"Official" i594 Rally Thread - December 13, 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
It will accomplish making it clear that we WILL NOT COMPLY.
More effective would have been attending the previous rally and making it clear that WE WILL VOTE.

The new rally is an exercise in futility. Our only redress now is through the courts.
 
More effective would have been attending the previous rally and making it clear that WE WILL VOTE.
Agreed. Pretty pathetic when our rural Western Washington counties and our Eastern counties get out only about thirty percent of their registered voters, leaving Metro King County to once again make its liberal voice heard. This election could have, and should have, gone the other way (as far as I-591 and I-594 are concerned) had simply more gun owners voted. Just abysmal, considering it takes one only about five minutes to fill out the mail-in ballot and maybe go a few minutes out of one's way to drop the ballot in a drop box or mailbox (wasn't worth the price of a few minutes of your time or a first-class stamp to some of you, eh?).

The new rally is an exercise in futility.
Especially if we're represented by some of the more flamboyant open-carry crowd (such as the guy prominently featured on the KOMO news website in the week leading up to the election). It'll simply confirm the beliefs of the anti-gunners that we're a bunch of extremist nutjobs.
 
You have to focus on the ones that are vulnerable instead of threatening the group as a whole if you want to make them actually listen. Carefully pick the individuals who you actually have a chance to throw out of office like voters did in Colorado and go after them. By focusing instead of diluting your efforts you can actually make others fear the possibility of an effective recall campaign or election challenge that you can't accomplish by a "trow da bums out" approach.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We let EVERY single member of this current WA State Legislature know they will be VOTED AGAINST if they do not act to repeal."


But I think we just showed them how meaningful our votes are, if the average firearms owner in WA actually gave a crap & took the effort to vote in the first place we wouldn't be in this position now.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We let EVERY single member of this current WA State Legislature know they will be VOTED AGAINST if they do not act to repeal."


But I think we just showed them how meaningful our votes are, if the average firearms owner in WA actually gave a crap & took the effort to vote in the first place we wouldn't be in this position now.
I agree, but how many would now show up and vote to overturn I-594? I'm reading threads here and elsewhere that some people think UBC is a good idea but the law went to far.

I think some questions need to be asked.

How many gun owners are there in Washington State?

How many gun owners in Washington State are dead against I-594?

How many gun owners in Washington State are for just parts of I-594?

How many gun owners in Washington State are for all of I-594?

How many gun owners in Washington State are for some kind of UBC?

How many gun owners in Washington State are dead against any kind of UBC?

Did voters really understood what I-594 contained?

Is there enough people in Washington State to mount a petition or vote to repeal the law?

I'm surprised I-594 passed, I'm even more surprised by the lack of people who showed up at the polls. I'm even more surprised that Hickenlooper in Colorado wasn't thrown out of office. Just to be clear, I am against any kind of UBC, and I am against all of I-594.

Good Luck and I hope y'all can overturn the law.
.
 
Did voters really understood what I-594 contained?

No I am sure they didn't. If you look at the voters pamphlet it was very dishonest (see attached photo)

Also the ballot itself was misleading this is what mine said:

-------------------------------------

This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

-------------------------------------

They neglected to mention anything about increased waiting periods for pistols, registration, etc. in this description.

Also all this "online sales" stuff makes me angry, they make it sound as though you can buy a gun on ebay or something.

I'm even more surprised that Hickenlooper in Colorado wasn't thrown out of office

Between the CO vote and 594 passing, voters this election sent a clear message that if you violate the 2nd amendment, voters won't care! :cuss:
 

Attachments

  • Lies.jpg
    Lies.jpg
    108.4 KB · Views: 14
To demonstrate that voters didn't read or even try to understand the law, our old friend and former contributor here (before he was banned for his views on open carry) wrote this letter to the editor, which shows how silly I594 is.

SNIP
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.

When the Washington DOT sends out their artillery gun with a road crew for avalanche control, there is no exception in I-594 for that temporary transfer.

I-594 requires a background check for it. SNIP
 
I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, but I'm a bit confused. Help me understand why/how a "We will be breaking this law" rally is going to benefit anyone.

If all it takes to get laws repealed is for the public to refuse to comply, murder would be legal already. It may have worked for repealing the alcohol prohibition, but that seems to have been an isolated incident.
That's where you're wrong. Murder would not be legalized as it's also a moral issue. Owning guns isn't a morally unacceptable thing by society depending on who you're dealing with. That's not a good analogy or comparison as you are comparing a moral issue with a political issue. Plus no one is going to want to have murder be allowed, everybody who is sane knows that is wrong on all levels.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Bobson
I'm not trying to be a buzz kill, but I'm a bit confused. Help me understand why/how a "We will be breaking this law" rally is going to benefit anyone.

If all it takes to get laws repealed is for the public to refuse to comply, murder would be legal already. It may have worked for repealing the alcohol prohibition, but that seems to have been an isolated incident.

1) If you have to be told not to commit murder, I'm glad we don't live near each other.

2) There's a huge difference between laws which are malum in se, near-universally recognized as morally wrong (your counterexample notwithstanding) and those which are malum prohibitum, basically "wrong because I say so." This rally applies to the latter.
 
1) If you have to be told not to commit murder, I'm glad we don't live near each other.

2) There's a huge difference between laws which are malum in se, near-universally recognized as morally wrong (your counterexample notwithstanding) and those which are malum prohibitum, basically "wrong because I say so." This rally applies to the latter.
That's not what I mean. We are taught from a very young age that killing is immoral. No one should have to be told not to murder. You have to teach your kids right from wrong at a very young age. We are all told what to and not to do at a point in time in our lives. But yes I agree that the latter applies to the guns while the former applies to murder which is why it shouldn't be compared or be used in an analogy for making an argument or case.
 
I'm not from WA and I don't visit this forum often, however I'd like to point out a few things:

First, there's almost no point in throwing a rally after the bill already passed. The point of a rally such as this is to show numerical opposition in the wake of legislation, and doing so afterwords in the name of 'defiance' will only work to alienate those opposed to I594 from the general populace. Why associate yourself with such lawlessness?

Second, open-carry is an incredibly stupid idea; it gives pro-gun control advocates the exact ammunition they need to pass legislation by projecting gun-owners as extreme or irrational. Instead, it should be shown that gun-owners are dignified, respectful and more akin to the moderate standings which the vast majority identify with. Open-carry does nothing but paint a negative picture.


Take it from me. I live in CT and we got hit with worse legislation than you guys. If you want to defy the law then defy it, but don't make it well-known. And when someone gets caught and charged, you take it the fight to court and gather your support there.
 
I'm not from WA....

Second, open-carry is an incredibly stupid idea...

Take it from me. I live in CT...
If you were from Washington you'd know that open carry is normal here and does not bring the doom & gloom you think it does. There is nothing extreme or irrational about it, and it isn't viewed that way by the majority of people.

I grew up in CT and my entire family still lives there. It's like a weight taken off your shoulders when you leave and experience liberty that most of the states outside New England enjoy.

You come from a different and darker place. When we open carry here, it IS dignified and respectful. We are not ashamed of our ownership or carry of firearms; we don't need to be coy or chagrined as though it's something illegal or immoral.

No thanks, Washington doesn't need advice from Connecticut; that's what got this mess started.
 
In my opinion, this whole rally idea is pointless. The problem here is that most people in the state think that I-594 is only about requiring background checks on all gun sales. If they see a bunch of people standing around temporarily holding each other's guns in protest, they'll just think those people are a bunch of weirdos. The ONLY way this would work is if the police started arresting people for temporarily exchanging guns, and the police have already said they won't. Even worse, the police claimed it wasn't illegal according to I-594, which we all know is untrue.

The best way to fight this law is to educate the people as to what the law actually does and how absolutely over-the-top draconian it is. Standing around handing guns to each other while the police watch and do nothing probably isn't the best way to do that.
 
I-594

The idea is not to necessarily to educate society at large (although that would be a benefit) but to show that, as the law is written, the actions described would be in violation.
Other articles indicate that many police agencies will turn a blind eye to any alleged violation.

The best way to prove the law bad is to follow it.
 
Realist said:
The idea is not to necessarily to educate society at large (although that would be a benefit) but to show that, as the law is written, the actions described would be in violation
But if the police claim those actions aren't illegal under the law and refuse to arrest anyone for simply exchanging guns temporarily (as they've already done), how does that accomplish anything? The casual observer just sees a bunch of "gun nuts" handing guns back and forth while protesting against a law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
 
Unless there are arrests for exchanging firearms there won't be any value in publically exchanging firearms. All that gets accomplished is a public demonstration of how wrongheaded the opinion of those who claim the law makes it illegal is in the face of the general opinion that it does nothing harmful.
 
^^^ Exactly. Without arrests, this can actually hurt our cause. Pro-594 folks can use this as "proof" that we're wrong about 594 and how draconian it is.
 
One clown and a ND and we are toast.

IF you bring a gun, nothing in the chamber, no full mags, good lord. I know you are trying to make a point and all guns should be treated as loaded, regardless. But triple check. Then check again.

I fully predict there will be plants with guns there. One might actually chamber a round and pull the trigger.
 
Apparently prayer is going to be a large part of the event. I attempted to discuss the shortcomings of this with the event organizer, Gavin, but he would have none of it. No matter what I said, he did his best to paint me as a "troll" that lacked faith.

FWIW, I go to church somewhat regularly, and pray every now and then. However, I think this rally needs to be about gun-rights, and how i594 is a violation of those rights. I don't understand why Gavin feels attendees need to fulfill the negative gun-owner stereotype.

The new message from Gavin is that this rally is about all rights, not just i594 and the second amendment. I was blocked from the group for my questioning, and have no intention of attending the rally.

Edit:

In case you doubt my claims, Gavin recently made this post to his blog with the following closing statement:

We start with a revolution of hearts. With that must come a resolve to do what we must to preserve liberty.

On December 13th we fire a metaphorical shot across the bow on an invading force. If they continue to attack rather than retreat, we have a moral obligation to destroy them for the preservation of peace and the safety of our families. Love your neighbor, be speaking truth and defending their liberty!

WE STAND!

— Gav

http://callmegav.com/2014/11/revolution/

I will definitely not be attending the rally. This is not the right person to have in charge of such an event.
 
Last edited:
I agree on Gavin. Most people on SGN and WaGuns say this clown is NOT our leader.

I will attend but will be with the people holding the permit for the gathering, not Gavin.
 
Last edited:
Who actually have been issued the permit?

The people with the permit need to speak up and they need to clearly quash usurpers trying to hijack the gathering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top