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.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Anti-Gun Bills Committee Hearings Upcoming

Senate bills will be heard on January 21st and House bills will be heard on January 22nd.  Those wishing to attend the hearings should plan to arrive early to find parking and to sign in with opposition to the bills.  Testimony on bills at the January 21st hearings will be limited to two minutes each, with Senate Bills 5061 and 5062 being heard together.  Click on the bill link to get current location information about where the hearing will be held.
(After the January 21st hearings, NRA will be holding a meeting in the Irv Newhouse Building conference room by the Capitol at 12:00PM.  NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are invited to stop by in order to hear updates on the session.)
Anti-gun bills will be heard on January 21st at 10:00AM by the Washington state Senate Committee on Law & Justice and by the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary on January 22nd at 10:00AM.  Please contact committee members and urge them to OPPOSE these gun control bills.
  • The Proposed Substitute to Senate Bill 5062, sponsored by Senator Patty Kuderer (D-48), was filed at the request of Attorney General Bob Ferguson.  It would ban the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10, encompassing most standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens, such as with handguns popular for self-defense.  Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban would only be allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges and nationally sanctioned sport shooting events.  These magazines would have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense.
  • Senate Bill 5174, sponsored by Senator Guy Palumbo (D-1), would increase the government red tape that law-abiding adults must go through in order to obtain a Concealed Pistol License by requiring a mandatory training course developed by the Washington State Patrol.
  • The Proposed Substitute to Senate Bill 5061, sponsored by Senator Manka Dhingra (D-45) and House Bill 1073, sponsored by Representative Javier Valdez (D-46), were filed at the request of Attorney General Ferguson.  They would end the centuries old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use, among other things. 
  • Senate Bill 5143, sponsored by Senator Dhingra, and House Bill 1225, sponsored by Representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), would require law-enforcement to seize firearms and ammunition when they are called to the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident and hold them for at least five business days.  This would result in property being confiscated without first going through due process and subjecting citizens to bureaucratic red tape to get their property returned.
  • House Bill 1068, sponsored by Representative Javier Valdez (D-46), was filed at the request of Attorney General Bob Ferguson.  It would ban the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10, encompassing most standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens, such as with handguns popular for self-defense.
  • House Bill 1203, sponsored by Representative Beth Doglio (D-22), would create a one-size-fits all requirement of how and when lost or stolen firearms must be reported, further victimizing gun owners who suffer a loss or theft of their property.
  •  Senate Bill 5340, sponsored by Senator Patty Kuderer (D-48), and companion House Bill 1286 would ban sales of military style weapons (so called "assault weapons").  This bill may pass but it is already contravened by the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, in that the decision implicitly stated military style weapons are protected by the Second Amendment guarantee. 
  • In addition, one pro-gun bill will be heard on January 22ndHouse Bill 1024, sponsored by Representative Jim Walsh (R-19), would prohibit the government database of law-abiding gun owners from pistol purchase applications.  A gun owner database is a waste of taxpayer funded resources and does not improve public safety.  Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.  They do not submit pistol purchase applications when acquiring their firearms illegally such as by theft, on the black market, or by straw purchase.  The only purpose that a gun owner database serves is to facilitate future confiscations of firearms from those who currently own them legally.


Monday, January 14, 2019

Washington 2019 Session Convened - Gun Control Hearings Scheduled

The 2019 Washington Legislative Session convened today, January 14th, and anti-gun legislators have already pre-filed and scheduled hearings for bills that will infringe upon your Second Amendment rights. 
Senate Bill 5062, sponsored by Senator Patty Kuderer (D-48), and House Bill 1068, sponsored by Representative Javier Valdez (D-46), were filed at the request of Attorney General Bob Ferguson.  They would ban the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than ten, encompassing most standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens.
Senate Bill 5027, sponsored by Senator David Frokt (D-46), and Senate Bill 5072, sponsored Senator Steve O’Ban (R-28), would expand Washington’s existing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO).  These bills would affirm that the ERPO can be issued against minors while also infringing upon the self-defense rights of law-abiding parents or others in the household without due process.   SB 5027 and SB 5072 are scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Committee on Law & Justice at 10:00AM on January 17th.
House Bill 1010, sponsored by Representative Tana Senn (D-41), would allow the Washington State Patrol to destroy forfeited firearms rather than raise funds by selling them to licensed firearm dealers.  HB 1010 is scheduled for a public hearing in the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary at 10:00AM on January 15th, and has been scheduled for a committee vote on January 18th.
More bills will be filed in the coming weeks.  Attorney General Ferguson and a major anti-gun group backed by out of state elites previously announced their 2019 legislative agenda, which includes banning commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and repealing RCW 9.41.290, the pre-emption statute, that prevents localities from infringing upon Second Amendment rights.
It’s imperative that Second Amendment supporters stay involved during the 2019 legislative session.  Your NRA will be at the Capitol on a daily basis throughout the session, so please stay tuned to and your email inbox for further updates on these bills and other issues affecting your Second Amendment rights in Washington.

Coming Up In Your State -- One Party Rule

Since the Democratic Party has taken total control of the Washington State government, you'd think we're safe from evil.  Sorry, it just ain't so.

Inslee proposes ‘public option’ health-insurance plan for Washington
Inslee also took time out from campaigning to lay out his goals for the 2019 session, set to kick-off tomorrow.  “Gov. Inslee’s policies may be geared more towards Iowa than Washington state,” said Senator Mark Schoesler. Whether it’s pushing for socialized medicine or proposing huge tax increases on families and businesses, Inslee seems set to make the 2019 session be about him and his political future. 

If you think government run health care access is a bad idea, sign this petition:

Gov. Inslee says he’s focused on the state as speculation swirls about presidential bid
Inslee also took time out from campaigning to lay out his goals for the 2019 session, set to kick-off tomorrow.  “Gov. Inslee’s policies may be geared more towards Iowa than Washington state,” said Senator Mark Schoesler. Whether it’s pushing for socialized medicine or proposing huge tax increases on families and businesses, Inslee seems set to make the 2019 session be about him and his political future.

Washington state Supreme Court declines to review ruling that killed Seattle’s income tax
Potentially lost in all of the pre-session news, was an important decision by the state Supreme Court. Last week, they declined to review a ruling out of a lower-court that stopped Seattle’s unconstitutional income tax in its tracks. “There’s no way they can look at this and see any silver lining,” said Jason Mercier with the Washington Policy Center. We should add that after Seattle’s failure, liberals in Olympia are trying to pass their capital gains tax off as anything other than an income tax…which it is. Just ask the IRS.
Why Inslee's idea of fair costs $54.4 billion
In case you missed it, Governor Inslee late last month unveiled his $54.4 billion budget, full of tax increases. He’s proposing a $3.7 billion revenue increase, including an income tax in the form of a 9% capital gains tax and a hike in business taxes. And because new taxes aren’t enough, Democrats will likely continue to block every Republican-led attempt to lower your taxes.

Plastic straw ban: Out of Seattle and on to Washington state
As Seattle goes, so goes the Democrats in Olympia. Liberal Senator Patty Kuderer wants to impose Seattle’s ban on straws with the rest of the state. And that probably won’t be the only bill in the left’s “War on Plastic” this session. It really seemed like it was time to take a look at our use of plastic in general, but plastic straws in particular,” said Sen. Kuderer.

State senator proposes bill to block any downtown Seattle tolling plan
While the left takes on those evil plastic straws, the Republican caucus is working on the issues that actually matter to Washingtonians. Senator Tim Sheldon is proposing a bill that will block any city from implementing tolls without permission from the Legislature. “Do we really want a society where only the rich can afford to drive?” Sheldon said.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Inslee to impose income tax on Washingoton State

Let's accept the reality before us:  Inslee has the votes to impose an income tax -- Democrats have super-majority control of the House and Senate and they're the most socialist, liberal, progressive, kamikaze crowd of Seattle Democrazies ever in charge of Olympia.  

We're talking Kshama Sawant - Bernie Sanders type socialists running the show.  How wacko are they?  They've forced out Frank Chopp as Speaker because he was too conservative for them!  When Frank Chopp moves to the conservative side of the spectrum in the Democrat caucus, it just shows how socialist they've gone.

Inslee's Income tax?  The fat lady is singing.  Put a fork in it.  It's a done deal. 
Inslee's got the legislature's votes.  

We know we can rely on the voters:  9 times they've rejected an income tax at the ballot box.  They'll do it a 10th time with the "We Don't Want An Income Tax" Initiative like this:

Here's how it'll work:  we will collect the required signatures for the initiative from January through June and then voters will toss Inslee's Income Tax Scheme on November 5, 2019.  Because the initiative prohibits any kind of income tax by any government, voters will also be obliterating the Seattle City Council's income tax (which has been winding its way through the courts for years without final resolution) or any future state or local income tax.

Don't get me wrong:  I'm not saying it's gonna be easy.  Qualifying initiatives for a public vote is tough.  Look at our current $30 Tabs Initiative -- despite widespread public support, it took me and Karen selling off our family's retirement fund and loaning $500,000 to the signature drive to put us in a position to qualify it.

It won't be easy -- but it is the best way to toss Inslee's Income Tax Scheme.  And it's something we can start immediately.

So if you agree that this is the right approach, then please donate today to help toss Inslee's Income Tax Scheme: -- we've already filed the initiative that'll toss it.

After that, make sure to sign our online petition and help us veto Inslee's 20% salary bonus:

We need your help.  I implore you make a donation here: by PayPal, VISA, or M/C.  Or you can print this form, fill it out, and mail in your contribution. 

--- Tim Eyman

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Effects of gun control

(If you voted for Initiative 1639's gun restrictions, anticipating unicorns and sugar fairies, sorry to disappoint. Your hope that background checks and categorical restrictions are magic is going to fail you.)

We have good news from a joint effort between the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis School of Medicine and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University.

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

We credit the researchers for publishing these findings that run contrary to their own established opinions regarding firearms. There are, naturally, some methodological questions. For instance, the violent crime index only had a low predictive value and so was not included in the final model. The variables that did make the cut included specific age groups, race, gender, poverty level, veteran population, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and the proxy for gun ownership rates. Violent crime is often associated with homicide rates in other studies, yet was not included here.

The general design of the synthetic control model also raises questions. In this methodology, other states were combined and weighted to match California before the new policies were implemented. Eleven states were used to create this “synthetic” California but the contributions each of these states made to the synthetic California are not presented in the paper. The donor pool of states was limited to those that did not have policies similar to the comprehensive background check or prohibiting violent misdemeanor at the start of the study period and did not enact major firearm policy changes during that period, but…the differences between California and Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not limited to the social and demographic variables included in the model.

But back to the findings. You will recall, from just a few short paragraphs ago, that the notable anti-gun researchers – at least one of whom joined the anti-gun march on Washington this past March – found the comprehensive background check and prohibiting violent misdemeanor policies had no effect on firearm homicides or suicides in California.

The article about the study on the UC Davis website presents that finding with some spin: “Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates…” Maybe our understanding of the anti-gun bias driving this research colors our perception, but “does not find” and “were not associated with” seem like two sides of two different coins.

The discussion section of the study itself is dedicated to explanations for the lack of an association.  The authors suggest that the problem may have been limited records in the background check system, a lack of enforcement, or maybe that there were just too few purchase denials.

Their first explanation is not enough gun control. The authors note their findings conflict with some of their own prior research on other states. They claim the difference is that the other states’ comprehensive background check policies included a permit to purchase component. That must be the key difference, right?

Ignore the fact that all three studies to which they point were reviewed by the Rand Corporation for The Science of Gun Policy. In fact, two of these three studies were the only studies considered in the section for the effect of licensing and permitting requirements on violent crime. Rand found, based on these two studies alone, that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides and firearms homicides because the evidence is inconclusive. The third study was focused exclusively on suicide rates, and was one of two studies included in that section in the Rand review. Rand also found that licensing and permitting requirement have uncertain effects on total suicides and firearm suicides, due to inconclusive evidence.

So, yes, ignore that and let’s get back to the point the authors make about permit to purchase. They fail to consider that California enacted a permit-to-purchase system, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate, in 1994 – right in the middle of their study’s postintervention period.

Still, we credit the researchers for sharing these results and we look forward to sharing their evidence when anti-gun organizations demand further obstacles to law-abiding gun owners.

We’d like to thank the Joyce Foundation and, perhaps unwittingly, California taxpayers for making this study possible

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