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.

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.

Peak Gun Rights? Not Even Close!

Reason.com recently published a very good article, asking whether we have already experienced peak gun rights and will experience a sharp decline in those rights (link). While there is good reason to be concerned about the torrent of gun control posturing and coverage in the media...and the civil liberties wimps in in legislatures doing their bidding...I have thought about the matter a lot recently.

My answer is a definite NO.

It is true that we have a fight on our hands but I am really starting to think that it could be more like a desperate Battle of the Bulge type fight than an unstoppable blitzkrieg. Will we lose? Nuts!

1. There aren't that many dedicated gun control activists. The NRA has close to 5.5 dedicated members and many supporters.
2. The NRA is the part of the gun rights movement that is willing to compromise. If they ever shut down (e.g., a recent attempt to extend Russian collusion investigations to the NRA), the next organization to take their place would probably not bother compromising.

That's the thing that gun control fans don't understand. We have been compromising and attempting to work with you and it's gotten us nowhere. The AR15 *is* the gun rights compromise. We have abided by a lot of really stupid laws for decades and all it's gotten us is more demands and hysteria.

Ironically, it may be the anti-Trump "Resistance" which is showing us the way to advance gun rights further. Attorney Generals like Washington state's Bob Ferguson have defied Federal law in opposition to immigration and travel restrictions. If extreme gun control attempts take away gun owners' motivation to continue abiding by arbitrary  and virtually unenforceable laws.

That Reason article hints at the outcome, in mentioning the growing non-compliance with gun laws. People are declining to turn in bump stocks or standard capacity magazines, even in states with a history of gun control compliance. If you ban AR15s or revoke the Second Amendment (nearly impossible but some unwise people have suggested it), almost no one will comply. Home firearm builds, many of them untraceable, will be ubiquitous. People will start figuring they have to violate the law anyway, so why comply with laws banning/restricting machine guns or suppressors. How long until people start 3D printing durable firearm receivers....or drop in autosears?

Prohibition, enacted with the intention of improving society and reducing domestic violence, served only to increase violence, create America's 100 year organized crime problem, *increase* alcohol abuse and foster corruption in government and contempt for laws. The chaos and justified contempt for legal fairness which would result from enacting worse gun control laws than we already tolerate would probably make Prohibition look like a church rally by comparison.

I hope that some gun control advocates and legislators have sufficient judgement to understand that. I do not want our country to look like Syria in 10 years.

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.

A Tale of Two Movements

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
- the opening lines of  'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens


Our time also seems simultaneously to combine the worst and the best of times. We have horrible things happening, like the awful terrorist shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. At the same time, in response, many LGBT folks and gun owners have discovered common ground in the right to self defense.

Others disagree. George Takei of Star Trek fame is trying to organize LGBT folks to attack civil liberties saying:

"For if there is one group in this country with more will, more experience, and more tenacity than the NRA, it is the LGBT community.

You don’t want to mess with us."

Here is why I think that their efforts will fail.
  
1. Switching from "extending rights unfairly denied LGBT folks" to "denying commonly appreciated rights"
The LGBT community HAS had remarkable success over the past 20 years and I applaud this. However, that success came about because that community was working to gain equality in rights that were unfairly denied them. LGBT groups who now make it their mission to attack everyone's rights are unlikely to enjoy much success.

2. Many LGBT member support gun rights and intend to defend themselves

Another part of the reason for their failure, as they are likely to fail, will be because they do not speak for the whole LGBT community. Since I became a shooter, I have known lesbian, gay and transgender people who shoot and are determined to retain the ability to keep shooting. I have also been privileged to support their efforts, both as a friend and as a shooting safety instructor.

Indeed, the Seattle area had a Pink Pistols affiliated group around 2000 called Cease Fear (link to an article about us). We offered gun safety and self defense classes at Home Alive and made occasional target shooting excursions. We were also welcomed at Seattle Pride and Tacoma Pride events.

You can get an inkling of the pro and anti self defense breakdown by comparing some social media numbers. On Facebook:

The largest Gays Against Guns Facebook community has 3,742 members. The Pink Pistols Facebook community has over twice that many at 7,931.

Over on Twitter, @GAGNoGuns has 392 followers, while @PnkPistol has 1,391 followers.

 3. Approach, character and attitude

The final reason why I think Pink Pistols will win and GAG fade into obscurity comes down to approach and attitude. Even in this day and age where we have become calloused to the dishonesty and authoritarian creepiness of political "leaders" in both political parties, character counts. People tend to prefer being treated with respect and to be offered the opportunity to judge the facts and make up their own minds, rather than being 'splained.


I have been an active participant on the Pink Pistols Facebook group for a couple weeks now and the approach I have overwhelmingly seen there is one of kindness, community and the open/honest sharing of information. People are presented with information and then given the room to make up their own minds.

In contrast, the Gays Against Guns community as a whole is taking an authoritarian "do what we say" tone. People are banned from the groups (as is typical with gun control "discussion" groups) for presenting different opinions.

This is not too surprising since the gun control community tends to want to seize full control and impose a simplistic narrative onto this complex topic. People, perhaps finding an odd comfort in being told that they are too incompetent and ineffectual to protect themselves from harm, attempt to foist that belief off on others as proven fact. Technical details are brushed aside in an apparent effort to convince people that you can waltz into a gun shop and waltz out with a machine gun in under 10 minutes.

Personally, I'd argue that if you can't win by telling the truth, winning with arguments that you know are dishonest would be a hollow victory. But that's all irrelevant because the gun control lobby is not going to win this one.

President Obama and Guns

Dear President Obama,

I understand that you are once again trying to show “leadership” on gun control. Let’s talk about how to do that.

First off, let’s talk about what leadership is. It’s setting an example by what you do, NOT making rules for people you “manage” (rule) while you yourself are exempt from them. That’s a mistake that all sorts of people make, in business and in politics. The gun control movement is rife with people who are clearly not living under the rules they want to impose on others and this may be one of the biggest reasons why they have become politically ineffectual.

•   Pope Francis saying that people cannot call themselves Christians if they manufacture or own guns, while he is surrounded by bodyguards carrying…guns.

•  Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts rejecting the need for a  “good guy with a gun” while accompanied by bodyguards with…guns.

• Mark Giffords buying an AR15 right after standing beside his wife Gabby and saying that “the people” don’t need AR15s

• Dianne Feinstein constantly lobbying for gun control laws while being one of the rare Californians with a concealed carry license

To reiterate, these are not leaders, these are people lobbying for rules that affect the little people but not them.

So how can you show leadership on gun control? There is only one way. Show us by example. If you want gun restrictions in place, apply those restrictions to yourself first.

If you want to ban or restrictively license handguns, do not allow the Secret Service to carry handguns.

If you want to ban or limit ownership of semiautomatic rifles, do not allow the Secret Service to carry semiautomatic rifles, let alone the fully automatic weapons they actually carry.

Better yet, restrict your protection detail to the double barreled shotguns Joe Biden says are adequate for self defense.

After all, a good guy with a gun isn’t any good against a bad guy with a gun, right? So all those guns the Secret Service carries are more dangerous to you, those brave officers and their families than any illusion of protection they provide.

Letter to the Seattle Times about gun legislation

I am writing to provide some feedback about your opinion columns
about gun control this weekend, as well as the general tone of the
discussion. For your information, I am a moderate liberal Democrat in
most respects who also happens to be an NRA Life Member; I believe
that makes me a consistent liberal.

In general, I find the idea of firearms "discussion" in this country to be
an unfortunate oxymoron. Firearms owners possess the technical acumen
for real debate and a first person knowledge of the issues. Most gun control
advocates seem to fall more into the "guns are icky and we want all the
controls we can get" camp. Attempts to rebrand "gun control" to "gun safety"
will only have any veracity when the control side provides more data than
the equivalent of sex ed composed solely of "abstinence" instruction.
The firearms community reduced the fatal gun accident rate from 2500/year
around 1970 to about 600/year now, mostly through OUR initiative and
without significant legal requirements.

To reiterate and rephrase: we don't want to be talked at by those with no
knowledge any more than women wanted to be talked down to be
anti-choice extremists last year.

Having lived in 4 states and experienced a variety of gun controls first
hand, including their unintended consequences, I'd like to respond to
some editorials by Danny Westneat and Jenny Durkan in the Time,
this weekend.

I was most impressed by Danny Westneat's comments and I believe
that he and my representative Hope have a sincere interest in finding
intelligent discussion points. Where this breaks down is if HB 1588 includes
a requirement to record firearm type and serial numbers. A carefully
defined background check can be an excellent idea but legislation which
results in full firearms registration is unacceptable. That reading of
1588 would put it on par with California's requirement that records all
firearms transactions. This is not so much in regard to gun show transactions
as to private purchases between individuals.

An approach which could be much more acceptable to the firearms
community would be something like Iowa's pistol purchase permit,
which I experienced in the mid 1990s. It included a background check
good for a year or two pf purchases. A background check meets the
stated goals of Rep Hope, without venturing into firearms registration
territory. Another equivalent would be to exempt firearms purchases where
the purchaser possesses a valid WA state concealed pistol license.
I have personally only sold firearms to persons possessing a valid CPL,
which I believe meets my responsibility as a gun owner squarely.

I am frankly disappointed with Jenny Durkan's attempt to ingratiate
herself with the firearms community by saying "I grew up with shotguns"
and then have her go on to urge a ban on so-called "assault weapons". If Ms
Durkan grew up with guns, surely she knows that these firearms are
functionally equivalent to hunting firearms. The idea of banning rifles which are
used to kill less people than blunt objects and half the people killed with
hands and feet is patently ridiculous.

The US will never have its gun culture destroyed in the way that other
countries have. There are many millions of handguns in private hands
and tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles and normal capacity magazines
for them as well. The djinn is out of the bottle but gun rights advocates share
your concern in reducing violence.  Why not ask for our ideas?

If you ask us how instead of "splaining" to us what controls we have to
accept, we can work together to improve the situation. But we don't have
to accept any bad idea you come up with and we won't. Something like
a hundred thousand gun owners took the time to show up and protest
peacefully for our rights in state capitols around the country, two weeks
ago. We're not going anywhere.