Foolhardy Washington State Government Deliberately Steers Towards DANGEROUS Waters

I have lived in Washington state for over 20 years now. Being a gun owner, the thing I've enjoyed about living here is that the firearms laws have been reasonably sensible and easy to comply with. Washington state has always been a VERY gun friendly state and its healthy gun culture placid and compliant.

All of that is changing now. This threatens to create a lot of instability, legal jeopardy and turmoil, to the possible benefit of only 1 or 2 people.

The state's executive leadership is unremittingly hostile to gun owners. Governor Inslee, who is beginning a probably futile presidential run in 2020 (already costing the state $2 million in travel expenses), made a petty gesture this year by refusing to sign marksmanship certificates for citizens AND law enforcement, a gubernatorial tradition since 1903. The state's insurance commissioner has banned an NRA concealed carry insurance policy, calling it "murder insurance".

Attorney General Bob Ferguson takes the cake. When he is not trying to sue tax activists into bankruptcy (and denying them legal counsel in bankruptcy court) and grandstanding with a plethora of frivolous lawsuits against the federal government (wasting more tax dollars), he is acting against Washington citizens' interests by pestering lawmakers with misleading, professionally prepared (at whose cost?) requests for magazine and gun bans. Here, he gives stink eye to gun rights activists who have the temerity to oppose his legislation.

Since initiative 1639 passed and Democrats gained more ground in the legislature there is the possibility that some or all of the following legislation will become law:

• Magazine bans above 10 or 15 rounds (despite the fact that this significantly reduces the ability of people to defend themselves with concealed carry guns or whatever guns they legally possess in their homes. There is some grandfathering of existing magazines, IF they are kept locked up and you have kept receipts for them for decades.
• New restrictions on concealed carry. At a time when many states have come to understand that people who get carry licenses are the last people we need to worry about and are REDUCING restrictions, Washington state is pointlessly going the other way. There is legislation being considered which would add new training requirements and even require certification with the specific guns people will carry. In a move adding insult to injury, the House version spitefully strikes out a reference to "the right to bear arms".

• A ban on the sale of "assault weapons", semiautomatics which the state will GRACIOUSLY allow us to keep if they are registered with law enforcement. Registration which could easily lead to confiscation in the future.
• Revoking state preemption, a law which prohibits cities and counties from creating laws stricter than state requirements. Preemption is a very important law which makes it easy for gun owners to comply with relevant laws without having a legal team research obscure statues in every city they want to visit or travel through.
• Banning the manufacture of undetectable or untraceable firearms. In effect, this creates a new ban on the currently legal home manufacture of firearms. Some analysis indicates this could ban many home firearm enhancements (e.g., trigger upgrades) of existing guns or ban new short barreled rifles, which have been legal given NFA compliance for a few years.
• Banning people under 21 from having exposure to lead ammunition...an obvious attempt to prevent young people from becoming shooters or even take safety classes
• Requiring gun owner liability insurance, presumably different from the kind the insurance commissioner just banned.

What is the point of all this legislation? Washington state has a violent crime rate significantly lower than the national average, significantly lower than states with stricter gun laws. The only explanation which makes sense is that most of the state Democratic party wants to enact as much gun control as they can as fast as they can and citizen's rights be damned. The net effect if I1639 and all these laws is to drive gun owners into a minefield of new restrictions which they can easily and unintentionally violate. The danger in this tactic cannot be overemphasized.

That is why the last couple weeks have seen rush of county sheriffs announce that they will not enforce 1639 (or will not actively enforce it). There are parts of 1639 that are obviously unconstitutional (e.g., a storage requirement which conflicts with the US Supreme Court Heller decision), parts which are almost certainly unconstitutional (21 year age requirement, training requirement for purchase) and there are also lawsuits in the works because the format and content of the initiative clearly violate state law.

We hope that sheriffs in other counties will hold to their oaths to defend the state and or federal constitution because otherwise all this legislation is going to put them and the citizens into some very uncomfortable situations. 

Are sheriffs in rural counties like Snohomish and Skagit counties really willing to confront armed citizens for safely exercising a right as they have for decades?

Are they going to stake out shooting ranges or gravel pits and demand to inspect peoples' magazines to determine their capacity? Are they going to arrest people who take their 18 year old shooting safely or attempt to confiscate their firearms?

Do these sheriffs have the resources ($$ and staff) to devote to certifying people who come in to renew or apply for a concealed pistol license and track the firearms certified?

ALL of these proposals are unnecessary and can only serve to further infuriate some very peaceful people who have been ignoring insults and abuse for far too long already...and lead to many unpleasant situations that upset the natural alliance between law enforcement officers and the citizens they are meant to serve.

N.B. Opportunistic prosecutors trying to convict people who break any of these rules will find it hard getting juries to support them.

Washington I-1639: Dumbest Gun Control Initiative Ever

1997 ballot initiative writers: Let's put together a huge intrusive ballot initiative which will severely impact gun culture in Washington state if it passes. But even if it doesn't, it is so extreme it will kill gun control efforts in the state for 20 years.

2018 ballot initiative writers: Hold my beer.

I moved to Washington state in 1997, just in time to join the fight against I-676. 676 tried to enact a handgun licensing scheme which would have drastically impacted the gun culture of Washington state. As a previous blog post noted (link), Washington state is a politically moderate but VERY gun friendly state. I moved here in the expectation that I-676 would fail and it did, losing by a 71% to 29% margin.

21 years later, an even more obnoxious gun control initiative is on the ballot. As in 1997, proponents are trying to sell the restrictions in this initiative as "modest" and "not intrusive". And again in 2018, we can see through their dissembling.

Typical signature gatherers for this initiative. Not at all deceptive. Look away

I-1639 is an incompetently written initiative, apparently created by randomly cutting and pasting from a handful of legislation REJECTED by a Democrat-controlled legislature this year. It was promoted by Washington's so-called "Attorney General," who smugly admits that he spends a lot of his time at work looking for flimsy reasons to sue the Federal government....apparently because his budget is excessive and he doesn't work for the state or something? The format of I-1639 is so blatantly illegal that a judge in Thurston County removed it from the ballot. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court decided that its job is not to adjudicate the law and put it back on the ballot.

Here's a news flash, guys: maintaining respect for the rule of law and its impartiality is actually pretty damn important. You have compromised that severely.

Let's look at all the problems with this bloated, incoherent initiative:

It classifies ALL semi-auto rifles as "assault weapons", rendering them susceptible to future legislative attacks. Every single rifle. That will get the hunting crowd's attention, especially when they go to buy a Browning BAR or pedestrian .22 and there's a 10 business day waiting period.

OK, now say you're a hunter concerned about being made to wait two weeks to take possession of a rifle, for no good reason. You might think that your Concealed Pistol License might allow you to bypass the waiting period, like it does for handgun purchases. No such luck.

Here's one subtle and very ugly bit that isn't being talked about very much. I-1639 also requires that you complete an approved safety class before you can buy that hunting rifle. However, the content and availability of that course are not spelled out in the initiative. It could take months or even over a year for the courses to be approved and made available. So there could be an indeterminately long complete ban on the sale of ALL semi-auto rifles throughout the state.

Does that still sound like a moderate law to you?

Then there's the part where buying that rifle means that the state can invade your health privacy for the rest of your life. When I call older folks, that REALLY gets their attention. It also worries a lot of people who have been treated for PTSD or depression.

Then there's the small matter of denying 18-20 year olds who may be living on their own the right to effective self defense weapons. Remember that they already can't buy handguns.

The initiative purports to enact safe storage requirements. That means that either you will be expected to keep your gun locked up at all times (and therefore useless for purposes of self defense) or be held criminally responsible if Joe Recidivist Felon steals your gun and uses it in a crime.

And what is the whole alleged point to this incoherent jumble of bad ideas? Controlling "assault weapons", which are so rarely used to commit violent crimes (link) that people with knives are more of a threat to you. Or people with hands and feet.  

Gun owners realize how toxic this initiative is and oppose it. The gun community hasn't been this motivated and pissed off since 1997.

The large state law enforcement organizations all oppose this initiative:
Washington State Patrol Troopers Association
Washington State Sheriff’s Association
Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs
Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association

I think I-1639's advocates have bitten off a lot more than they can chew.

Why I-1639 Must Fail

If I-1639 Vote is No	If I-1639 Vote Is Yes
Bob Smails, a repeat felon, buys a semiautomatic rifle and uses it to kill a clerk and a customer while robbing a convenience store.	Bob Smails, a repeat felon, buys a semiautomatic rifle and uses it to kill a clerk and a customer while robbing a convenience store. Nothing changes here. Criminals do not obey gun laws.
Disabled 20 year old veteran Latisha Robbins lives in an area with a significant crime problem due to persistent financial difficulties. Too young to purchase a handgun, she purchases a light AR15, a firearm with which she became familiar during her military service. When drug addict Jerry Randall breaks into her home, he hurriedly flees when Latisha points the rifle at him and click off the safety.	Disabled 20 year old veteran Latisha Robbins lives in an area with a significant crime problem due to persistent financial difficulties. Too young to purchase a handgun or an effective rifle for self defense, she is forced to hope that police officers respond in time to her 911 call. When drug addict Jerry Randall breaks into her home, what he does to her causes the responding officer to cry in his wife’s arms, after finding Latisha's body.
Retired bookstore owner Jerry Rodriguez has been planning for a hunting trip across the country for over a year. Two weeks before departure, he is sighting it in at the range and accidentally drops it, badly damaging the action. Chagrined at this misfortune, he is still able to purchase a used Browning BAR hunting rifle from a store that conducts a background check before selling it to him. The rifle is sighted in and his hunting trip is saved.	Retired bookstore owner Jerry Rodriguez has been planning for a hunting trip across the country for over a year. Two weeks before departure, he is sighting it in at the range and accidentally drops it, badly damaging the action. Chagrined at this misfortune, goes to his local gun store and tries to purchase a used Browning BAR hunting rifle from a store. Despite his clean background and possession of a Concealed Pistol License (which would exempt him from a handgun waiting period, though not a redundant background check), Jerry is unable to purchase the BAR. I-1639’s 10 BUSINESS DAY waiting period does not exempt CPL holders. It also requires proof of having completed a training course….without specifying the contents of that course, who will offer it and requiring that it be reasonably prices an accessible to all. Law enforcement officers are also governed by this completely undefined process.
Bob Kowalski loses his 70 year old mother to cancer, just before Christmas. It has been a hard year for Bob, who is recently divorced, and he finds it difficult to keep depression at bay. However, he finds solace in competitive shooting and finds a good therapist who has Bob use a mild dose of an anti-depression medication for a year. Fortunately, he ultimately overcomes the depression.	Bob Kowalski loses his 70 year old mother to cancer, just before Christmas. It has been a hard year for Bob, who is recently divorced, and he finds it difficult to keep depression at bay. However, he finds solace in competitive shooting and finds a good therapist who has Bob use a mild dose of an anti-depression medication for a year. Fortunately, he ultimately overcomes the depression. Unfortunately, a couple years later the state legislature adds every person who has ever used any amount of anti-depression medication to the list of persons unable to legally own any firearms. Bob’s purchase of a rifle under I-1639 gave the state the means to circumvent HIPAA’s privacy protections and access his medical records at any point in the future. As a result of his brief anti-depressant use, all of Bob’s firearms are confiscated. Another consequence of this is that a large number of people battling depression avoid seeking help to deal with that depression and even suicidal thoughts. Some end up taking their own lives.
Anne Holms is a former single mom whose kids have grown and moved away. She keeps a pistol for self protection and is conscientious about keeping it locked when she is not using it. Unfortunately, the locked container is stolen from her home during a break-in while she is away.	Anne Holms is a former single mom whose kids have grown and moved away. She keeps a pistol for self protection and is conscientious about keeping it locked when she is not using it. Unfortunately, the locked container is stolen from her home during a break-in while she is away. Under I-1639, Anne is guilty of community endangerment and is prosecuted as a criminal when her gun is stolen and used in a robbery where a clerk is shot.
Washington state continues a precarious financial juggling act, not helped by an Attorney General and Governor repeatedly engaging in spurious, contrived lawsuits against the Federal government.	Washington state continues a precarious financial juggling act, not helped by an Attorney General and Governor repeatedly engaging in spurious, contrived lawsuits against the Federal government. Making matters worse the Attorney General and courts will be untangling this initiative in the courts for decades. For example, the storage requirement is clearly overruled by the storage findings of the landmark Heller case of 10 years ago. It will cost the state millions....paid for by peeved taxpayers.
Cabelas hires 10 additional seasonal employees from early November until just after Christmas.	Cabelas hires less seasonal employees during the holiday season and lays off 2 permanent employees due to the financial chaos wrought by this overly broad and clumsy initiative.
The state legislature continues to occasionally consider firearms laws. As has become virtually a tradition, gun control activists are given prior notice of hearing dates and are bused in and issued color-coordinated orange shirts by out of state financier Michael Bloomberg. They are still outnumbered by gun rights activists who manage to take off days from work on short notice. Little changes.	The state legislature continues to occasionally consider firearms laws. As has become virtually a tradition, gun control activists are given prior notice of hearing dates and are bused in and issued color-coordinated orange shirts by out of state financier Michael Bloomberg. They are still outnumbered by gun rights activists who manage to take off days from work on short notice. However, some things have changed. -          Democrats have decided that it is now open season on gun owners and begin constant efforts to enact ever stricter gun laws, like California does. Washington state gun owners, used to a fairly stable set of laws, are left uncertain from one year to the next which of their guns will remain legal -          Some legislation is passed without real feedback over a weekend, as was attempted in 2018. -          At the same time, the gun owners who up to now have had a huge stake in obeying all laws conclude that there is no point in doing so.
A Note About Washington State Gun culture Washington state is a very moderate and VERY gun friendly state. We have more concealed carry permits per capita than a lot of red states. This is a healthy gun culture, which tolerates moderate background checks (despite their questionable effectiveness), with a strong record of promoting safety and trying innovative approaches to reduce suicides. By not enacting punitive and ill-considered laws, the system that works and works well is maintained.

If We Don't Fight, We Can't Win. And we CAN win!

The NRA is taking the fight against I-1639 into high gear now (link). Yesterday, I spent a few hours at the Washington State Fair in Puyallup handing out information about this madly overreaching initiative. The Democratic party's booth had a life size Barry Obama cutout, which offered whimsical selfie opportunities. 

Working the booth offered some great opportunities for interacting with other gun owners, some of whom weren't aware of all the awful parts of this law: classifying all semiautomatic rifles as "assault weapons", 10 day waiting period for purchase (even with CPL), lifetime surrender of HIPAA protections to the state, vague storage requirements which will make gun owners criminals if their home is burglarized.

While most visitors left fired up to vote this initiative into oblivion, the response of one baffled me. He said that he just doesn't believe in voting anymore and refused to consider even the limited step of registering to vote against this initiative. Even odder, this middle aged guy was wearing a t-shirt with the Star of David on it: if there's one group of people who can articulate what "Never Again" really comes down to, it's the population of Israel who have grown up in the company of Holocaust survivors.

Make no mistake: if a good percentage of gun owners show up and vote, we can beat this awful initiative down even harder than we beat I-676 21 years ago. If we don't even try, if the voting percentage is as lame as it was in the August primaries, the corrupt Olympia government can mount a very serious and devastating attack on what is now a very healthy and safety-oriented gun culture.

The choice is up to you. PLEASE make sure you are registered to vote right away and commit to getting your friends out to vote too. We can beat this initiative decisively but if we don't even bother fighting it, we can't win.

Why would people without the guts to fight a political fight even own guns anyway?

Time For Sleeping Washington State Gun Owners To Wake Up And Face 3 Active Threats

Politics can be an arena of tiresome hyperbolic fearmongering. This has caused Washington state gun owners, who are a moderate, non-partisan bunch (see previous blog post), to tune out. But there are movements afoot in Washington state which gun owners will dearly regret ignoring. Please consider that we are facing at least three active threats and take what steps you can to defend your rights.

1) Attempts to weaken and eliminate state firearms preemption in King, Snohomish and possibly other counties. 

Washington state has a firearms preemption law in place. State laws says that individual cities and counties cannot enact their own gun control laws...all gun controls have to exist at the state level. This law provides the benefit of making it easy to comply with gun control laws.

For example, imagine you have a Concealed Pistol License and are driving from Lynnwood to Federal Way. If preemption was revoked, you could end up having to obey different gun laws in multiple cities in between or face criminal charges that remove your gun rights. Does Seattle now ban concealed carry? Does Edmonds ban having loaded guns in your car or magazines that hold over 8 rounds of ammunition? Is there another city in between with some other rule?

Preemption is one of those laws that quietly prevents gun ownership from being a maze of easily and unintentionally violated capricious rules. King County has already stated that they will enact an "assault weapon" ban if preemption falls. (link)

2) Initiative I1639 - a 30 page ballot initiative and gun control smorgasbord

This initiative is an incoherent mashup of a number of gun control laws rejected during the 2018 legislative session. The initiative itself is 30 pages long. According to state law, that makes it illegal because signature gathering forms have to include the full text in a readable font with relevant existing legal text marked up with strikeouts and additions. Washington state courts and the Secretary of State have chosen to ignore that little fact.

This site (link) gives a really good overview of what this initiative covers. The high points are:

• Requires safe storage of firearms without defining what that is
• Defines ALL semiautomatic rifles as "assault rifles"
• Enacts a 10 business day waiting period when purchasing them (even if you have a CPL)
• Bans 18-20 year old from purchasing these rifles
• Enhanced background check with registration during purchase
• Appears to require firearms training every 5 years, possibly a de facto licensing scheme

I1639 is currently being challenged in court by the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation but it could easily appear on the ballot. Incidentally, a large number of law enforcement groups have already expressed opposition to this initiative.

3) Washington state may join New York state financial attacks on the NRA

New York state's Andrew Cuomo is financially attacking the NRA over its Carry Guard Concealed Carry Insurance. Washington state Governor Jay Inslee, Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the state's Insurance Commissioner said this week that they want to join this effort. Do you want your tax dollars used to attack the NRA? I mean, beyond Bob Ferguson's use of state resources to lobby for gun ban legislation and ballot initiatives.

So now...

I've spelled out the significant attacks currently pending against our rights. We Washington state gun owners have actually had it fairly easy, in terms of serious threats. This is not California, which makes the deliberate, malicious baiting of gun owners a legislative sport. This is not New York or Illinois, with frequent serious gun control attacks.

But gun owners in California, New York and Illinois know how to have an unflinching gut fight and wage war to protect their rights. Do Washingtonians have the heart and guts to do the same? Or are we weaker than other states and too timid and polite to fight for the freedoms we exercise responsibly every day.

At the very least, join gun rights groups and register to vote before the first week in October. If you are ready to do more, there are many options, including writing or calling your legislators and volunteering the campaigns of gun rights supporting legislators.

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?

Sexism in the NRA

In 1972, the federal law Title IX was passed with the intention of achieving gender equity in high school and collegiate sports. I find it disturbing that 40 years later, some still see this as a bad thing. For example, witness US Womens Soccer champion Brandi Chastain's experience at a Sacramento at an event honoring the 40th anniversary of Title IX.  (article)  Even today, media coverage of women in sports lags significantly behind the coverage of male sports.

If that grudging acceptance of women in sports is the status quo in other sports, you're probably thinking to yourself "I bet that barbaric NRA is even worse"! Let's take a look and see...

Here are a couple examples. On the left, is an article about Elizabeth Topperwein competing in the NRA's national matches in 1906. Wait, could that be right? Yes, it was in fact 1906 and this writeup notes that women had competed in other shooting matches for some time. In the picture on the right, Gertrude Beckstrom proudly celebrates WINNING the overall national pistol matches in 1957..

Yes but what about management roles? Surely the backward, benighted NRA wouldn't support women taking a leadership role in their organization. Well, except they did in 1949 when the Seattle area's late Alice Bull was elected to the NRA Board of Directors. 

The pictures above are from the book "NRA: An American Legend" (my review) and highlight the pride the organization has taken in supporting all those interested in shooting over the years, whether for sport or self defense. This has included a North Carolina NAACP chapter threatened by the KKK in the 1950s (link) and a Pink Pistols affiliate in Seattle in 2000 (link). In fact, I was a safety instructor for CeaseFear and a variety of gun rights organizations lent substantial support: the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington state's Gun Owners Action League, various shooting ranges.

Clearly, there's a lot more to the NRA's narrative and history that the simplistic media offer up to casual readers. I've included some further illustrations from the NRA's magazine American Rifleman below, in the hope that it will provide valuable information to some.Note that these photos were selected by opening a handful of issues over about a half hour...they are undoubtedly the tip of the iceberg.

This screen shot is from a December 1939 article by Dr. A. F. Bokman, describing the benefits his sons and daughter experienced as a a result of a rifle marksmanship program.

These photos are from the December 1951 editions Annual Meeting coverage

This photo from the November 1951 coverage of the national matches at Camp Perry illustrates that women competed very seriously decades ago.

As does this cover from September 1967.

So before you allow the news media to shape your opinion about an organization, please take the time to think about whether their agenda might shape what they tell you about it.