Will A Delusional Narrative Cause Washington State Democrats To Throw Away Control Of The State Legislature In 2018?

The November 2017 election flipped a seat in the Washington state Senate, giving Democrats a 1 vote majority. Democrats also control the state House and the governor is a Democrat. What will the party do with the razor thin degree of control with which they control the legislature? One possibility is that they will seek common ground with non-Democrats and work together on common goals. The other possibility is that they will try to enact extremist legislation and possibly even succeed.

A few Democrats are crowing that they will take the opportunity to enact the harsh gun controls that they have been unable to enact in recent years. If this is attempted, they will probably fail. Whether they succeed or fail, rest assured that the political retribution for the attempt will be BRUTAL.

Let me explain why.

1) Washington state, while tending towards being politically moderate, is a VERY gun friendly state

Recent years have seen marijuana legalized and gay marriage equality achieved. One school of thought is that this indicates that the population supports the entire Democratic party agenda. Rather, I maintain that it indicates we are "live and let live" moderates. We are also a very gun friendly state.

A very graphic illustration of this can be obtained by looking at a Concealed Carry statistics web site, Guns to Carry (link).  This site researched concealed carry trends across the US by obtaining statistics about concealed carry from the states’ licensing departments.

This illustration looks at the states with the highest percentages of the population holding carry permits, showing their percentage in descending order. Alabama tops the list with over 20%. Washington state is #10 with well over 10% of the population licensed and the 4 immediately above Washington state are only about 1 percentage point higher.

The state immediately below Washington is West Virginia. Yes, Democrat-heavy Washington state has a higher percentage of legal concealed pistol carriers than a traditionally Conservative state where 68% of voters voted for President Trump in 2016. And we are one of the leading states for concealed carry in the entire nation. A large number of very conservative states have a lower CPL density in the population than Washington state does.

Note that many or perhaps most of those CPL holders carry handguns whose magazines would be banned under some proposals Democrats are bandying about. Yes, if you legally carry a Glock or Beretta handgun, some legislators want to declare it an assault weapon and require you to renew a license for it EVERY YEAR. This will needlessly antagonize those licensed, responsibly armed people.

I know dozens of people with a wide range of political views, diverse ethnic backgrounds and of both sexes who own several firearms. AR15s are ubiquitous. And we often vote on that basis. Which brings me to my next point.

2) Washington state’s gun control advocating minority ALWAYS overreaches badly and does not try to work with the gun community

In 1997, the year that I moved here, Washington Ceasefire ran an initiative which was basically a nasty handgun licensing scheme ineptly disguised as a trigger lock and bill. The final vote was over 70% against it and it even lost in King County, the most liberal county in the state. A Seattle Times reporter said at the time that the initiative had set gun control in the state back 20 years.

Now state Democrats are casually discussing even more extreme ideas which could set back the party and numerous liberal causes even further.

"Assault weapon" bans (pointless legislation which caused enraged Washingtonians to De-Foley-ate Congress in 1994), magazine bans (which are pointless and also politically toxic) and also a proposal to revoke the state's Preemption statute.

That last idea really needs to be thought through. I know Seattle wants to enact its own gun control laws but do we REALLY want to make gun laws so confusing that they are difficult to comply with? Why would it make sense for gun owners to have to research gun laws any time they venture out of their towns?

3) Serious attempts to enact punitive laws will create a terrific backlash 

I have already mentioned two instances of backlash against  gun controls in this state in recent memory:

• 1994: House speaker Foley removed from office for supporting the 1994 Federal "Assault Weapon" ban

• 1997: Initiative 676 essentially killed gun control in Washington state for 20 years. 

Another example:

• 2014: Following passage of I594's mandatory background check initiative, between 1,000 and 3,000 people showed up in Olympia and staged what may have been the largest action of civil disobedience in US history. Notice was given that people would be exchanging and even selling firearms in direct violation of the new law. No permit to assembled was requested or given. Several legislators even attended, at least one of them armed with an AR15. (link)
  
  No attempt was made to arrest anyone there.
  
  (Note that gun owners in New York state and Connecticut have largely ignored requirements rammed through in midnight sessions that they register their "assault weapons". If two states used to tolerating severe gun controls are refusing to obey because they have been pushed too far, what will happen here??)

I see two possibilities for 2018. Either no serious attempt will be made to pass "assault weapon" bans or licensing, magazine bans or to revoke firearms preemption or serious attempts will be made...and the backlash will be FURIOUS in the next election. As in the aftermath of the Federal ban, electoral retribution will be harshest against moderate Democrats who had previously supported gun rights. I sincerely hope that Democrats in the legislature are not foolhardy enough to doom their control there to enact foolish laws instead of focusing on the positive aspects of their party platform.

If strict controls are enacted, civil disobedience will be rampant and attempts to actually enforce the laws spotty or non-existent. Respect for the law and for officers enforcing it will plummet.

And God help us all if someone gets hurt trying because such laws ARE being enforced.

How About Replacing Political Candidates With A Jury Duty Model?

The political landscape these days is bleak.

Both major parties field mostly rubbish candidates: dishonest authoritarians and profiteers with contempt for the people they supposedly serve. They've gotten such a lock on the electoral process that most people don't even get to hear those narrow viewpoints challenged by alternative viewpoints with a less authoritarian bias. It's no surprise that only half the population even bothers to vote and those who do do so after trying to discern the lesser of two evils.

The hideous failures of this process are completely unsurprising when you consider the randomly stupid nature of the way in which candidates are picked. First, a self-styled "alpha" puts him or her self forward for consideration by two bloated, entrenched primary parties. They may go through the motions of "public service" while being primarily interested in self promotion (and the arbitrary exercise of power) and, with the collusion of self-styles media "experts" gradually run for positions with more and more power. With each election, they promise things they cannot (and often should not) deliver...and the voters know it and go on voting for them. They vote for measures with near zero regard for Constitutionality, careful consideration or even detailed knowledge of what they are voting for. Usually, they even include codicils in the legislation making them exempt from its requirements.

How can such a ridiculous process NOT lead to growing incompetence and corruption?

Now let's consider another governmental process which, while imperfect, results in competent and diligent public service: jury duty.

Sure some dodge this duty and some approach it haphazardly but for the most part I have seen people approach it scrupulously and with a high degree of diligence. People take their service on a jury seriously, usually follow the requirements of the law and do REAL public service, for almost no money and with no personal motive.

Maybe its time to replace self nomination and political parties with a jury duty type of system.

• Select a reasonable number of candidates from a pool selected for basic intelligence, knowledge of civics and Constitutional law and some level of public spirited action (e.g., volunteering to help people in the community). We want people of at least good intelligence who genuinely care about public service and helping people
  
• Hold run-off elections until candidates are selected for the required number of position.
  
• Keep political parties and their machine candidates OUT of it
  
• When creating legislation, strict Constitutional limits will be a requirement and no legislation will be allowed which exempts anyone in the country from its controls
  
• Before voting on legislation, it should be analyzed by civil rights organizations (ACLU, NRA, PFLAG) for Constitutionality. These organizations will then test legislators, who will be required to get a high grade on understanding its contents before being allowed to vote on it
  
• Of course, this model would severely disrupt the lives and careers of the legislators and executives and so they would be guaranteed a living stipend from the end of their service for some reasonable length of time. However, should any of their actions be determined to be unconstitutional, their stipend would be cancelled and possible prison time would result.

Thank you for considering this proposal.

Yes, Humans Have Natural Rights

I've been having a political discussion on Facebook...always a mistake...and one participant made the claim that there are no natural rights. My view is to the contrary...the STRIDENT contrary...so I would like to take a few moments here to outline why that is so.

Are there natural rights? Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein was a libertarian soul but even he had some concerns on the matter. In his novel Starship Troopers, a character stated that there are no natural rights:

   "What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific?"

Now that is an interesting point but it is only the STARTING point of a discussion. Surely if a person falls into the ocean their natural inclination will be to strive or fight for life. No one is going to passively think to themselves "Well, I have no right to live so I guess I'll start inhaling water" and gamely go down to a watery grave. No, practically everybody would try to stay above water, to swim, to find something floatable to buoy them up. They have a RIGHT to do so. They may not be successful but right and wrong do not depend on whether you succeed. That idea should have gone out with the medieval idea of trial by combat with God determining the winner.

We have rights, among them free thought, free expression, the right to effective self defense (or survival), the right to self determination. Survival comes into play in the natural world. It is in social interaction with other humans that rights become more complicated. If two people fall into the ocean, they both have the right to fight to survive. But not by having one use the other as a float, drowning them to stay alive.

Some people assume that we have rights because the government or the majority of the populace chooses not infringe on them. The idea that freedom comes from the government is abominable: governments do not provide freedom, they either infringe or are prevented from infringing on it. You have rights, whether the populace respects them or not. If a mob of fellow humans tries to take a right away from you and you are willing to keep that right by *any* means necessary, you as an individual have that right. Obviously, they need to be delineated with exactness: my right to live does not give me the right to armed robbery. That does not mean they don't exist.

I would argue that part of the reason our society is such a mess is because this matter is not carefully considered. Some call their rights god-given rights but while I am not an atheist, I don't think our rights come from God. I think they come from us as conscious individuals determined to make ourselves safe, to make an impact on the world and to prosper as much as circumstances allow.

I would enjoy any and all feedback on the matter.

Democratic "leadership" in Washington state shows why party is in decline: Dishonesty, Arrogance

A few months after I moved to Washington state in 1997, the state election included an initiative which would have required that all handgun owners in the state obtain a handgun license or face felony charges (for continuing to own a firearm they had owned responsibly for decades). Despite predictions that it would pass easily, the measure lost by 71%. A gun control supporter at the time lamented that it had set gun control back 20 years because it contained such blatant overreach.

Now it's 20 years later and the gun control lobby is pushing bills which could end up setting their efforts back by another 20 years.

Grandstanding Attorney General Bob Ferguson has proposed restrictions which form the basis of two separate bills concerning so-called "assault weapons". Should these bills fail, as they are expected to do, there is already talk about them being formed into a ballot initiative for 2018.

I have written in a previous blog post why such restrictions are absolutely foolhardy:

• Rifles are not used often for murder. They are used to kill substantially less people annually than are killed by people with their bare hands...or other common weapons such as knives or blunt objects like baseball bats
  
• These rifles are very commonly owned, undoubtedly in the hundreds of thousands in the state and we have see in other states that complying would lead to confiscation (as in California). Compliance would be low, leading to massive disrespect for the law. (Hint: if you want to discourage ownership of a type of gun, proposing a ban is NOT the way to do so)
  
• Egregious restrictions like these have been a significant factor in Democratic party losses nationwide

The more obnoxious version of Ferguson's legislation, HB 1387 would mandate licensing to own "assault weapons", with annual renewal required. The consequences of this would be simply stunning: gross overreach attempting to turn Washington state (which is politically moderate but VERY gun friendly) into a state with worse gun control laws than any other state in the West, including California.

I referenced I676 and the consequences to the gun control lobby of its arrogant overreach earlier. But perhaps even more disturbing is the willingness, nay, eagerness of gun control proponents to utter statements that are blatantly dishonest...and the media's tendency to report those statements without even the pretense of fact checking.

Take for example the Seattle Times and their witless reporting of politicians pushing for these gun control bills here.

Laurie Jinkins of Tacoma opined:

“We have a lot of data now with mass shootings that assault weapons hurt and kill a lot more people and do it a lot faster,” she said. “We’re trying to make sure that these kinds of weapons stay out of the hands of dangerous people”

However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report consistently shows rifles as uncommon crime weapons, used in very few murders. And "mass shooting" statistics are being manipulated to inflate numbers by counting any situation where more than one person as shot.

Deputy prosecuting attorney Adam Cornell, told the group his worst day out of the 15 years working in Snohomish County was when he arrived at the scene where a 19-year-old, Allen C. Ivanov, shot and killed three of his former high school classmates at a house party in Mukilteo last year. 

Authorities say Ivanov opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle he had just purchased. Ivanov pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to life in prison. 

“That shooting, those murders,” he paused and said, “occurred in a span of less than 35 seconds … Assault weapons are the most efficient killers of people that we have in our communities.”

While that was an awful crime, it could have easily been committed with a 5 shot revolver. Grandstanding because a scary looking rifle was used is simply idiotic.

However the most awful part of this article could easily be this sentence:

Inslee said there’s a loophole in the state’s law that doesn’t require background checks for assault weapons.

Think about that for a moment. The governor of Washington state stated in the mainstream media that Washington state doesn't have a background check for these rifles. And the Seattle Times reported that statement AS FACT.

In point of fact, all firearms sold through dealers in Washington state require a Federal NICS background check. And since I594 passed, ALL firearms purchases are required to go through a dealer.

Governor Inslee and Attorney General Ferguson: are you actually so low as to attack a civil liberty through rank dishonesty or are you actually this ignorant of existing law?

If you're going to call yourself The Resistance

If you're going to call yourself The Resistance, I expect you to join me:

• Oppose ALL government overreach, including the party you support
• Hold both major parties to a higher standard and don't freak out about the other party doing things your own party has done...shut down bad actions by BOTH 
• Oppose all infringements on the Bill of Rights (all 10 amendments including the Second)
• Oppose all denial of civil liberties without due process based on actual crimes committed
• Realize that different things are important to different people and don't attack other peoples' rights and then expect your rights to be safe
• Trust that most of your fellow citizens are good people and don't jump to conclusions involving bigotry
• Our public life and society are not a reality TV show. Stop treating it with that level of shallow idiocy.