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.