ohbythebay
Member
Jackal...
I REALLY hope you are wrong...it will be awful for WA state. Such a step backwards.
I REALLY hope you are wrong...it will be awful for WA state. Such a step backwards.
Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration
- Thread starter savage1r
- Start date
- Status
bikemutt
Member
Completed my ballot today, big fat NO on 594.
I still have yet to see a TV ad urging a no vote on 594, then again I don't watch much TV.
Have to say I'm surprised at how 594 seems to be given a pass when they claim criminals and domestic abusers can go online and buy a gun, no questions asked, no BG check required. I've bought countless guns online, every one of them was shipped to a dealer and required a BG check. Can anyone here explain this "loophole"? Why doesn't the media do their job and challenge this claim when it's so patently false (to me at least)?
I still have yet to see a TV ad urging a no vote on 594, then again I don't watch much TV.
Have to say I'm surprised at how 594 seems to be given a pass when they claim criminals and domestic abusers can go online and buy a gun, no questions asked, no BG check required. I've bought countless guns online, every one of them was shipped to a dealer and required a BG check. Can anyone here explain this "loophole"? Why doesn't the media do their job and challenge this claim when it's so patently false (to me at least)?
Theohazard
Member
I agree that it's infuriating when I hear people say that. I first heard it back when the Manchin-Toomy background check bill was being debated in the Senate. What they're doing is twisting the truth to sound much different than it actually is.bikemutt said:
Technically, you can go online, meet a prospective gun seller, and then go meet him and buy it. So, according to their logic, you're "buying a gun online". But what that makes it sound like is that you can go to a website like Bud's, pay for a gun, and have it shipped to your house without a background check, and we all know that's false.
The problem here is that most people in this country don't understand all the complexities of guns and gun laws; after all it's a complicated subject. So even the people who aren't actively trying to mislead people still have a hard time understanding the legal complexities of a subject they know very little about. "Buying a gun online" or "the gun show loophole" are over-simplifications of a more complicated issue, and as a result they're misleading. But they're simpler ways to describe the current laws, and so you hear them repeated much more often.
Old Dog
Member
Who's gonna ignore it? The law will kill private transactions and, as written, will undoubtedly spawn unintended consequences that we won't be able to stop ...
BTW, don't know where you're at, Jackal, but in my little pocket of Pugetropolis, drivers get pulled over all the time for DWTOCP ...
Jackal
Member
Olympic Pen, where some of the worst drivers in the world exist and never get punished (Oly Pen law enforcement: "Oh, your 85 years old, driving 35mph in a 55 down the wrong side of the road while talking to your grandchildren on your cellphone? Have a nice day and be safe".) . As to ignoring the "law", I know quite a few "good ole boys" that will completely ignore it and continue trading amongst themselves.
What new guns laws that have been enacted over the past couple of decades have been "universally ignored?" 9.99 times out of ten, people get accustomed to the new laws and conform.
Last edited:
We do not want to take the approach, "Meh. No one's going to pay any attention to this anyhow.". That's how You find yourself facing LEOs and/or a Judge and the rest of us with more and more restrictive laws.
Wyatt
Member
Anyone catch the news today that Ex Bellevue councilwoman Margot Blacker was caught stealing "No on I - 594 signs from yards. She has also donated to the yes campaign.
OilyPablo
Member
Happened last week all over local forums.
Wyatt
Member
Maybe so, but I didn't see it posted on this I-594 thread and I don't see all that much WA news coverage.
Last edited:
OilyPablo
Member
No problem, I just read the words "news today" as "new today".
Here: http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/police-former-city-councilwoman-stole-gun-groups-c/nhpSp/
Here: http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/police-former-city-councilwoman-stole-gun-groups-c/nhpSp/
The_Next_Generation
Member
Great, another school-shooting in WA. This time at a high school (Marysville). Not many details yet, except that the shooter is dead and several others may have been wounded or killed. Of course this is sad, but this would be the perfect event to get voters emotional enough to pass 594 and then some.
Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/10/shooting-reported-at-marysville-pilchuck-high-school/
Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/10/shooting-reported-at-marysville-pilchuck-high-school/
OilyPablo
Member
Timing. Amazing.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Yeah, I hate to say it, but any slender hope you Washingtonians had of avoiding this probably evaporated the instant this little piece of s#!% punk pulled the trigger.
ohbythebay
Member
yeah
Probably right ..almost seems too setup...a friend of his said he was perfectly normal yesterday ...14 year old.
Probably right ..almost seems too setup...a friend of his said he was perfectly normal yesterday ...14 year old.
crazysccrmd
Member
I've already mailed my ballot so there's at least one no vote.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I doubt Bloomberg, black helicopters, or anyone else motivated a person to shoot up a school, much less themselves 
. But such thoughts creep in when the sum of all fears comes to pass
It will be interesting to see exactly how much ammo the anti's will throw at this one. They often like to make noises about letting events speak for themselves, but we all know they are quick to exploit tragedy to further their agenda. Washington has had an inordinate amount of money pumped (pump-ing) into the State for I-594, and I'm sure it will continue.
But will the flow increase as a result of this shooting? The next few weeks will be illustrative of exactly how much additional influence the anti's have to work with (or rather, can illicit from their backers). If Bloomie et. al. dumps another big chunk on top the pile as a final putsch, we'll know he was holding back thus far. If the flow remains the same, we'll know that they are stretched about as thin as they can go, barring extraordinary circumstances (Newtown), which is very good intel for the SAF/NRA's of the country.
One thing that does bother me is the reports I've seen that the NRA has consistently kept their distance from the race. Is the NRA really that toxic in WA? I don't believe the tripe about them 'giving up' on the state from some folks, since it obviously isn't nearly that far gone, yet, but I do believe they would avoid pumping in money to prevent claims of their meddling/influence from tainting the Resistance there.
Perhaps the main lesson the NRA should take from this event (and others) is that they have a serious image problem in a lot of places, that flat out denies them access to the debate. We have the NRA for hustling money/senators, the NRA-ILA for pushing for progress in courts, maybe we need another branch to essentially "evangelize" guns to the cities while remaining as distant from the politics of the NRA as possible? I mean, that's basically what Bloomberg et. al. has been doing all along with the myriad anti organizations sharing the same root...
TCB
. But such thoughts creep in when the sum of all fears comes to pass It will be interesting to see exactly how much ammo the anti's will throw at this one. They often like to make noises about letting events speak for themselves, but we all know they are quick to exploit tragedy to further their agenda. Washington has had an inordinate amount of money pumped (pump-ing) into the State for I-594, and I'm sure it will continue.
But will the flow increase as a result of this shooting? The next few weeks will be illustrative of exactly how much additional influence the anti's have to work with (or rather, can illicit from their backers). If Bloomie et. al. dumps another big chunk on top the pile as a final putsch, we'll know he was holding back thus far. If the flow remains the same, we'll know that they are stretched about as thin as they can go, barring extraordinary circumstances (Newtown), which is very good intel for the SAF/NRA's of the country.
One thing that does bother me is the reports I've seen that the NRA has consistently kept their distance from the race. Is the NRA really that toxic in WA? I don't believe the tripe about them 'giving up' on the state from some folks, since it obviously isn't nearly that far gone, yet, but I do believe they would avoid pumping in money to prevent claims of their meddling/influence from tainting the Resistance there.
Perhaps the main lesson the NRA should take from this event (and others) is that they have a serious image problem in a lot of places, that flat out denies them access to the debate. We have the NRA for hustling money/senators, the NRA-ILA for pushing for progress in courts, maybe we need another branch to essentially "evangelize" guns to the cities while remaining as distant from the politics of the NRA as possible? I mean, that's basically what Bloomberg et. al. has been doing all along with the myriad anti organizations sharing the same root...
TCB
Nwflycaster
Member
I sent my ballot in today, so there's one more no vote. But I don't have a good feeling about this one. The NRA has been completely silent, I've been seeing commercials for supporting this piece of crap 10 - 15 times a day for two months and have yet to see a single ad against it. Its going to be damn tough to defeat if the masses don't know the truth about both sides of this disaster.
I send emails and post on Facebook but I don't carry the loud voice of the NRA. If you're listening speak up before it's too late.
I send emails and post on Facebook but I don't carry the loud voice of the NRA. If you're listening speak up before it's too late.
bikemutt
Member
The NRA is unequipped to fight this battle in Washington State.
Washington has increasingly relied on the Initiative process as a way to govern itself. Whether it's $30 car tabs, privatizing liquor sales or legalizing Marijuana, Initiatives to the People have proven to be a potent force. It's a way of getting your way on issues too thorny for the legislative body to address.
The NRA knows how to win political battles when they can attack a Person who is seeking to be elected or reelected. I-594 is not a Person, there is no one to demonize. If we discovered tomorrow that Michael Bloomberg wears female undergarments under his suit, it wouldn't matter one bit, he's not on the ballot.
The Initiative process is a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways. I-594 simply demonstrates it also has a sharp point. We've been very cleverly outmaneuvered this time I'm afraid.
Now, where the NRA and others may be ultimately helpful is challenging the constitutionality of the horrible law after the fact, perhaps even garnering a temporary injunction while the battle is fought.
Washington has increasingly relied on the Initiative process as a way to govern itself. Whether it's $30 car tabs, privatizing liquor sales or legalizing Marijuana, Initiatives to the People have proven to be a potent force. It's a way of getting your way on issues too thorny for the legislative body to address.
The NRA knows how to win political battles when they can attack a Person who is seeking to be elected or reelected. I-594 is not a Person, there is no one to demonize. If we discovered tomorrow that Michael Bloomberg wears female undergarments under his suit, it wouldn't matter one bit, he's not on the ballot.
The Initiative process is a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways. I-594 simply demonstrates it also has a sharp point. We've been very cleverly outmaneuvered this time I'm afraid.
Now, where the NRA and others may be ultimately helpful is challenging the constitutionality of the horrible law after the fact, perhaps even garnering a temporary injunction while the battle is fought.
steelerdude99
Member
Even the wording that goes on the ballot is suspect. It's hard to condense an 18-page law to one, two or three sentences to fit on a ballot. However, in this case what the voter sees should at least say: Makes it a criminal offense to transfer a firearm from one person to another, even between family members, without a background check. The background check and transfer must be performed by an FFL at a cost of $20.00-$50.00 per firearm.
The bottom line is that most of the public will not know just what they are voting for or against.
chuck
Last edited:
Local mish-mash
Plenty of the Letters to the Editor in my local paper are waxing eloquent about 594's virtues. It's kind of obvious none of them have read the bill. Several stated no additional charges for BG checks would occur. Several others stated no registry would be set up under 594 and how many school shootings would be prevented. Another cited the "40%" figure that has been debunked many so times. Then again, this same paper did an OpEd about the wonders of 594.
One local news station did a super-brief burp about both laws while covering the Marysville shooting, and they played it right down the legal rail. "591 does not expand background checks, and will ensure Washington state follows Federal law in regards to them. It also prevents firearm seizure without due process. 594 expands background checks to include every firearm transfer, even between family members, and creates a handgun registry database."
And I did finally catch a pro-594 TV spot. They showed someone typing "gunbroker.com" in while mentioning internet sales are never subject to background checks. I honestly laughed.
Plenty more No-594 signs have popped up around town, too. I still haven't seen a pro-594 sign or sticker, and I'm at a college campus three days a week.
Edit: The wording on the ballot was rather suspect for both bills, I thought. The 591 language came off like it was trying to abolish all background checks, while the 594 wording was exceptionally disingenuous to the bill's actual intent.
Plenty of the Letters to the Editor in my local paper are waxing eloquent about 594's virtues. It's kind of obvious none of them have read the bill. Several stated no additional charges for BG checks would occur. Several others stated no registry would be set up under 594 and how many school shootings would be prevented. Another cited the "40%" figure that has been debunked many so times. Then again, this same paper did an OpEd about the wonders of 594.
One local news station did a super-brief burp about both laws while covering the Marysville shooting, and they played it right down the legal rail. "591 does not expand background checks, and will ensure Washington state follows Federal law in regards to them. It also prevents firearm seizure without due process. 594 expands background checks to include every firearm transfer, even between family members, and creates a handgun registry database."
And I did finally catch a pro-594 TV spot. They showed someone typing "gunbroker.com" in while mentioning internet sales are never subject to background checks. I honestly laughed.
Plenty more No-594 signs have popped up around town, too. I still haven't seen a pro-594 sign or sticker, and I'm at a college campus three days a week.
Edit: The wording on the ballot was rather suspect for both bills, I thought. The 591 language came off like it was trying to abolish all background checks, while the 594 wording was exceptionally disingenuous to the bill's actual intent.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"And I did finally catch a pro-594 TV spot. They showed someone typing "gunbroker.com" in while mentioning internet sales are never subject to background checks."
Just curious; I know all's fair in love and politics, but at what point does 'mischaracterization' of the opposition or circumstance up for debate become something punishable, if ever? It's not like the people of Washington won't reap damages themselves if they pass a law under flagrantly misrepresented pretenses, so...
It'd be like our side flatly stating I-594 is confiscation, and putting that on the TV ads, or something. If I were Gunbroker, I'd be raising some serious hell with the PAC, too, for defamation/libel --they clearly require that all users' interstate sales of firearms be transferred through FFL holders (so does federal law, but whatever) consistent with local laws.
"Washington has increasingly relied on the Initiative process as a way to govern itself...It's a way of getting your way on issues too thorny for the legislative body to address."
It's also a way to short-circuit the front line defensive measures against unconstitutional government overreach; as much as we disdain legislators, they do tend to put some effort into ensuring their bills won't readily be challenged in court, and that means at least the pretense of constitutional justification. Initiatives need only popular backing to pass, constitutionality to be decided later in the courts at great expense. This mess in WA is destined for the courts, almost no matter what the outcome is, which translates as; the lawmaking process failed. It pains me to hear they are using that tactic more and more; it is almost precisely what has turned California into an ungovernable heap.
TCB
Just curious; I know all's fair in love and politics, but at what point does 'mischaracterization' of the opposition or circumstance up for debate become something punishable, if ever? It's not like the people of Washington won't reap damages themselves if they pass a law under flagrantly misrepresented pretenses, so...
It'd be like our side flatly stating I-594 is confiscation, and putting that on the TV ads, or something
. If I were Gunbroker, I'd be raising some serious hell with the PAC, too, for defamation/libel --they clearly require that all users' interstate sales of firearms be transferred through FFL holders (so does federal law, but whatever) consistent with local laws."Washington has increasingly relied on the Initiative process as a way to govern itself...It's a way of getting your way on issues too thorny for the legislative body to address."
It's also a way to short-circuit the front line defensive measures against unconstitutional government overreach; as much as we disdain legislators, they do tend to put some effort into ensuring their bills won't readily be challenged in court, and that means at least the pretense of constitutional justification. Initiatives need only popular backing to pass, constitutionality to be decided later in the courts at great expense. This mess in WA is destined for the courts, almost no matter what the outcome is, which translates as; the lawmaking process failed. It pains me to hear they are using that tactic more and more; it is almost precisely what has turned California into an ungovernable heap.
TCB
Last edited:
crazysccrmd
Member
I would love to see the Initiative process be done away with or severely remodeled. Maybe turn it into a way to direct mandatory action by the elected legislature on particular matters rather than a way to bypass the legal process. That would at least somewhat ensure properly structured laws. Right now it's basically a way for whoever has enough money to get a new law passed, especially since truthful advertising isn't a requirement.
Pointshoot
Member
One bit of hope we have in WA state is that it takes a motivated group of people to get something passed. Of course, that little punk who did the school shooting didn't help our cause. (And you can bet there will be no inquiries aired as to whether he was on psych drugs or not. Most of these mass shooters are on psych drugs.). But hopefully there are enough intelligent & motivated 2A supporters voting and talking to others to dump this thing.
Last edited:
- Status
