Boomershoot. I didn’t know the NRA was their customer too. Good to know.

I’m on “vacation” until after the first of the year to, mostly, work on converting the Boomershoot entry processing to use Wells Fargo so I can dump Pay Pal. I just hope it is easier to implement on my web site than Amazon.

Quote of the day—John Crump

Posted on by

New Jersey’s standard capacity magazine ban is now in effect making New Jersey’s one million gun owners criminals in the eyes of the state. But in an act of mass defiance, New Jersey residents refuse to comply.

Any magazine holding more than ten rounds is now illegal in the Garden State. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds. Glock 19s, which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds. Anyone who is possession of larger magazine is committing a fourth-degree felony.

John Crump
December 14, 2018
Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags
[Via email from Chet M.

The article says as near as they can determine there have been zero magazines turned in. But that was almost two week ago. So there probably have been a few people who have complied by now. I expect the numbers will be small. Perhaps higher than in some other places like California, Colorado, and Connecticut where the numbers run in the five to 10 percent compliance rate.

So… what will the authorities do about the mass defiance? My guess they will not do anything overt. But if you get pulled over for a minor traffic violation and they find a 15 round magazine (or plant one) in your car you will find yourself facing 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine for each magazine they found. They law was never about public safety. It was virtue signaling. Now it can be used selectively punish people who have not hurt anyone.

It’s about control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jacob Sullum

Posted on by

Today the Justice Department finalized its ban on bump stocks, which Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker claims merely “clarifies” federal law. It actually rewrites federal law, a function the Constitution assigns to Congress. Whitaker also wants us to believe that the bump stock ban shows “President Donald Trump is a law and order president.” To the contrary, it shows he is a president who ignores the law whenever it proves inconvenient.

Jacob Sullum
December 18, 2018
Trump’s Bump Stock Ban Shows Once Again He Is Happy to Ignore Inconvenient Laws
[See also Analyzing the Bump-Stock-Type Devices Rule and What Everyone Needs To Know About The Bumpfire Stock Ban for some of the more “vigorous” opposition to the ruling.—Joe]

If you subsidize something you will get more of it

Posted on by

Seattle homelessness spending tops $90 million:

In 2015, the year former Mayor Ed Murray declared a state of emergency over homelessness, Seattle budgeted about $50 million to address the crisis. Four years later, Mayor Jenny Durkan’s recently released budget proposal calls for about $90 million in homelessness spending next year, and Seattle’s City Council is looking to add more.

homelessness-Three-years-WEB

It’s a extremely basic lesson of economics. If you subsidize something you will get more of it. By making it easier for people to live with little or no income more people are tempted to go that route and to move here from other places.

Quote of the day—Chad Felix Greene

Posted on by

Everything I was told to fear about being openly gay has become a reality in being openly conservative. The fear of being fired, harassed, called dehumanizing names, bullied, and denied access to public life (even violence) are all realities I face today as a conservative.

…

By the very nature of the left’s views on what constitutes “hate,” I am incapable of freely expressing myself on any public forum without very careful editing and presentation. I never truly experienced hate until I came out as a conservative.

Chad Felix Greene
December 11, 2018
The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being Gay
[I was recently told that a certain organization had a reputation of being a bunch of conservatives… “But they aren’t all bad.”

In her mind “conservative” was a synonym for “bad” and she didn’t want to have anything to do with “people like that”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

Posted on by

AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles have become the favorite gun of American mass shooters. These weapons were made to do one thing: kill as many people as quickly as possible. In the 14 years since the federal assault weapons ban expired, we have seen mass shootings become more frequent and far more lethal.

It is time for Congress to revisit a federal ban on semi-automatic assault rifles like the AR-15. They should also take action to regulate these weapons the same way we regulate fully automatic weapons and other class 3 weapons. Congress should also take action to regulate high capacity magazines and accessories that are designed to increase lethality. By regulating assault weapons, high capacity magazines and accessories like bump stocks, Congress can take significant action that will save American lives.

Josh Horwitz
December 13, 2018
Five gun violence prevention priorities for the incoming Congress
[I find it very telling that the link to this article (thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/421292-five-gun-violence-prevention-priorities-for-the-incoming-congress) puts it in the civil rights category. Is this a subtle acknowledgement that they know the proposals are a violation of civil rights?

One should note that, “gun violence” decreased since the “assault weapon ban” expired in 2004. And rifles of any type, AR-15s being a subset, are only rarely used in crime. But liars lie. You can’t expect them to tell the truth.

Since AR-15 type rifles are the most popular gun in the U.S. and the Heller decision makes it clear that firearms “in common use” it means such a ban would be unconstitutional. But people like Horwitz do not care about specific enumerated rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—I am Groot @Waspotty

Posted on by

Privilege ?

I’ll tell you what privilege is!

It’s growing up in a country where your ancestors toiled and died to give you the opportunities and the life you have, and you denounce it.

It’s being an immigrant into a country you and your kin had NO part in forming, and taking all it’s benefits, democratic rights and freedoms and then reject it.

That’s ‘privilege’.

Priviledge

I am Groot @Waspotty
Gab post on December 13, 2018
[Via email from Chet M.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jason Brennan

Posted on by

Most people seem to subscribe to what I call the Special Immunity Thesis: the idea that the set of conditions under which it is permissible, in self-defense or defense of others, to deceive, lie to, sabotage, attack, or kill a government agent is much more stringently constrained than the set of conditions under which it is permissible to deceive, lie to, sabotage, attack, or kill a private civilian.

On the flip side, we have what I call the Moral Parity Thesis: the idea that, very simply, you have the same right of self-defense against government agents as you do against civilians. Officials have no special moral status that immunizes them from defensive actions. When they commit injustices of any sort, it is morally permissible for us, as private individuals, to treat them the same way we would treat private individuals committing those same injustices. Whatever we may do to private individuals, we may do to government officials. We may respond to governmental injustice in exactly the same ways as private injustice.

The Moral Parity Thesis has radical implications. It means you may assassinate leaders to stop them from launching unjust wars. You may fight back against a police officer who arrests you for something that shouldn’t be a crime—e.g., marijuana possession or homosexuality. You may escape from jail if mistakenly convicted or convicted of a bogus crime. Your business may lie about its compliance with an unfair regulation and evade excessive taxes. A jury or judge may nullify an unjust statute by refusing to convict those who break it. The Moral Parity Thesis vindicates helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson, who threatened to kill fellow American soldiers to stop them from killing civilians during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. It vindicates Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden for sharing at least some state secrets. It vindicates government agents who sabotage unjust efforts from within.

My basic argument is simple: By default, we should accept the Moral Parity Thesis, unless we can find some good reason to believe the Special Immunity Thesis instead. Upon inspection, though, the arguments for the Special Immunity Thesis fall flat. Governments and their agents aren’t magic.

Jason Brennan
December 2018
When Nonviolence Isn’t Enough—Does the right to self-defense apply against agents of the state?
[It’s an interesting article on personal and political philosophy.

Lysander Spooner had some things to say on this topic as well:

It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess.

I took a philosophy class in college but it was far less interesting and relevant than what I have read in the years since. And it was philosophers never mentioned in class, such as Ayn Rand and Spooner, that my Marxist professor left out of the curriculum that made the difference.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Braden Lynch

Posted on by

I appreciate “studies” about firearms, but discount them in regards to policy decisions. The absolute right to be armed was decided in 1791.

Braden Lynch
November 30, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Jacob Paulson
[Furthermore, this right includes military weapons. Thinking about it from the point of the founders and the text of the 2nd Amendment this makes sense. But following up on this it was clearly pointed out in the Miller Decision. Even further it implies that unless it was a weapon useful to the militia it is not protected. In other words, it could be claimed that according to SCOTUS the 2nd Amendment only protects military weapons:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

I would also point out that the right preexists 1791. It is a right which has been claimed by all species for all time. Even mushrooms claim this right.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Karl Popper

Posted on by

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper
1945
The Open Society and Its Enemies: New One-Volume Edition, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4
[Via email from Bob T.

Interesting observation. I had a similar discussion with a co-worker many years ago. We didn’t arrive at a solution. And it is quite clear our government and society has gotten us into the end game of this paradox without implementing the apparent solution offered by Popper over 70 years ago.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

If a citizen is law-abiding in his home state, he or she is going to be law-abiding in a different state where they might find a firearm they want to buy, but the interstate sales ban prevents that. Citizens can purchase all sorts of other goods across state lines, but why not the one tool that is specifically mentioned and protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment? That simply defies logic and common sense.

Alan Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
November 26, 2018
CCRKBA SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF MANCE INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES CASE
[While it’s true that many anti-gun people steadfastly oppose logic and common sense (see examples in this post), it is probable that in this case, at some level, there is a logic to this situation. Such a law makes perfect sense and is entirely logical to anyone that who is of the mindset to deny people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Such people are the enemy of our country and the U.S. Constitution.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles R. Kesler

Posted on by

Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

Charles R. Kesler
October 2018
America’s Cold Civil War
[A pleasant call for peace. Unfortunately for our future no further compromise is tolerable for those whose vision of the constitution is the original intent. If we compromise further, and probably even if we fail to turn back the existing compromises, we will sink into a socialist hellhole.—Joe]

Quote of the day—City Council of the City of Republic, Washington State

Posted on by

A. The Republic City Council declares that all federal and state acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations past, present or future, in violation of the U.S. and/or State Constitutions are not authorized by the said Constitutions and violate the true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers and are hereby declared to be invalid in the City of Republic, shall not be recognized by the City of Republic, are specifically rejected by the City of Republic and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in the City of Republic.
B. No agent, employee, or official of the City of Republic, or any corporation providing services to the City of Republic shall provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of federal or state acts, orders, rules, laws or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.

City Council of the City of Republic, Washington State
From Facebook on November 9, 2018
[This is very much like the contemporary Firearms Freedom Act at the state level and the Personal liberty laws just prior to the Civil War:

Because most of the abolitionists and supporters of the Personal Liberty Laws resided in the northern states, the controversy added to the already growing rift between the two halves of the country.[1] The northern states refused to repeal the laws and the southern states were not willing to give up slavery. The end result was the bloodiest war of American history; the Civil War.

See also what the Spokesman Review has to say about the proposed ordinance.

I wonder how this will work out if an 18-year old were to travel there to purchase a “semiautomatic assault rifle” after I-1639 goes into effect. Would the gun shop owner sell to them knowing it was against state law but the local police had orders not to enforce the law?

We live in interesting times.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Knox

Posted on by

We’re all in favor of Pelosi pushing for votes on gun control. As we’ve often said, guns win, and we like having record votes. There is some valid concern that this president has demonstrated a willingness to “work with” the Democrats on a variety of issues, and his commitment to the Second Amendment has wobbled upon occasion. There are also a number of Republicans in both the House and Senate, who have proven to be unreliable on rights issues, and who are likely to break ranks with their party, providing cover for Democrats from conservative states who want to avoid going on record with an anti-rights vote.

Jeff Knox
November 17, 2018
Lame Ducks: WWDD – What Would Democrats Do?
[If we don’t know who they are we can’t vote them out of office.

Find them. Fix them. Finish them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Norbert Michel

Posted on by

For those unfamiliar, Choke Point consisted of bureaucrats in several independent federal agencies taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses – such as payday lenders and firearms dealers – out of the banking system. Given the nature of the U.S. regulatory framework, this operation was easy to pull off.

Officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for instance, simply had to inform the banks they were overseeing that the government considered certain types of their customers “high risk.” The mere implication of a threat was enough to pressure banks into closing accounts, because no U.S. bank wants anything to do with extra audits or investigations from their regulator, much less additional operating restrictions or civil and criminal charges.

…

It is now clear that these unelected government officials set out to harm law-abiding citizens. Yet many of the government officials named in these documents are still employed by the same government agency. Most of these folks work at the FDIC, and one has even moved up from a regional director position to FDIC Ombudsman.

Norbert Michel
November 5, 2018
Newly Unsealed Documents Show Top FDIC Officials Running Operation Choke Point
[That these people aren’t currently in prison making little rocks out of big rocks shows you “the swamp” still needs to be drained.—Joe]

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

Posted on by

It’s nice to see the NRA and SAF working together.

From the Second Amendment Foundation web site:

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging gun control Initiative 1639 in Washington State, on several grounds.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In addition to SAF and NRA, plaintiffs include gun dealers and young adults in the affected age group.

The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.

“We are also considering additional legal challenges,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb confirmed. “We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.

“We’re determined to fight this egregious measure because constitutionally-protected rights should never be subject to a popularity vote,” he stated. “The wealthy elitists behind I-1639 want to turn a right into a regulated privilege. This measure was only designed to have a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right by honest citizens while having no impact at all on criminals, and we cannot let it go unchallenged.”

“The NRA is committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding Washingtonian,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “I-1639 violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and puts people at risk. This lawsuit is the first step in the fight to ensure that Washingtonians are free to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense.

“The NRA will fight to overturn this unconstitutional initiative. We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense,” concluded Cox.

“While a handful of billionaires spending millions of dollars were able to buy votes, it is our hope they can’t buy the judges,” Gottlieb said.

I find this very interesting. I don’t think anyone has challenged it on the grounds of the initiative violating Washington state law such things as being limited to only one subject, the font was too small to read, the strikeout and other formatting of deleted versus new text was incorrect. It’s possible this was deliberate and we won’t be seeing such a lawsuit for many years and only if this lawsuit fails.

If they can defeat it in Federal court on constitutional grounds it is gone for good so we won’t have to fight it at the ballot or legislature again and it protects other states. But if it is defeated on the basis of ballot procedures and formatting then we won’t be able to fight it on a constitutional until it is passed again. The biggest downside to this is that we will have to live with it until the Federal Courts rule on it. If the district court doesn’t rule in our favor it probably will have to go all the way to SCOTUS because it is unlikely the Ninth Circuit court of appeals is going to rule in our favor on all the aspects of this law.

Quote of the day—Jen Zamzow

Posted on by

Anyone serious about building consensus on gun policy needs to be slower to judge and quicker to listen to those who disagree. I understand why gun-safety advocates might not want to listen to those who are skeptical of gun-safety laws. People are being killed in their places of worship and kids gunned down at school; this kind of crisis can make people feel they don’t have time for dialogue.

However, listening to those who are resistant to gun-control laws is more than just a sign of respect. Understanding what motivates people can help us come up with better solutions that are more likely to stick. Instead of focusing on what motivates us, we need to ask what motivates them. We don’t all need to take the same path to get to the same destination. We can get more people to the destination if we can find a path they’re willing to take.

Jen Zamzow
November 14, 2018
Why we can’t agree on gun control
[Great advice! The truth cannot be learned if people do not listen. Listen to others on the condition they listen to you and then see where you both end up. To see if both sides are really listening try a role reversal in your second session. If you can’t argue your opponents side then you probably aren’t listening.

Numerous studies have shown that conservatives understand progressives far better than the other way around. So this actually something of a “trap” for progressives. —Joe]

Something to keep in mind

Posted on by

Washington state law has some interesting things to keep in mind:

State law defines malicious harassment — a felony commonly referred to as a “hate crime” — as intentionally injuring, damaging property or threatening someone “because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical or sensory handicap.”

In Seattle a misdemeanor malicious harassment law extends those protections to include gender identity, homelessness, marital status, political ideology, age and parental status.

Detective Beth Wareing investigates bias crimes for the Seattle Police Department and coordinates its response.

She said the department tracks three types of bias:

• Malicious harassment;
• Crimes that have a bias element, such as when hatred toward a protected group or class is a secondary motivation;
• Bias incidents, in which “someone shares their nasty opinion about someone’s membership in these groups.”

Although bias incidents are not crimes, Wareing said tracking them helps SPD understand how people are being treated in a particular area or neighborhood and ensures that someone who feels threatened is heard.

Emphasis added.

So… if you are in Seattle you can’t insult the communists (in some areas you can just close your eyes and point in a random direction to find them) without being at risk of being reported to the police. But perhaps just as important is that if you go for a walk downtown wearing your NRA jacket and/or hat and people express their hatred those haters can be reported as well. Open carry is legal in the state too, but that probably would be considered hunting over bait and the fish and game department generally frowns on that.