All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Corrupt Elections, From the Left

"Democratic" politicians lie for personal political gain... they say what they think ought to be true, not what is real!

SEIU, a national, government labor group has swooped in to assist liberal candidates in multiple districts, breaking campaign laws in the process

Carpetbagger Chris Barringer in the 47th District is straight up lying in his TV ads attacking Rep. Mark Hargrove

San Francisco Billionaire Tom Steyer dropped $1.25 million into our elections, laundering much of it through other political committees

The State Democrats made up a quote from the Associated Press to attack Sen. Andy Hill

A coalition of liberal interest groups (ironically named the “Eastside Integrity PAC”)    released an attack ad on Sen. Andy Hill showing him in a Halloween mask. Their goal? Trying to make people think he’s hiding his record

In the 30th District, carpetbagger Shari Song's attack dogs relied on the old “Republicans are extreme” attack. Funny thing: Her opponent, Mark Miloscia, became a Republican because the Democrats' extreme policies drove him out of the party.


The final corruption is the Democratic Party's attack on our right to be armed. I-594 will not do a thing to prevent criminal ownership or use of firearms -- But it will make it more difficult for a good citizen to acquire firearms to defend him/her self. Remember, elitist liberals like billionaires Michael "no-more-Big-Gulps" Bloomberg or Microsoft's Bill Gates don't want you to be armed.


by Zuka Luka

Friday, September 19, 2014

Lies, and the I-594 panacea.

The I 594 campaign is still spilling lies. The Big Lie is that their initiative will actually cut down criminal access to guns. It won't. But if 594 is enacted, every law abiding purchaser will have to go through yet one more set of compilations to obtain a gun. I 594 only gets the state more involved with complicating the people getting what they need.




"There’s a dangerous loophole in the law: Criminals who fail a background check can simply go online, or to a gun show, and buy a gun from a stranger, no questions asked. 594 closes that loophole, helping keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Close the background check loophole,”

Don Pierce, former Bellingham police chief

Don't you wonder why Don Pierce is lying. If you fail the existing background check system, you cannot go online to circumvent existing law. That is pure lie.

If you go to a gun show, you can buy a collectible firearm -- If you want to pay top dollar -- if you clear the gun shows background check -- many gun show operators have a background check requirement but Don Pierce lies about them.

And if I 594 is enacted, you'll still be able to buy a gun from a stranger. He just has to sell you his gun illegally. Most purchases between criminals are... criminal. Criminals will still get their guns illegally like they always have been able to. I 594 will not affect them at all.

One truth the I-594 people want to confuse you about is that the more guns the law-abiding have, the safer society will be. You can trust your neighbor -- most of them anyway. If you have a gun, you can trust yourself, can't you?

To listen to the 594 folks, you would think that you have to have government control to make you good. If you read 594, you get the idea that even handing an unloaded gun to a friend for him to look at makes you both a menace to society (Section 2, part 25).

You can trust the people -- even democracy can work -- if only the people trust their own judgment, and not government control.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Harsh Realities of Initiative 594

The dishonest anti-gun organizations won't tell you.

The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) talks a lot about how Initiative 594 will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  What they don’t report is that Initiative 594 is not aimed at criminals who, by definition, do not obey the law.

I-594 adds a ten day waiting period to delay acquiring a firearm (Section 4, 2).  The weight of 594 falls on the law-abiding citizen.  

I-594 would not be an effective crime deterrent and would only impose heavy burdens and legal hurdles for law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The reality is that criminals will still acquire firearms where they do now: the black market, straw purchasers, theft and illicit sources such as drug dealers.  Criminals are criminals -- I 594 does not discriminate between the law abiding and the criminals.

Law enforcement resources, however, will be diverted by I-594 to doing background checks on law-abiding, responsible gun owners who simply want to gift, loan, share and borrow firearms.


The "Gifting" Rules Intended to Confuse Voters

WAGR says that if I-594 is enacted, you would still be able to “gift” a firearm to an immediate family member without going through a background check.  That is, in fact, one of the few honest claims they make about I-594.

However, what WAGR doesn’t tell you is that, in virtually all other cases, you would be committing a gross misdemeanor if you were to simply hand a firearm to an immediate family member or close, personal friend unless you broker the "transfer" through a dealer (I-594, section 2, part 25, new definitions), complete the government paperwork, pay the fees, subject the transfer to Washington State Use Tax (I-594, section 11) and, in the case of handguns, have the transferee added to the state registration database of law-abiding handgun owners.


Bureaucratic Burdens

WAGR is NOT honest about the extent to which law-abiding citizens will be impacted by their proposed 18-page monstrosity of bureaucracy, regulation taxation and state record keeping.  They claim that I-594 regulates private firearm “sales” and contains “reasonable” exemptions.

In reality, I-594 regulates all firearm “transfers” and the exemptions are so narrow and limited that, in most cases, they will not apply.

Let's take a look at their proposed language:  Again, I-594 regulates private firearm transfers and defines “transfer” as “the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans. (I-594, section 2, 25)”  A few minutes spent with Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary will clarify that “intended” means “intentional,” and “deliver” means “to hand over.”

So, if you intentionally hand over a firearm to another person, you have just committed a gross misdemeanor under the provisions of I-594 (or a felony for a second occasion).

What might constitute an “unintentional” transfer?  Well, someone stealing your firearm would certainly be a transfer you did not intend.  But that would not be covered by I-594 (see the first paragraph for the full ironic effect).


A Lesson in Hunting Under Initiative 594

So, yes, as WAGR boasts about their exemptions, a father could “gift” a shotgun to his son.  But if Dad wanted to borrow the shotgun back from his son to use for a weekend hunting trip, that transfer would be subject to the I-594 bureaucracy.   And, for Dad to return the shotgun to his son, it is back to the dealer to go through the whole process again!

While WAGR claims there is an exemption for hunting, it is unworkably narrow [I-594, section 4, f; (v)].

If you are out hunting with your Dad or lifelong friend and his firearm malfunctions, you could loan them a spare as long as they only possess it where hunting is legal.  But, as described before, you could not loan them a firearm to take on a trip without you. 

Further, under the “while hunting” exemption, here's what happens when they cross a road (from which hunting is illegal).  Either you carry the firearm across the road for them or you have just committed a gross misdemeanor.


Wide-Ranging Criminalization of Firearm Transfers

There is an exemption for the temporary transfer of a firearm “at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located [ I-594, section 4, (f)]."  By the way, Does anyone know of any shooting ranges "authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction" in Washington State?

While this exemption allows you to loan your firearm to a family member or friend to shoot at an authorized range, you would become a criminal if you make the same loan while target shooting on public land.

When this was pointed out to WAGR Spokesperson Cheryl Stumbo during debate, her response was that you shouldn’t be shooting on public land anyway because it is not safe and that, family shooting trips on public land are “one in a million…extreme hypothetical examples.  If you want to go on public land to shoot guns, go hunting.” (Click Here to Watch the Full Debate)That should give you an idea where the proponents of I-594 are headed!


Age is Everything

One final example of the deeply flawed provisions of Initiative 594: -- There is another exemption for the temporary transfer of a firearm to a person who is under 18 years of age while under the direct supervision of a responsible adult.  So, if you are out shooting on public land with your 17-year old daughter, you can hand over your firearm for her to shoot.

But next week in the same location, after celebrating her 18th birthday, you can no longer allow her to handle your firearm without brokering the transfer through a licensed firearms dealer.  She is adult; "bona fide" gifts are allowed, not temporary loans [I 594, section 4, (a)].

But WAGR is apparently okay with that because they believe you shouldn't be shooting on public land anyway (You have to play the video).

For more information about the harsh realities of Initiative 594 and why Washingtonians must Vote No on this November's ballot, please visit and share with your friends, family and fellow Second Amendment supporters our website www.VoteNo594.com.



Much text is supplied by the National Rifle Association, a grassroots organization of 5 million gun owners.
The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility is maintained by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, with one million dollars donated by Bill Gates.
Which organization more closely represents your interests?

Monday, September 15, 2014

I 594's sponsorship

Most people in Washington State think I-594 was created by people who live here.  Nope.  It was produced and supported by very wealthy easterners like Michael Bloomberg (and the very wealthy Bill Gates).

Actually, I have no problem with people being wealthy, but I don't like it when they try to control my life and freedom.

Here's to Michael Bloomberg.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Initiative 594 - poorly thought out

Initiative 594 will require criminal and public safety background checks for all gun sales and transfers, whether they be from a regular retail gun store, gun show, or a private sale between private persons.  (594 also requires online sales to be registered, which is peculiar, since that is already required by law.)  594 will also add Washington state's 5 business day waiting period to all legal gun transactions.

Here's what makes 594 dangerous: What criminal is going to  register the transfer of his firearm when he plans on committing a crime with his freshly acquired gun? If 594 becomes law, only the law-abiding will obey 594. A criminal is a criminal – criminals won't care about obeying 594.

594 will impede people from defending themselves if they suddenly find out they need a gun to defend themselves.  There is an advertizement for 594 which portrays a woman suddenly being stalked.  She has no firearm to defend herself with.  Under 495 she won't even be able to borrow a gun for self-defense, until 5 days go by.  That scenario is a severe injustice.  At the end of the  advertizement, there is the sound of a gunshot.  You are supposed to imagine the woman as a victim of the stalker.  If 594 is enacted, that is almost certainly so.

We live in reality where guns are needed to protect the innocent.  Nothing should ever get in the way of defense of self.  Please vote no on I-594

What other people read on this blog

Effing the ineffable - Washington State elections sometimes have been rigged.

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
-- Joseph Stalin