A REAL American Progressive Reading List

Problems are solved with open discussion and brave exploration of all aspects of ideas, not by shutting down free speech and minimizing the Overton window. Or just shouting partisan sound bites at each other.

Towards the end of encouraging that, I have created a reading list of contemporary titles which I wish every American could read and discuss. It includes books that look at the roots of American society and other Western countries, books which look at what can be seen when we spend time trying to understand people unlike us and some of the best thinking and writing about civil liberties that I have read.

America has traditionally held a creative tension between progress and conserving the past. I believe that in normal situations, real progress only comes from convincing others logically, not from the coercive use of government legislation to make others do what we want. These books are meant to give books which can be resources in charting the course for that REAL progress.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/5438598-don?shelf=real-american-progress-reading-list

1) The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great
by Ben Shapiro
ASIN B07CLMXWT9

This book is a brilliant look at how Western civilization has arisen as a result of the tension between Athenian logic and Judeo-Christian values. Ironically, much of our civilization seems determined to undercut that strong foundation. Shapiro looks at other civilizations that have abandoned those values (Nazi Germany, the USSR) and the high price in pain and loss of life which followed. He offers suggestions for reversing course before it is too late.

2) Republican Like Me: A Lifelong Democrat's Journey Across the Aisle
by Ken Stern
ISBN 0062460781 (ISBN13: 9780062460783)

The former of NPR became concerned about the growing political polarization in our country and spent a year exploring Republican communities. E.g., having an 8 year old guide him on a pig hunt (adeptly correcting his gun safety shortcomings), visiting religious communities and so on.

This book parallels my experiences in life as a moderate/libertarian lefty who risked joining the NRA (and found it exemplary...and not at all like the caricature the media presents) and finally after 2016, the Republican party.

3) Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today
by Wendy Kaminer
ISBN 0807044113 (ISBN13: 9780807044117)

Wendy Kaminer was on the ACLU board before she was ousted because she was unwilling to compromise on civil liberties. I see her as one of the most fiercely admirable people on the left because of her principled, unflinching stands in favor of individual rights.

4) The Gun Control Debate: You Decide
by Lee Nisbet (Editor)
ISBN 0879756187 (ISBN13: 9780879756185)

This book is the best example I have encountered of how contentious topics should be debated. The author solicited the best works recommended by the NRA *and* gun control organizations, with the goal being to present rational, objective facts people could use to make decisions for themselves, not sound bites and shabby emotional manipulation. This has been a favorite resource for the better part of 30 years.

Dear Republicans: Don't Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory, Again

I am writing this post out of concerns (as a new #WalkAway Republican) that the party's support for gun rights may be half-hearted. That could be damaging to the its prospects because second amendment advocates are a crucial part of its base. We are crucial to the future success of the party but there have been some troubling news items, recently. Specifically, I am referring to these current news items:

#1 President Trump's bumpstock ban
#2 Lindsey Graham's current gun hearings

Bumpstocks

I don't know anyone who owns a bumpstock. Everyone I've talked to has smirked and commented that they are a dumb gimmick which some people buy, use a couple times and then add to the clutter of old gun accessories in their closet.

But those same people have some very serious concerns about the way in which bumpstocks were banned. Essentially, the BATFE twisted the definition of machine guns to cover an accessory which does not even remotely meet that definition. Machine guns are defined under law as firearms which fire more than one shot per action of the trigger. Bumpstocks do not do that, they only facilitate pulling the trigger faster.

Here's the danger: fudging a technical definition like that sets a dangerous precedent which can now be used to ban anything they want that arguably makes a semiautomatic firearm shoot faster. Stretched far, that could even conceivably include light match triggers used in competition.

Even worse, the new law does not merely ban sales and grandfather bumpstocks that are already owned by the public. It is now a criminal act to own one. The BATFE has been kept on a short leash since for over 20 years, partly because of their rogue and heavy-handed enforcement policies. Remember Waco? There had better not be any Wacos in my area over something as stupid as bumpstocks...

For a really excellent take on this, please listen to Kenn Blanchard's recent podcast Black Man With A Gun (link) on the topic.

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham's star has been rising since last Fall, when he showed some real backbone during the Kavanaugh trial.



However, last week he conducted some gun control hearings on the subject of red flag gun confiscation laws. These laws have been becoming more popular since last year's Parkland school shooting. However, they mostly been enacted in very flawed forms. Here are some components which we need to demand be included in any red flag law remotely worth considering:

• a strong, iron clad due process requirement
• requirement that the subject of the action obtain treatment
• severe punishment for people who make false claims to weaponize these laws against someone who is not really a danger to others (e.g., malicious family members or a vindictive ex)

Graham is now being pilloried in his home state of South Carolina for his support of gun control laws, which now embolden one Senator whose gun control zealotry must be contained (Diane Feinstein). Moreover, he made the statement before these hearings that "every right has its limits". Perhaps he is unaware of all the ridiculous, overreaching limits that currently affect gun owners in the US? There are 20,000 or so gun laws already on the books....enacting more shabby laws will not make us safer.

The Republican party needs to be aware of these things and how they can undercut gun owners' support. We need to be unified in the run-up to 2020. Foolishly attacking part of our base like the party sometimes does can only hurt that prospect.

(And as a staunch supporter of the NRA, they need to help get this message across to the President and the GOP. They are presently doing a poor job of this.)

Foolhardy Washington State Government Deliberately Steers Towards DANGEROUS Waters

I have lived in Washington state for over 20 years now. Being a gun owner, the thing I've enjoyed about living here is that the firearms laws have been reasonably sensible and easy to comply with. Washington state has always been a VERY gun friendly state and its healthy gun culture placid and compliant.

All of that is changing now. This threatens to create a lot of instability, legal jeopardy and turmoil, to the possible benefit of only 1 or 2 people.

The state's executive leadership is unremittingly hostile to gun owners. Governor Inslee, who is beginning a probably futile presidential run in 2020 (already costing the state $2 million in travel expenses), made a petty gesture this year by refusing to sign marksmanship certificates for citizens AND law enforcement, a gubernatorial tradition since 1903. The state's insurance commissioner has banned an NRA concealed carry insurance policy, calling it "murder insurance".

Attorney General Bob Ferguson takes the cake. When he is not trying to sue tax activists into bankruptcy (and denying them legal counsel in bankruptcy court) and grandstanding with a plethora of frivolous lawsuits against the federal government (wasting more tax dollars), he is acting against Washington citizens' interests by pestering lawmakers with misleading, professionally prepared (at whose cost?) requests for magazine and gun bans. Here, he gives stink eye to gun rights activists who have the temerity to oppose his legislation.

Since initiative 1639 passed and Democrats gained more ground in the legislature there is the possibility that some or all of the following legislation will become law:

• Magazine bans above 10 or 15 rounds (despite the fact that this significantly reduces the ability of people to defend themselves with concealed carry guns or whatever guns they legally possess in their homes. There is some grandfathering of existing magazines, IF they are kept locked up and you have kept receipts for them for decades.
• New restrictions on concealed carry. At a time when many states have come to understand that people who get carry licenses are the last people we need to worry about and are REDUCING restrictions, Washington state is pointlessly going the other way. There is legislation being considered which would add new training requirements and even require certification with the specific guns people will carry. In a move adding insult to injury, the House version spitefully strikes out a reference to "the right to bear arms".

• A ban on the sale of "assault weapons", semiautomatics which the state will GRACIOUSLY allow us to keep if they are registered with law enforcement. Registration which could easily lead to confiscation in the future.
• Revoking state preemption, a law which prohibits cities and counties from creating laws stricter than state requirements. Preemption is a very important law which makes it easy for gun owners to comply with relevant laws without having a legal team research obscure statues in every city they want to visit or travel through.
• Banning the manufacture of undetectable or untraceable firearms. In effect, this creates a new ban on the currently legal home manufacture of firearms. Some analysis indicates this could ban many home firearm enhancements (e.g., trigger upgrades) of existing guns or ban new short barreled rifles, which have been legal given NFA compliance for a few years.
• Banning people under 21 from having exposure to lead ammunition...an obvious attempt to prevent young people from becoming shooters or even take safety classes
• Requiring gun owner liability insurance, presumably different from the kind the insurance commissioner just banned.

What is the point of all this legislation? Washington state has a violent crime rate significantly lower than the national average, significantly lower than states with stricter gun laws. The only explanation which makes sense is that most of the state Democratic party wants to enact as much gun control as they can as fast as they can and citizen's rights be damned. The net effect if I1639 and all these laws is to drive gun owners into a minefield of new restrictions which they can easily and unintentionally violate. The danger in this tactic cannot be overemphasized.

That is why the last couple weeks have seen rush of county sheriffs announce that they will not enforce 1639 (or will not actively enforce it). There are parts of 1639 that are obviously unconstitutional (e.g., a storage requirement which conflicts with the US Supreme Court Heller decision), parts which are almost certainly unconstitutional (21 year age requirement, training requirement for purchase) and there are also lawsuits in the works because the format and content of the initiative clearly violate state law.

We hope that sheriffs in other counties will hold to their oaths to defend the state and or federal constitution because otherwise all this legislation is going to put them and the citizens into some very uncomfortable situations. 

Are sheriffs in rural counties like Snohomish and Skagit counties really willing to confront armed citizens for safely exercising a right as they have for decades?

Are they going to stake out shooting ranges or gravel pits and demand to inspect peoples' magazines to determine their capacity? Are they going to arrest people who take their 18 year old shooting safely or attempt to confiscate their firearms?

Do these sheriffs have the resources ($$ and staff) to devote to certifying people who come in to renew or apply for a concealed pistol license and track the firearms certified?

ALL of these proposals are unnecessary and can only serve to further infuriate some very peaceful people who have been ignoring insults and abuse for far too long already...and lead to many unpleasant situations that upset the natural alliance between law enforcement officers and the citizens they are meant to serve.

N.B. Opportunistic prosecutors trying to convict people who break any of these rules will find it hard getting juries to support them.

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 I-1639: Dumbest Gun Control Initiative Ever

1997 ballot initiative writers: Let's put together a huge intrusive ballot initiative which will severely impact gun culture in Washington state if it passes. But even if it doesn't, it is so extreme it will kill gun control efforts in the state for 20 years.

2018 ballot initiative writers: Hold my beer.

I moved to Washington state in 1997, just in time to join the fight against I-676. 676 tried to enact a handgun licensing scheme which would have drastically impacted the gun culture of Washington state. As a previous blog post noted (link), Washington state is a politically moderate but VERY gun friendly state. I moved here in the expectation that I-676 would fail and it did, losing by a 71% to 29% margin.

21 years later, an even more obnoxious gun control initiative is on the ballot. As in 1997, proponents are trying to sell the restrictions in this initiative as "modest" and "not intrusive". And again in 2018, we can see through their dissembling.

Typical signature gatherers for this initiative. Not at all deceptive. Look away

I-1639 is an incompetently written initiative, apparently created by randomly cutting and pasting from a handful of legislation REJECTED by a Democrat-controlled legislature this year. It was promoted by Washington's so-called "Attorney General," who smugly admits that he spends a lot of his time at work looking for flimsy reasons to sue the Federal government....apparently because his budget is excessive and he doesn't work for the state or something? The format of I-1639 is so blatantly illegal that a judge in Thurston County removed it from the ballot. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court decided that its job is not to adjudicate the law and put it back on the ballot.

Here's a news flash, guys: maintaining respect for the rule of law and its impartiality is actually pretty damn important. You have compromised that severely.

Let's look at all the problems with this bloated, incoherent initiative:

It classifies ALL semi-auto rifles as "assault weapons", rendering them susceptible to future legislative attacks. Every single rifle. That will get the hunting crowd's attention, especially when they go to buy a Browning BAR or pedestrian .22 and there's a 10 business day waiting period.

OK, now say you're a hunter concerned about being made to wait two weeks to take possession of a rifle, for no good reason. You might think that your Concealed Pistol License might allow you to bypass the waiting period, like it does for handgun purchases. No such luck.

Here's one subtle and very ugly bit that isn't being talked about very much. I-1639 also requires that you complete an approved safety class before you can buy that hunting rifle. However, the content and availability of that course are not spelled out in the initiative. It could take months or even over a year for the courses to be approved and made available. So there could be an indeterminately long complete ban on the sale of ALL semi-auto rifles throughout the state.

Does that still sound like a moderate law to you?

Then there's the part where buying that rifle means that the state can invade your health privacy for the rest of your life. When I call older folks, that REALLY gets their attention. It also worries a lot of people who have been treated for PTSD or depression.

Then there's the small matter of denying 18-20 year olds who may be living on their own the right to effective self defense weapons. Remember that they already can't buy handguns.

The initiative purports to enact safe storage requirements. That means that either you will be expected to keep your gun locked up at all times (and therefore useless for purposes of self defense) or be held criminally responsible if Joe Recidivist Felon steals your gun and uses it in a crime.

And what is the whole alleged point to this incoherent jumble of bad ideas? Controlling "assault weapons", which are so rarely used to commit violent crimes (link) that people with knives are more of a threat to you. Or people with hands and feet.  

Gun owners realize how toxic this initiative is and oppose it. The gun community hasn't been this motivated and pissed off since 1997.

The large state law enforcement organizations all oppose this initiative:
Washington State Patrol Troopers Association
Washington State Sheriff’s Association
Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs
Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association

I think I-1639's advocates have bitten off a lot more than they can chew.

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.

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."