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.

Friday, January 2, 2015

New firearm regulations from I-594

Two new sections of Washington state firearms regulations RCW 9.41 are key to knowing the onerous changes 594 is laying on us.  594 wasn't about saving people's lives; it was about complicating gun ownership.

"All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.  -- New section RCW 9.41.113 (1)"

The key word in that section is transfer.  Normally, if I was selling a firearm, I would expect the transfer to occur when I exchanged the firearm for money.  If I was just handing my firearm over to someone else to look at and hand back to me, I wouldn't consider that a transfer.

This is not so in Washington state anymore.  Initiative 594 caused the state definition to change: "'Transfer' means 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.' --  RCW 9.41.010, section (25)" 

If someone else merely handles your firearm in Washington state, you are both guilty of a misdemeanor or felony (see RCW 9.41.115).  The clear intent of I-594 is to impede common interest in firearms through trickery.


I-594 supporters tried to conceal a provision of 594 -- the requirement the state maintain a database that is tantamount to mandatory registration of all firearms (not just pistol) transfers.  The requirement that all purchasers be approved via background check, and recorded in the state database, as required by I-594 Section 5 c (2) (a) and (b).  This constitutes an entirely separate requirement, therefore violating the single subject law on initiatives, as required by the Washington State Constitution, Article II, section 19. 
Article 2 of the Washington State Constitution describes the whole legislative process; Section 19 defines the limit of a single bill: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."  Initiative 594 describes itself as "AN ACT Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales and transfers."

I-594 treats more than one subject; I-594 violated the single subject rule, and thus the election result on I-594 is invalidated by sloppy initiative writing.  Washington State requires clarity.  Had the People really known what they were voting for, there is no doubt the result would have been different. 

Our state's firearms laws used to be based on the principle that individual people have the right to run their own lives. Now, personal "rights" are subject to review and permission from a bureaucracy.  That sort of filter would catch criminals, but by definition criminals don't obey the law.  No bureaucracy is perfect, so only the law-abiding will be "caught" and found guilty of crime.

There are more subtle changes than just those mentioned above.  Please protect yourself from the spider's web.  Download and study a copy of the entire state firearms regulations. Then write your state legislator and demand action on removing I-594.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

The FBI and I-594

Apparently I-594 was effective in 2013 -- a full year before it went into effect.

From the FBI's most current uniform crime report announcement (2013):
"The estimated number of violent crimes in the nation decreased 4.4 percent in 2013 when compared with 2012 data, according to FBI figures released today. Property crimes decreased 4.1 percent, marking the 11th straight year the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

"The 2013 statistics show the estimated rate of violent crime was 367.9 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants, and the property crime rate was 2,730.7 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants. The violent crime rate declined 5.1 percent compared to the 2012 rate, while the property crime rate declined 4.8 percent.

"These and additional data are presented in the 2013 edition of the FBI’s annual report Crime in the United States. This publication is a statistical compilation of offense and arrest data reported by law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

"The UCR Program collects information on crimes reported by law enforcement agencies regarding the violent crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, as well as the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
The I-594 supporters lied extensively about the consequences of 594 in order to fool the Washington's people into voting for it.  Stupid lies like "32% of women will have their lives saved" and so forth.

If anything, more gun ownership spells a safer society, with or without background checks.  A free people can figure out if they need a gun, unless there are media forces and hyper rich people spending millions on lies to fool the people into fear of themselves and their freedom.

As soon as 594 begins to cost lives and cause crime, it will be time to make the big, rich supporters of 594 feel the pain.  We must be willing to hold people like Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg accountable, by taking their billions away from them in liability actions in a court of law.

Monday, December 8, 2014

I-594 parade of absurd outcomes commences

Barely two weeks after Washington State voters approved Initiative 594 -- a measure the NRA warned was “deeply flawed” -- our predicted consequences are beginning to emerge.

Under I-594’s restrictive language, a person simply handing his or her firearm to another is presumptively required to broker this “transfer” through a gun dealer.  This also necessitates the accompanying background check, fee, paperwork, taxes and, in the case of a handgun, state registration.

Proponents of the initiative had assured voters that fears of this overreach were exaggerated.  Prior to the vote on I-594, Geoff Potter, spokesman for 1-594 proponents Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, said I-594 “simply applies the current system of background checks to all sales.”

As recounted in a Washington State news report, however, the Lynden Pioneer Museum has opted to pull eleven loaned WWII rifles currently on display and return these firearms to their collector owners before the “transfer” requirement in I-594 takes effect next month.  The reason?  The law contains no exemptions for firearms loaned for museum displays, or loaned for similar educational or cultural institution study or uses.  Once the law takes effect, the firearms could not be returned to their owners without the mandatory background checks and all the logistics and expenses that entails.

The museum director in Washington came to this decision reluctantly but unavoidably.  “I read through the law about 10 different times looking for a loophole,” he said.  He found none.  Unfortunately, there is no guidance at the state level because Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has reportedly not formed an opinion about I-594, and no authoritative interpretation of the initiative is available to the public, apart from the text of I-594 itself.  In the meantime, the museum’s attorney has stated he would welcome assurances from the state that it would not enforce the law to the detriment of the museum or the owners of the firearms on display.  To date, however, no such assurances have been forthcoming.

For his part, Geoff Potter, according to the Associated Press, now states that the museum scenario “is clearly not what was concerned when I-594 was designed,” and added, "You can't craft every possibility into every law."  The fact that advocates of I-594 ignored warnings by NRA and others of the measure’s overreach, however, tells a different story.  These consequences can hardly be considered unforeseen, and perhaps, unintended.  While even the staunchest supporters of the law do not appear to be arguing that the museum mishap somehow promotes public safety, it does serve their overarching goal of marginalizing the role of firearms in American life and history.

While we await news of other embarrassing and counterproductive consequences of the law, what is already obvious is that this poorly thought-out and badly drafted law goes too far, and will disproportionately, unnecessarily and unfairly burden law-abiding firearm owners.

Supporters of I-594 have indicated they will use the momentum from the Washington State vote to pursue similar “background check” campaigns in other states, including Nevada and Oregon.  Yet if I-594 in Washington is good for anything, it is to painfully illustrate how the gun-control agenda leads to the chilling of innocent conduct, potentially creates criminals out of decent people, requires the willful suppression of reason and reality, and has little to do with public safety.  Above all, it counsels that I-594 is a bad decision to be corrected, not one to be replicated in other states.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Fact check on I-594 FBI claim

I-594 supporters can tell you that Women are 38% less likely to be shot to death by their partners in states with compulsory background checks.  They claim the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicide Report of 2010 proves this claim.

How can they say that?  Plow through those FBI reports for yourself (links 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,).  Nowhere is the data broken down by state, or the presence of that state's laws requiring background checks.

Do you think maybe the I-594 freaks are making stuff up?

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

I-594 is not well thought out, unless its purpose is to so complicate private sale of a firearms that private sales go away.  Thus everyone will swallow the story that we need to register all firearms in order to compel compliance with the I-594 transfer requirements.  Then you lose you privacy, and you can lose your firearms whenever the politicians decide.

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