WA Gun Owners Stage The Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally In America’s History

[DIY-Pete]

http://www.truthandaction.org/largest-felony-civil-disobedience-rally-americas-history/2/

Looks like a few folks in Washington State aren't happy about the new gun control law I-594. Civil disobedience at work.

Pete

 

[Theohazard]

This happened over a year ago, and it was pretty much useless. The cops just claimed that it wasn't actually illegal to hand someone a gun (even though experts agree that it is), so in the end that made protesters just look like they didn't know what they were protesting.

 

[yugorpk]

Until there is case law the "experts" are just blowing smoke.

ATTENTION WASHINGTON STATE AUTHORITIES :

I am going to go shooting with my boss this weekend on the Wenas Wildlife Refuge area between Yakima and Ellensburg. I will be the one with the dirty truck. I will be handing my boss my guns for her to shoot. If you would like to come and arrest me I will be there between the hours of 10 AM and 2 PM .

 

[acdodd]

So far the authorities have not charged anyone under I594, that I know of, and I doubt they will.
Maybe if they are looking to load up the charges on someone.


yugorpk everyone at the Wenas Wildlife Refuge is driving a dirty truck.
Been years since I shot there.

 

[yugorpk]

So far the authorities have not charged anyone under I594, that I know of, and I doubt they will.
Maybe if they are looking to load up the charges on someone.


yugorpk everyone at the Wenas Wildlife Refuge is driving a dirty truck.
Been years since I shot there.

Then they'll have to arrest all of us. Best place to shoot Ive ever been by far.

 

[OilyPablo]

I only buy new now locally. Used on Gun Broker. No change in process. Goal is to increase gun quantity in WA state one at a time. Unless someone has a volume bargain discount.

 

[OilyPablo]

Well they did promise 594 would reduce crime and the number of guns. Well we're waiting!

 

[Bush Pilot]

Is anybody really paying attention to 594? BTW, thank you to the morons in King and Pierce that voted the law in :banghead:

<deleted>

 

[yugorpk]

Is anybody really paying attention to 594?

No one I know does. What chaps me more is the ivory ban. Its such a hassle having to drive to Oregon to buy ivory grips.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This happened over a year ago, and it was pretty much useless. The cops just claimed that it wasn't actually illegal to hand someone a gun (even though experts agree that it is), so in the end that made protesters just look like they didn't know what they were protesting.

No, it didn't make the protestors look like they didn't know what they were protesting.

I-594 says what it says...the police, or anybody else, saying otherwise does not make it so. However, the ONLY way to get actual legal clarification on this, or to challenge the law in the courts as it is written, is for someone to be charged with violating the law AS IT IS WRITTEN.

The police very deliberately did NOT arrest anyone in that protest a year ago, and therefore the law cannot be challenged in the courts as a result.

The purpose of these protestors doing what they're doing is to set up a really "good" and uncomplicated case in their favor over I-594. If the police were to arrest an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding citizen on just these charges, then the case that will go before the court will be one involving an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding citizen who is challenging the specifics of the I-595 law.

That's far, far easier to battle than, say, a dirtbag criminal with a felony record as long as his arm who happens to have been charged with a violation of I-594 incidental to whatever else he was charged with committing.

 

[drec]

".......................To the rest of the country, don't blame all of us for the actions of the Starbucks drinking Volvo driving people in western Washington, the eastside is still normal.

It has become tough living with some of these people on western side of the state. I consider myself normal and don't go to Starbucks or drive a Volvo.

 

[mjsdwash]

as far as no one following the law, my county has, they did so by posting an informal pit as a 'range', and theoretically exempt... some juristictions in this state (not snoho, king, peirce co.) still care a little about what the people want.

 

[Theohazard]

No, it didn't make the protestors look like they didn't know what they were protesting.

Of course it did. It was embarrassing. Since the police falsely claimed what they were doing was perfectly legal and refused to arrest anyone, that whole demonstration just looked ridiculous.

I-594 says what it says...the police, or anybody else, saying otherwise does not make it so.

I know that and you know that, but to the average person who voted for I-594, the protesters looked like fools.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The police can claim all they wish...but if these protestors are NOT "transferring" their firearms in accordance with the wording of I-594, then the police are wrong. And THAT'S the point the protestors are making.

If anything, it makes what the police are saying look ridiculous.

The police can make the decision to arrest or not. And that's about it.

 

[Theohazard]

RetiredUSNChief, you're missing my point. The whole purpose of the protest was to show how draconian the law was; the protesters tried to intentionally break the law by openly handing guns back and forth. But the police said that they weren't actually breaking the law by doing that. Therefore, anyone who supported I-594 could claim that the police were right and that the protesters were wrong about how bad the law was.

Basically, by claiming the protesters weren't breaking the law and refusing to arrest anyone, the police made the protesters look ridiculous to anyone who wants to pretend the law isn't as bad as it is.

Heck, even some gun owners like Yugorpk try to pretend that I-594 doesn't make it illegal to hand a gun to someone; he has claimed on several occasions that it's still legal to temporarily loan someone a gun under I-594. So if a gun rights supporter like Yugorpk can be tricked into thinking I-594 isn't as bad as it really is, it's going to take even more to convince I-594 supporters into thinking that it's a bad law.

 

[taliv]

i just flew out to spokane this past weekend for a match. no idea until now i witnessed so many felonies

 

[yugorpk]

Only Washington gun rights supporters "feel" that a transfer is handing someone a gun. Case law is what makes the final determination of how a law is put into practice. In the total absence of case law you are free to have all the opinions you want to have on what the law actually means . How its put into practice is what matters.


I fully expect to get arrested this weekend for 594 violations. I will be shooting outside of a designated range area and my boss ( a former Yakima police officer ) will be sooting my firearms. I have announced it to the world so there is no doubt the sherif will come down to arrest me. i will begin holding my breath now!

 

[barnbwt]

Is anybody really paying attention to 594? BTW, thank you to the morons in King and Pierce that voted the law in

You mean the great majority of gun owners who couldn't be bothered to vote against the measure, or donate/organize against it, etc...right? Can't expect non-gun owners to carry your slack, after all.

TCB

 

[Bush Pilot]

You mean the great majority of gun owners who couldn't be bothered to vote against the measure, or donate/organize against it, etc...right? Can't expect non-gun owners to carry your slack, after all.

TCB

Do you mean the gun owners that didn't have the same amount of money that Michael Bloomberg and Paul Allen donated to air misleading ads about 594? If you're a Washington resident you might remember you couldn't turn on a radio or TV without there being a pro-594 ad during the weeks before the vote. Maybe you should look back at how the deck was stacked against us before you make remarks about Washington gun owners.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

RetiredUSNChief, you're missing my point. The whole purpose of the protest was to show how draconian the law was; the protesters tried to intentionally break the law by openly handing guns back and forth. But the police said that they weren't actually breaking the law by doing that. Therefore, anyone who supported I-594 could claim that the police were right and that the protesters were wrong about how bad the law was.

Basically, by claiming the protesters weren't breaking the law and refusing to arrest anyone, the police made the protesters look ridiculous to anyone who wants to pretend the law isn't as bad as it is.

Heck, even some gun owners like Yugorpk try to pretend that I-594 doesn't make it illegal to hand a gun to someone; he has claimed on several occasions that it's still legal to temporarily loan someone a gun under I-594. So if a gun rights supporter like Yugorpk can be tricked into thinking I-594 isn't as bad as it really is, it's going to take even more to convince I-594 supporters into thinking that it's a bad law.

I am not missing the point at all.

All the police are really saying is "we choose not to make arrests for this". They are not arbitrators on what the law actually says, despite what they have put out. This is the purview of the courts. If the police do not make any arrests over this, the matter doesn't go to the courts.

This is NOT the same thing as saying "that's not what the law says". It's an avoidance.

 

[Theohazard]

All the police are really saying is "we choose not to make arrests for this". They are not arbitrators on what the law actually says, despite what they have put out. This is the purview of the courts. If the police do not make any arrests over this, the matter doesn't go to the courts.

This is NOT the same thing as saying "that's not what the law says". It's an avoidance.

But that's not why the police said in this instance. They specifically said that what the protesters were doing was completely legal. So if an onlooker believed that, the protest would appear to be completely pointless. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.

 

[Old Dog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt View Post
You mean the great majority of gun owners who couldn't be bothered to vote against the measure, or donate/organize against it, etc...right? Can't expect non-gun owners to carry your slack, after all.

TCB

Do you mean the gun owners that didn't have the same amount of money that Michael Bloomberg and Paul Allen donated to air misleading ads about 594? If you're a Washington resident you might remember you couldn't turn on a radio or TV without there being a pro-594 ad during the weeks before the vote. Maybe you should look back at how the deck was stacked against us before you make remarks about Washington gun owners.

Well now, I've gotta respond here. barnbwt is exactly correct. When the average voter turn-out in our rural counties (presumably where the more conservative and more gun-owning folks reside) is around 13%, we failed miserably. And it's clear that most of the urban and suburban gun-owners in King county didn't vote, either. Who cares how much money Bloomberg and Allend donated -- and the misleading ads came mostly from our side, with the competing measure I-591, as well-intentioned as it was.

To break it down, plain and simple -- gun owners in Washington did not get out to vote. The numbers were very clear.

Which is inexcusable, really, since your ballots were mailed to your home and all you had to do was fill it out, sign it, but it in the sleeve and the envelope, drop it off at any number of conveniently-located ballot drops or even (gasp) put a stamp on the envelope and drop it in a mailbox.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But that's not why the police said in this instance. They specifically said that what the protesters were doing was completely legal. So if an onlooker believed that, the protest would appear to be completely pointless. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.

Really? Every single individual there is following the exact letter of the law on this?

If a person gives a firearm to another, that is a transfer. If they do so contrary to Section 3 of I-594, then they've violated the law. Pure and simple.

If you and I swap firearms and retain possession of them...we've violated the law. We're not family members, we're not licensed dealers, we didn't go through a licensed dealer, it didn't happen at a gun range, etc., and we have no intention of swapping back.

What the police are saying is "we believe they're just handing off their firearms to each other, and then later returning them". And therefore they're choosing NOT to make any arrests because they view this as being in compliance with Section 3 of I-594.

That's not what a lot of these people are doing...and the police know it.

 

[yugorpk]

But that's not why the police said in this instance. They specifically said that what the protesters were doing was completely legal. So if an onlooker believed that, the protest would appear to be completely pointless. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.

I also believe that the exercise was completely pointless. The has been no court interpretation of the law stating that handing someone a gun is a transfer. There have been no arrests or pending legal criminal cases to that effect. Lots of supposition and paranoia to be sure but nothing really to base it on other than a reading of the law that the state doesnt seem to agree with. Until there is case law we can argue for years about it. Whats important at this point is the law is clearly not being implemented nor does the state seem to be sending any signs out that they ever intend to implement it. Lots of dumb laws on the books that never get implemented. Crying about them makes someone feel better.

 

[barnbwt]

Wait. Ya'll even had mail in balloting and didn't break 20%? Yeah, "no money" had nothing to do with it; more likely "no support from gunowners" was the culprit.

*sigh*

TCB