Letter to Senator Steve Hobbs About His Vote For SB 5992

Good morning.

I enjoyed talking to you at the Capitol a couple weeks ago and wanted to provide feedback about Senator Hobbs and his vote for SB 5992, the bump stock ban.

Frankly, I am somewhat concerned about the Senator's vote for 5992. I hope it does not mean he is reconsidering his support to this point for gun rights or that he might support worse laws now, such as semi-auto and magazine bans..or crippling firearms preemption.

The bump stock ban in the form he voted for is sort of a complicated topic so I thought it might help to explore some angles that are worth considering. I am very interested in understanding why this bill had his support.

On one hand:

1) The version the Senator voted for (solely looking at bump stocks and not including, say, match triggers) is the least harmful law being considered in this legislature. Very few people own bump stocks and they are basically novelty items which probably end up lost in most peoples' closet after a
couple days of wasting money missing things.

On the other hand:

1) I am concerned about having possession of something that could be bought today suddenly being a felony in a few months. To me that seems arbitrary and dangerous. I think this deserves very careful consideration and not the assumption that it is OK to just ban the possession things purchased legally.

2) I seriously question whether banning bump stocks does anything to remove a public safety hazard. The Las Vegas atrocity was committed by someone firing indiscriminately in a situation where he simply could not miss. Bump stocks let him shoot faster but as I understand it, also caused his guns to
malfunction at times. The same thing could be achieved without a bump stock because bump firing is something people have known how to do for ages.

None of these considerations is pleasant to write or read about, obviously.

3) I am concerned about the signals this vote sends

Gun control organizations, which tend to be factually disengaged (politely said) are going to be happy about this because they'll feel like they have momentum. Where civil liberties are concerned, I think letting infringements build momentum is very dangerous.

Right wingers, who tend to have blanket notions that only Republicans are pro-second amendment are going to be happy at having their world view validated and aim at replacing Democrats with more Republicans. As we discussed, that does not appeal to me either. I make my voting decisions based on the character of the legislators involved and the extent of their passion for protecting my rights.

In conclusion:
I hope this vote does not mean Senator Hobbs has changed his position on gun rights.

I hope that he will talk to the firearms community about legislation he might consider supporting and its side effects, rather than taking gun-hostile sources without a grain of salt.

I hope that if the House version is different and there is another Senate vote to confirm changes that Senator Hobbs reconsiders his support for this bill.

Thank you,

Don B

Gun rights alliance interview #2: @ShamashAran talks about being an LGBT shooter

DonB: I'm still working out the format for these posts, so please bear with me. Late last week, I sent @ShamashAran the same 3 questions I asked Michael Woodward last week. Here are her responses:

Sorry, I Completely forgot about this, Life got away with me.

"What have your interactions in the gun community been like? Do you feel that you have been welcomed as a shooter?"

I've honestly never had any real problems other than good natured ribbing.  Gun nuts I know would be more offended if I open-carried a hi-point than by anyone I went home with for a date.  There's a bit of good natured innocent fascination that you can't be offended by either. 

"How can the gun community reach out to a variety of shooters?"

The answer to this would lead to a very long political rant.  All i really want o say is, if we expect people to be tolerant of LGBT folks, we need to be tolerant of people that disagree with our political views.  Everyone's a human.

"How can we collaborate politically to protect our rights, given that the simple suggestion of "voting Republican" might not be workable for all people"

You have to be willing to talk to people you disagree with.  Even if they are stupid.
For example, gun controllers all have fears stoked by ignorance.  The only way you fix that is to cure the ignorance.

Notes for Olympia Testimony

Hello.

My name is Don ****  and I live in Snohomish county in Washington state. I am a husband and father and work as a software developer.

Politically, I consider myself an Independent. I was a party line Democrat until I realized about 25 years ago how hostile the party was...and still is...towards gun owners.

I don't think party insiders understand how much damage the party has done to itself by opposing the vital civil liberty of gun rights. Absurd laws are developed and pushed by Democrat legislators in cooperation with technically ignorant gun control advocates. Our current Attorney General, when he is not fund raising for his future bid for Governor, is currently responding to reasoned letters with ridiculous quotes from Mike Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety. Gun owners have the real knowledge to inform legislators about the effects and realities of gun controls and technical realities to gun topics and the Democratic party treats us like pariahs.

I recently blogged about how badly the party is misjudging the politics in our state. We are a very moderate state...and a VERY gun friendly state. We have a higher percentage of concealed pistol licenses than *many* states that voted for President Trump in the 2016 election.

Most of the pistols those licensees carry can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and may expected to renew an "assault weapon" license EVERY year under one proposal being considered. In a state of 7 million people, we probably have a couple million semi-automatic rifles and have used them with exemplary safety and responsibility.

Every gun control being considered has some subtexts that are rarely discussed. Complying with "Assault weapon" license laws mean that I am expected to request PERMISSION every year to keep a firearm that I have owned responsibly for some time...and accept the possibility that permission might be denied. We do not.

Registration means that I accept the possibility that the firearm may be banned in the future. We do not. If New York and Connecticut gun owners will refuse to comply with registration requirements en masse, what compliance with extreme gun laws can be expected HERE?

Gun owners have a large investment in being law abiding members of society. Adopting a California model where we become whipping boys of every legislature is an awful idea and jeopardizes the civility which generally exists in our state. It also jeopardizes the Democratic party control of the legislature. Tom Foley could have told you that after he lost his job in the United States Congress...the first Speaker of the House to lose an election in over 100 years. Gun owners fired him from what is usually a secure job because of the contempt he showed them.

We have a large investment in remaining law abiding and with being cooperative. I do not like to think what the result would be if the line in the sand of excessive/punitive gun laws is crossed.

Gun rights alliance interview #1: Michael Woodland of Munitions-Weapons Tactical

Since publishing the previous post (link) about forging new alliances in the shooting community, I've been discussing these ideas with  a number of people and am working on talking to as many people as I can. Today I spoke with Michael Woodland of Munitions-Weapons Tactical (link) about this.

Note: M-W Tactical is also on Facebook under M-W Tactical (link) and Twitter as @m_wtactical. This organization offers firearms instruction in Columbia, South Carolina, with alliances generally on the East Coast. Formerly stationed at Fort Benning, Michael is a competitive shooter who contributes regularly to Kenn Blanchard's  excellent "Black Man With A Gun" podcast. He is on the leader board on that site (link). I have enjoyed a lot of interesting articles from him regarding a variety of topics, related to handguns, the AR platform and various aspects of shooting.

I would like to thank Michael Woodland for taking the time to talk to me today. As we discussed, I am inviting him to critique the content of this blog post and comments about our discussion before making it generally public.

These were the questions I asked and Mister Woodland's responses:

What have your interactions in the gun community been like? Do you feel that you have been welcomed as a shooter?

MW responded that he has been welcomed as a shooter but that he has encountered some negative comments when his comments took a tack that people didn't like. For example, when discussing firearms he has suggested it would be a good idea for shooters to have some training beforehand and was subsequently called a communist.

As we talked further, he also commented about the odd way in which gun events are presented. For example, if somebody commits a violent crime with a gun, it's always presented with a focus on the gun and its availability and not the character of the person who committed the crime. This seems odd because a crime using a truck as a weapon focuses on the crime and not the weapon used. He commented that he does not support gun control...that attacking the second amendment is also an attack or leads to attack on the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Final thought: what is their agenda after the guns have been gotten rid of?

How can the gun community reach out to a variety of shooters?

MW responded that the gun community as a whole has been welcoming. There have been negative interactions, e.g. at competitions or range trips, that might be classified as the group wanting a shooter's money but looking for a chance to disqualify them or get them to leave.

For example, he was recently at a range in South Carolina with about 6 other black folks and the rangemaster was just hovering around and watching them, despite the fact that shooters were acting with full safety discipline.

How can we collaborate politically to protect our rights, given that the simple suggestion of "voting Republican" might not be workable for all people?

MW suggested that he would rather see people voting according to their individual interests than voting on a party line basis. One example that he gave was on healthcare....that we as a society ought to make sure that people who can't afford it can still get it.

Why limit your choices be restricting your vote to a single party?

Mister Woodland's final message was the necessity to knock down the walls of racism. That it's not about white shooters or black shooters but solidarity AS shooters. We have to open up dialogues about that.

Finding allies for gun rights in non-stereotypical shooting communities

Background

Gun control and gun rights topics frequently find their way into the news. Unfortunately, given the characteristic biases of news agencies, they tend to advocate for the gun control side of this debate or otherwise give gun rights arguments short shrift. This is deeply upsetting and a source of considerable concern to members of the shooting community, who are typically highly responsible with their firearms and inclined to come down on abuse of firearms with considerable fury. Shouldn’t the news media share these ethics when exercising *their* rights?

Still, gun control has been a hard sell in the United States as a whole. Gun rights opponents achieve very few wins despite relentless (and hopelessly misinformed) media support and a non-trivial number of politicians using tragedy as a pretext for promoting their agenda. Most of their successes have been local to a handful of states.

However, this writer believes that there could be ways found to render gun control efforts not only weak but absolutely beaten and toothless. Rather than costly victories where gun rights advocates retaliate after damaging legislation has passed (e.g., the punitive 1994 election after Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban or Colorado’s electoral revolt after magazine bans passed), what if we could get to a point where even suggesting punitive gun rights infringements like “assault weapons” bans became career suicide?

One large reason for even the modest successes of gun control and other authoritarian rule making in the United States is that the media and career politicians has divided the populace so thoroughly, in so many ways. Too many people are trained to be good little partisans and attack The Other: based on Democrat/Republican team membership, based on our ethnic groups, based on sex and other personal characteristics like religion….in a dozen different ways. This only helps authoritarian groups like gun control advocates because they apply a stress (e.g., the threat of a gun ban) and gun rights advocates are not organized enough to fight it instantly.

These societal divisions have made coalition building on this topic complicated in the past…but could end up being one of our greatest assets. Gun owners are a diverse lot, with a variety of political positions, from different ethnic backgrounds. When we cooperate in a dire emergency, we can be powerful. If we could learn to cooperate as a rule, we might be absolutely unbeatable.

An Opportunity

The stereotype is that gun owners are mostly white male conservatives…and probably straight. While these people may comprise a significant part of the gun geek population, over 30 years of being a shooter and/or a gun rights activist has shown me that it is very far from being the only truth about the demographics of the shooting community.

Personally, I have gone shooting with:

• Dozens of women at various skill levels. Some were new shooters who I was helping to learn…many were peers…some were teachers helping me boost *my* skill level
•  Black shooters with similar shooting interests. I have also known other black folks on the Internet since the 1990s (the good old Usenet days) who are avid shooters
• Shooters in the LGBT community.  Around 1999/2000, I helped as a safety assistant for a Seattle area Pink Pistols type group. A new Pink Pistols group is now active in the Seattle area and affiliated groups are active across the country
• Quite a number of pro-gun Democrats and other non-Republicans

My Plan

The goal here is manifestly NOT to cause any divisions or Balkanization. Instead, I wish to find areas in which diverse communities can find common ground for working together and overcome real or perceived differences. This seems like a productive discussion to have: talking to members of each of these communities about their impression of the overall gun community, specific concerns/interests and finding common ground with *all* pro-gun folks to protect this vital civil liberty.

After talking to folks and gathering their responses, this blog will publish 4 blog posts (1 per group) focusing on each of the groups mentioned above, discussing firearms/political topics…with a follow-up summary presenting a possible road map for future efforts, should ideas for such present themselves.

For each group, I will look at and present information in these areas:

• History and past involvement in the gun community or with gun ownership. In  other words, is there a historical context for understanding the group's use or reluctance to use firearms?
• Productive approaches to political cooperation by finding commonality. What sort of projects, initiatives and candidates are acceptable...what approaches or political approaches are problematic?
• Specific concerns and interests
• Undoubtedly other angles that I haven’t thought of yet

(Many thanks to Oleg Volk for his kind permission to use his images in this project.)

Image location: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/48590-1/american_gunowners_diverse_web.jpg

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.