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.

Quote of the day—Patricia Eddington

Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device.

So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.

Patricia Eddington
Assembly Woman D-NY
July 2007
[Via a tweet from Firearms Policy Coalition.

See also:

I can be pretty creative if I try. But even if I was given weeks to try I don’t think I could come up with some of the crazy things the anti-gun people say.

I used to listen to a morning D.J. on the radio which regularly featured stupid stuff that people said and did. It had a soundbite of something like, “Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.”* The things these people come up with illustrate the truth of that statement.

At times it’s mind boggling that our enemies are this stupid and yet after the fifty years I have been aware of the battle they still haven’t been defeated.

But does does explain why they push for “smart guns”? Do they recognize they are too stupid to use them without technological assistance?—Joe]


* Mark Twain said something similar.

Quote of the day—Andrea Stewart-Cousins

There are things that are very, very good and have worked, and we can’t just stop,

Andrea Stewart-Cousins
New York State Senate Minority Leader
February 6, 2018
New York Democrats renew call for gun control laws
[These sound like the words of a drug addict.

I guess it shouldn’t be surprising. Power is a very potent drug. And like other recreational drugs it tends to be destructive to both the user and innocent people near the addict.

The people of New York should intervene and remove her from power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank Jackson

We are reminded, through senseless tragedies, of the need to remove and keep weapons from the hands of those who should not have them.

Frank Jackson
Cleveland Mayor
January 31, 2018
Ohio Supreme Court rules against Cleveland’s efforts at local gun control
[Perhaps Jackson had a preconceived solution and, at best, a poorly defined problem statement when he started on this ill fate journey down the gun control path.

A better problem statement is:

Violent criminals with weapons are murdering innocent people.

This lends itself to a much larger solution set. Many of those possible solutions will get support from pro-gun people. For example:

  • Teach well behaved people how to defend themselves and other innocent people.
  • Increase police and prosecution resources to make criminal activity more certain of incarceration.
  • If, through due process of law, it can be determined that someone is a near certain violent threat to others keep them incarcerated and/or treat them until they are no longer a threat.

It bugs me that people say convicted felons, domestic abusers, or people on the terror watch list are too dangerous to be allowed possession of a firearm. Yet, they are allowed to be in public and purchase knives, baseball bates, gasoline, matches, drive cars and fly airplanes. People should be categorized as one of the following:

  • Low risk and have a right to be in public unsupervised
  • Moderate risk in need to be under some level of supervision while in public
  • High risk in need of incarceration
  • Extreme, permanent, risk and should be put to death (Ted Bundy who escaped several times, and was a committed serial killer when in public, would qualify)

Criminal control, not object control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half.

Thomas Sowell
November 27, 2003
Random Thoughts
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Have you ever noticed that “progressives”, with their claims the 2nd Amendment only protects muzzle loaders, are less than tolerant about progress in firearm technology?

Quote of the day—TurtleDude

I oppose stupid laws that are almost guaranteed not to apply to people causing problems.The people who push this crap … don’t even believe it will do squat about criminals. They want to pander to the slow witted sheeple and harass honest citizens whose voting patterns vex anti gun liberals.

TurtleDude
January 30, 2018
Post in the forum If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free.
[Well, those aren’t the only reason they do it, but it’s a couple of the reasons.—Joe]

Operation Safe Store

Seems like a reasonable idea:

“No one wants to prevent the theft of firearms more than the licensed retailers that sell them,” said Stephen L. Sanetti, NSSF president and chief executive officer. “There is no one-size fits all solution to helping prevent thefts from firearms retailers, which is why Operation Safe Store will provide access to information and training to allow retailers to make the decisions that are right for them.”

I strongly suspect there is more to the story than what we see here.

A bit of background with something slightly off the topic at hand.

At one point there was talk of “safe storage” laws at the Federal level and states were passing such laws with alarming regularity. They were poorly written at best and frequently obvious attempts to make it prohibitively expensive, increase the hassle of owning a gun, and make it difficult or impossible to use a gun for home self-defense.

“The industry” responded by including a lock of some sort with every new gun sold. Gun friendly legislators, lobbyists, and gun owners  could then use this to convince undecided legislators, “Gun owners already have ‘safe storage’ available to them.” The “safe storage” drive was stalled and in some states even turned against the anti-gun activists.Washington, for example, passed a law removing the state taxes from gun safes.

I suspect the NSSF is politically astute enough to see some writing on the walls and is “getting ahead” of legislation aimed at making life very difficult for gun stores.

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute — overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship — is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 30
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

What he says we needed 25 years ago, while closer than ever before, is still not a reality. Let’s keep pushing and get this item checked off our list.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy @gunpolicy

The anti-gun media has decided that it is more important to push their agenda than to tell the truth.

ConcealedCarryAndViolentCrime

Firearms Policy @gunpolicy
Tweeted on January 29, 2018
[The graph is a little difficult to understand so here is a bit of help. The shaded background colors are the CCW population coverage (units are on the right side of the graph), the maroon line with the 49% reduction label is the Violent Crime rate (presumably in per 100K people) with the units on the left side of the graph. The other crime types follow in a similar format.

We have the principles, the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the data. All of them supporting the pro-rights side. The anti-gun media, cannot innocently claim ignorance or even stupidity. It has to be maliciousness. You have to ask, “What’s the real reason they continue to push their anti-gun agenda? They are pro-criminal, probably always have been and always will be and for a “good” reason.—Joe]

Exercise of rights at a minimum

This is very telling:

Wide-open policies on gun laws do not reflect the mood or makeup of most New Jerseyans. While they are not always successful, New Jersey gun laws are written to help keep the number of guns at a minimum. Fewer guns will make our law enforcement officers’ jobs that much easier, and make our streets that much safer.

What if the same principle was applied to other specific enumerated rights:

  • Keep books at a minimum (and ban the exceptionally dangerous ones such as The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, and all religious books)
  • Keep political speech at a minimum (and ban the most dangerous speech—that which advocates the policies of the political left (see the books above)
  • Keep the right to a lawyer present while being questioned at a minimum
  • Keep people of color from voting at a minimum

There are no second class rights. All these rights must respected and preserved. Essentially all New Jersey politicians need to be either prosecuted and/or be declared varmints with no bag limits and a decent bounty paid.

Quote of the day—Divemedic

I became a teacher after I retired from over 20 years as a firefighter and paramedic, where I spent part of my career working with the SWAT team. I spent years as an IDPA competitor, and I am a military veteran. I have carried a concealed weapon for more than 25 years. A permit that has allowed me to carry a weapon into McDonald’s, Disney, public parks, streets and sidewalks. Not once have I used that weapon in a threatening or illegal manner.

I would, if necessary, lay down my life in defense of the children that have been placed in my care. Even in Kindergarten. Possibly YOUR children, if you are reading this.

Except the politicians have declared that I am not permitted to do so, because they don’t trust me with a firearm once I cross an imaginary line and enter school property, even though they trust me to carry one everywhere else. So instead, I must sit in the dark, unarmed, unable to protect those children, hiding and waiting for help that may not come, wait with your children to die at the hands of a madman who didn’t obey your laws or your signs.

Divemedic
January 8, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—James Comer
[The foolishness of the “gun free zone” laws is so obvious one must conclude the politicians are incredible ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. As the data and bodies stack up I’m more and more inclined to place my bet on “they are evil”. More bodies gives them more opportunities to accumulate power.—Joe]

Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity

Almost a year ago I wrote my U.S. representative in Congress encouraging him to support concealed carry reciprocity. Here is his response:

AdamSmith20170323-0

AdamSmith20170323-1

A couple of things stand out. The first is that he says:

The responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun is massive, and ensuring the safety of the public at large by requiring background checks and training should be an absolute minimum.

People who have a Washington State concealed pistol license, CPL as it is called in Washington, should see something jump out at them over this.

Washington State doesn’t have a training requirement. Hence, if this were a problem, Smith should be able to show that Washington State CPL holders have more firearm accidents or engage in more illegal shootings than people from other states with a training requirement. No such data exists. Probably because it is so rare that such a thing happens.

I have to conclude that Smith was just rationalizing the decision he had already made.

Next, a twofer:

I will continue to advocate for putting policies in place that protect our children and communities while maintaining the rights granted by the Second Amendment.

His opposition to reciprocity is for “the children”! How many children in this country are shot each year by people with concealed carry licenses? My guess it is very close to zero. I’ve never heard of it happening. And I’m pretty sure the anti-gun people would make sure the mainstream media know about it. The same goes for someone with a concealed carry license shooting up a community. It has to be very rare. The data shows that, in Texas, compared to the police they are 10 times less likely to commit a misdemeanor or felon and over seven times less likely to commit a firearms violation of some sort. Other states show similar low rates.

Again, this has to be rationalization for his decision rather than rational thought to arrive at a decision.

“Granted by the Second Amendment”? This is a common “misunderstanding” but I expect my representatives in Congress to be informed. My guess is that there is a good chance this was deliberate rather than ignorance. It should be clear if you actually read the Second Amendment that it references a preexisting right rather than granting a right. This was made all the more clear in U S v Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…

It is long past time for me to start educating my representative.

Update: I sent him an email:

In a letter you sent me on March 17th of last year you made claims which are not supported by, and/or are contrary to, the available evidence regarding people with licenses to carry concealed firearms and the Second Amendment. The full details are in my blog post here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/28/representative-adam-smith-on-reciprocity. The short version is that since Washington State does not require training for a concealed pistol license those opposed to reciprocity between states regarding licenses and claiming training “should be an absolute minimum” should also be able to point to evidence showing Washington State concealed pistol license holders are more prone to misuse of their firearms. To my knowledge no such evidence exists.

Furthermore using this criteria to oppose the law adversely affects the civil rights of residents of Washington State when they travel to states that will not issue licenses to Washington residents. Blocking reciprocity has a lesser impact on the rights of people of other states who can easily obtain Washington licenses for their travels to Washington State. You are acting against the interest of your own constituents by taking this stand.

Please read my blog post and reconsider your stance on this important civil rights issue.

Thank you.

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Random thought of the day

Progressives who demand gun control sometimes tell me they want to prevent crimes rather than rely on punishment of the perpetrators.

If crime prevention is their preferred approach to these sort of things then why don’t they advocate for building “The Wall”?

Quote of the day—James Comer

Anytime there’s a tragedy like that you hear gun control advocates spin their liberal beliefs, At the end of the day, it’s illegal to carry a gun in a school and it’s illegal to shoot at anybody. And yet this 15-year-old broke those laws. You can’t legislate against evil.

I don’t think there’s a way to pass a bill to prevent something like that. We need better security in our schools. We have a lot of security at our courthouses. How do we increase security at schools? That’s what I’m going to be talking about.

James Comer
U.S. Representative from Kentucky
January 24, 2018
Rep. Comer advocates Goodlatte bill as DACA solution
[A bit of clarification.

You can legislate punishment for evil doers. But you can’t legislate a prevention for evil deeds.

In the case at hand the best solution is probably to legislate the removal of laws. Get rid of the laws that punish teachers and parents who bring guns to school for the purpose of protecting innocent life.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James A. Garfield

If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,—it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.

James A. Garfield
Found in The book of courage;: A little book of brave thoughts by Edwin Osgood Grover, page 55.
Copyright 1924.
[I was pulling a different book of quotes off a shelf in my library when this little book fell onto the floor. I didn’t recognize it. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I must have. Inside it had my grandmother’s name on it. She died in the early 1980’s.

This quote struck me as applicable to present day politics regarding gun ownership. For decades we have tried to “play nice” and just get them to leave us alone. Read The Gun Rights War (strongly recommended for anyone who considers themselves a gun rights advocate). There are numerous examples such as this, and this. we can conclude Knox is right when he says,

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison.

When we are soft and wishy-washy people lose interest and forget that you even said anything. Be firm. Be strong. Have courage and dare to win. Remember that one of President Trump’s most memorable lines from the debates with Hillary Clinton was, “Because you’d be in jail”. And he won. We can win too. —Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

The standard statement by police commissioners and other politicians in high crime cities is “there are too many guns on the street”… I have never heard any of these idiots say “there are too many criminals on the street”.

This is why those are high crime cities.

Paul Koning
January 21, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Adam Smith
[As I have said before:

Problem statements drive the solution. Incorrect and unarticulated problem statements limit the range of solutions.

Defining the problem is sometimes the most difficult. And if you let your enemies define the problem you cannot win. The best you can hope for is that you don’t lose.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Smith

There are far, far too many guns in this country.

Adam Smith
U.S. Representative (WA-9)
January 29, 2013
Rep. Smith visits Bellevue High, discusses gun control and I-502
[And if there are “too many guns” what does that suggest needs to be done? Get rid of many of them, of course!

This is my representative in congress.

I have some work to do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan M. Peterson

The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.

Dan M. Peterson
January 12, 2018
No. 17-56081
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS AND STATE AND LOCAL FIREARMS RIGHTS GROUPS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
Page 18
An alternate copy of the brief is here.
[The referenced survey is here. An alternate copy of the survey is here.

We have the facts on our side. We have the police on our side. We have the U.S. Constitution on our side. And most importantly we have the moral philosophy on our side.

It’s time we politically crushed those who dare to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Law enforcement say they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws!

I stumbled across a survey of police officers taken in 2013 on gun policy (back up copy here). Interesting. Very interesting. There were “15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.”

Here are some highlights:

5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?

                                                                                                                                     Response     Response                                                                                                                                       Percent            Count
 

Significant

 

 

   clip_image002[4]                                                                                                    1.6%

 

227
 

Moderate

 

 

   clip_image004[4]                                                                                               6.0%

 

885
 

None

 

 

   clip_image006[4]                              71.0%

 

10,397
 

Negative

 

 

   clip_image008[4]                                                                               20.5%

 

3,004
 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                                     0.9%

129

                                                                                                                    answered question        14,642

 

6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response Response

                                          Percent    Count

Yes

 

   clip_image002[6]                                                                                                2.7%

 

391

No

 

   clip_image004[6]   95.7%

 

14,013
 

Unsure

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                                1.6%

238
                                                                                                                        answered question   14,642


7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response    Response

                                                                                                                                      Percent         Count

 

Yes

 

 

   clip_image002[8]                                                                                     11.5%

 

 

1,684

 

 

No

 

 

   clip_image004[8]                  79.7%

 

 

11,663

 

 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image006[8]                                                                                          8.8%

 

 

1,295

 

                                                                                                            answered question              14,642

 

11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?

 

 

                                                                                                                              Response
                                                                                                                               Percent

Response
  Count

 

Yes

 

 

   clip_image002[10]                                                                   23.0%

 

 

3,334

 

 

No

 

 

   clip_image004[10]                     70.0%

 

 

10,155

 

 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image006[10]                                                                                     7.1%

 

 

1,026

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

  14,515

 

19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?

 

 

 

                                                                                                                         Response
Percent

Response
Count

 

Yes, without question and without further
restrictions

 

 

   clip_image002[4]91.3%

 

 

12,968

 

 

No,
only law enforcement officers should carry
firearms

 

 

   clip_image004[4]                                                                    4.1%

 

 

586

 

 

Unsure/Neutral

 

 

   clip_image006[4]                                                                   4.5%

 

 

646

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

14,200


22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                                                                                                            Response  Response

                                                                                                                Percent      Count

Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether

 

   clip_image002[6]                                                                               6.2%

 

865

Casualties would likely have been reduced

 

   clip_image004[6]     80.0%

 

11,215

There would have been no difference in outcome

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                 4.1%

 

568

An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent  lives

 

   clip_image008[4]                                                                                5.5%

 

767

Unsure or prefer not to answer

 

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                 4.3%

 

607

                                                                                                         answered question              14,022

This was what I found most interesting:

14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

                                                                                                          Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count

 

Very Favorable

 

 

   clip_image002                                           48.8%

 

7,004
 

Favorable

 

 

   clip_image004                                                                      22.2%

 

3,181
 

Unfavorable

 

 

   clip_image006                                                                                     9.6%

 

 

1,382

 

 

Very unfavorable

 

 

   clip_image008                                                                                        7.2%

 

 

1,029

 

 

Unsure/Neutral

 

 

   clip_image010                                                                                  12.2%

 

1,753

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

 

15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

                                                                                                           Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count

 

Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort

 

 

   clip_image012                                         44.9%

 

 

6,440

 

 

Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction

 

 

   clip_image014                                                                    17.2%

 

2,468
 

Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation

 

 

   clip_image016                                                                              7.9%

 

1,132
 

Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation

 

 

   clip_image018                                                                           10.0%

 

 

1,440

 

 

Unsure

 

 

   clip_image020                                                                  20.0%

 

 

2,869

 

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!

Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.

Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.