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.

 

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.