A Flawed Gun Ban And Ethically Compromised Officials

I am writing to express my utter shock at the Attorney General and Democratic party's current push for an "assault weapon" ban and to highlight some troubling ethical implications that attend this process.

The Attorney General has produced the attached request document with the intention of using it to promote his sales ban. Here are the some reasons why this request is profoundly troubling. He is using misleading and/or irrelevant numbers to encourage support for this egregious attack on our civil liberties.

• The claim that "assault weapons" are 11x more likely to be used in a mass shooting than a handgun is irrelevant. Mass shooting events are extremely rare and have involved handguns to deadly effect many times. The bottom line though is that rifles are very rarely used to commit murders. In 2016, the FBI noted 7,105 murders with handguns and only 374 murders using *any* kind of rifle, semiautomatic or manually operated. 1,604 murders were committed with knives, 472 with blunt objects, 656  without any weapon other than their fists and feet. Rifles are not a significant crime problem. The hand-wringing claim that "assault rifles"...all rifles... are deadlier than handguns is thus irrelevant.
• The claim that "assault weapons" are more likely to kill law enforcement involves sleight of hand by the Violence Policy Center, the most extreme gun ban advocates in the US. These are the same people who first promoted banning these guns by confusing the public into thinking they were machine guns. Why is the AG quoting such compromised resources? In any case, it is more likely that law enforcement (who overwhelmingly support responsible gun ownership) would be HURT by banning them. Most developments in this type of gun have been made by citizen innovation, e.g., for competition.
• The claim that only 2% of Americans own "assault weapons" is specious at best. First, it includes populous areas with low gun ownership, as opposed to Washington state where ownership is 33% to 50% of the population. Second, nobody knows how many guns of this type are owned because they are generally understood not to be criminal weapons....while they are also the most popular rifles in America. Finally, using that 2% as an excuse for attacking gun owners' rights because "there aren't that many of them" is a disturbing line of thought, coming from a state Attorney General.

I have alluded to the deeply flawed logic, misleading sound bites and opportunistic targeting of the population the Attorney General is meant to serve, in his communications to the legislature. Now let me highlight some profound ethical question which these actions raise.

• Why is AG Ferguson distributing this misleading document at the behest of Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire on the other side of the country...and attacking the rights of Washington state gun owners? How much more blatant does this conflict of interest need to be before it produces some investigation and possible reprimand or removal from office?
• Why is AG Ferguson sending this communication in the form of a professionally produced gun control mailer (included below) and  how much has this cost the state? Why does the state tolerate such gross misuse of its scant resources as this marketing type presentation and the Attorney General's raft of frivolous lawsuits against President Trump? Is this being looked at by state accountants and justified?
• Why was AG Ferguson so obsessively interested in attacking the rule of law by promoting initiative 1639...again, with Bloomberg funding...when 1639 was so blatantly an illegal initiative? At the same time, he turns the other way and ignores Seattle's declaration as a "Sanctuary City". 

This apparent contempt for state law and the rights of state gun owners...the double standard as to which legal violations will be winked at and which group of honest citizens who have had (up to this point) extreme motivation to be law abiding cannot lead our state down a good path.

I urge you to reject this deeply flawed attack on our rights and to consider whether AG Ferguson's conduct is as grossly unethical as it appears and what negative legal consequences that conduct should incur. If you do not, we will be forced to consider why you desire to be complicit in unethical activities and spurious attacks on the civil liberties of Washingtonians.

 

Washington State Law Enforcement Instructors Association opposes I-1639!

(Shared Post)
IMPORTANT NEWS! This was just released from the Washington State Law Enforcement Instructors Association. They are the the professionals tasked with training all of the other law enforcement officers:

"WSLEFIA Opposes Initiative 1639

Initiative 1639 is being promoted as a public safety measure; those actually working law enforcement know that IT WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP A SINGLE CRIME. This initiative has nothing to do with "assault weapons" and is directed only at our good citizens who already pass multiple background checks before owning a firearm.

The Washington State Law Enforcement Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) opposes Initiative 1639. I-1639 harms law enforcement officers and all citizens of Washington:

I-1639 creates a new crime of "Community Endangerment" and there is NO law enforcement exemption. If a law enforcement officer should fail to secure either a personal or duty firearm as prescribed by I-1639 then that officer may be subject to felony criminal charges. Even a department-issued firearm must be secured with a trigger lock or in "secure storage." The trunk of a patrol car is not specified as secure storage.

I-1639 requires a 10 day wait for law enforcement officers who wish to buy a semiautomatic rifle, whether for personal or duty purposes. There is no exemption for either a commissioned officer or a Concealed Pistol License.

I-1639 requires that law enforcement officers attend a "safety" training class before purchasing any semiauto rifle. There is no exemption for law enforcement commissioned personnel and no recognition of either department or BLEA academy training.

I-1639 would require that a law enforcement officer who sells a semiauto rifle to another officer go to a firearm dealer and pay fees. The purchasing officer must wait 10 days, pass additional background checks, and show proof of "safety" training.

I-1639 targets law-abiding citizens--not criminals--by creating a new law that would make the innocent victim subject to CRIMINAL charges if his firearm is accessed by a prohibited person. The ugliness of shaming and blaming the victim of a crime should never be made law. I-1639 ignores the criminals while attacking the victims of theft.
Law enforcement officers will be made to investigate the victims of crime rather than pursuing the perpetrators of crimes.

I-1639 falsely demonizes all semiautomatic sporting rifles as "assault rifles"--the rifles they wish to deny to the public are the most common sporting and hunting firearms--the type of firearms LEAST likely to be used in crimes--this fact is supported by both FBI and Washington State crime statistics.
Youth rifles, plinkers, collector firearms, hunting and self-defense rifles--if they are semiautomatic, I-1639 will re-classify them as "assault rifles."

I-1639 strips adults under age 21 of their right to self-defense. Law-abiding young adults will no longer be able to possess any modern defensive firearm, neither handgun nor rifle.
I-1639 attacks our safest and best-trained firearm users--licensed and safety trained hunters--by prohibiting the use of modern sporting rifles by those age 18-20.

I-1639 would unlawfully seize semiauto rifles already owned by those under age 21 by prohibiting any possession or use of these rifles at target ranges and for hunting.

I-1639 creates both a literacy test and the equivalent of a poll tax--they call it a fee--to exercise a right guaranteed by both State and Federal Constitutions. You wouldn't accept this for voting or any other right and neither have the courts.

I-1639 delays the LAWFUL purchase of a rifle by 10 days--even after all background checks are passed! A right delayed is a right denied.
I-1639 impairs a citizen's defense their home by requiring that the most effective defensive firearms be locked and inaccessible by the homeowner.

I-1639 creates an unnecessary, costly and ill-considered requirement for government-mandated training that is already adequately addressed by Washington Arms Collectors-provided training, National Rifle Association safety instructors, WDFW Hunter Safety training and private clubs and ranges.

I-1639 creates yet another huge unfunded bureaucracy that will only duplicate the background checks already Federally required. Don't be fooled--the background check system already exists and all semiauto rifle buyers already are required to pass background checks.

I-1639 will prohibit legitimate sales of rifles to fully background checked and Federally-approved purchasers from other states, thus harming all State and Federally licensed firearm dealers.

I-1639 will not stop a single crime or shooting. Criminals are not subject to any of the requirements; only law-abiding citizens go through background checks and they already do so.

I-1639 wrongly burdens our most law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

"The WSLEFIA finds that I-1639 is an attack on civil rights and is an attempt to marginalize all firearm owners, including law enforcement officers. I-1639 will impair public safety, embolden criminals and impose burdensome restrictions on our most law-abiding citizens."