Time For A Gun Control FREEZE!

Gun owners around the country are under attack. Bloomberg stooges in blue states sell out their constituents. Even in red states like Montana or Texas, politicians talk blithely about banning guns, magazines and ammunition or of passing Red Flag laws without consideration for due process.

But these reckless actions are also inspiring a REAL resistance....a gun control freeze, in effect. Gun owners in states that have long tolerated onerous laws (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) are refusing to surrender their standard capacity magazines holding over 10 rounds or to register their modern rifles. There have been almost no bumpstocks turned in after the BATF banned them under regulatory laws that made no sense.

County governments, including county sheriffs, have been expressing their defiance of unconstitutional laws. Almost all of New York state's counties have already passed resolutions opposing the SAFE Act gun/magazine ban that Governor Cuomo passed in the dead of night. In Washington state, over half of the 39 counties have already declared that they will not enforce Initiative 1639 rifle restrictions.

One of them is even running for governor in 2020.

So let's talk about the next step: juries that include gun owners who will not vote to convict. 

40% of Washington states voters...essentially, its jury pool...voted against millionaire-funded I1639 last year. What if they all pledge not to convict non-criminals who have run afoul of the gun control initiatives Mike Bloomberg foists off on the uninformed... or for any any magazine gun bans enacted in the legislature?

What if prosecutors suddenly have a much harder time obtaining convictions or much larger jury pools need to be summoned to balance out those of us who say NO??

This might slow down substantially the momentum of this anti-freedom activism...or even stop it.

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."

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.

Letter to Suzan DelBene (D-WA1) about gun control she is cosponsoring

Dear Representative DelBene,

I read with dismay, recently, that you have signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R.4269, legislation which bans the manufacture and possession of "assault weapons". Since I have voted for you in the past in the belief that you are a moderate Democrat and would *like* to do so again, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your support and sponsorship of this legislation.

The topic of gun control is one which is rife with misinformation and misunderstanding. As you are the representative for a district which is VERY gun friendly, I sincerely hope that you will take the time and trouble to inform yourself of the actual technical details relevant to legislation that you take up. Ours is a moderate district (my car has NRA *and* PFLAG stickers and I have seen others similarly configured) but, again, it is very gun-friendly. There are numerous shooting ranges and gun shops. Most people that I know either own guns or are moderate on the topic. I recently checked out at the local grocery store and the cashier asked about a gun magazine that I was buying because she is a local shooting instructor.

Perhaps no firearms topic is more misunderstood than the topic of "assault weapons" and the bill you are sponsoring is no exception. Thousands of these guns are undoubtedly owned in your district and you are essentially saying that we cannot be trusted with them. That is a mistake.

Please stop to consider the history and effects of the 1994 ban:

First, it cost Democrats their control of Congress in 1994. (article)

Then, the ban itself did not accomplish anything, as the New York Times (article) and the US National Institute of Justice (article) have said, outright. This is not too surprising, since rifles of all types are used to commit murders very infrequently, much less than knives and only half as much as fists and feet (FBI statistics).

The threat of the ban inspired many people who would not otherwise have been interested in such a rifle to buy one while they could. I wouldn't be surprised if all the artificial fuss about "assault weapons" has made the number in circulation twice what it would be otherwise. I know I bought one originally because I wanted to see what the fuss was about and tried a friend's. Now I occasionally use mine for competition.

And finally, to anybody with any technical knowledge of firearms the ban is rife with arbitrary and even ludicrous internal contradictions. Consider the two rifles in this picture. The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14: it fires the .223 cartridge loaded from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The bottom rifle is some sort of AR15 variant: it also fires the .223 cartridge from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The Mini-14 is specifically exempted from the ban and AR15 variants specifically banned.

These guns are functionally equivalent. Their only differences are in appearance.

Is this a distinction sharp enough that you are willing to turn your constituents into criminals over it? Is this a distinction you are willing to cheer lead in a district that will think you are crazy for doing so?

People talk constantly about modern high-powered weapons. But AR15s have been sold to the public since the 1960s. The AR15 .223 cartridge, on the left below, is dwarfed by the .30-06, the cartridge fired in the M1 Garand rifle...another semi-automatic exempted by the ban.

I hope that you will reconsider your support for H.R. 4269 and start discussing matters related to firearms with your constituents in the future. I don't wish to be hyperbolic but your job is at stake here...along with our civil liberties.