The Big Washington I-594 Thread: Direct all questions and concerns here

NRA Contributions are sometime hidden as they donate to local organizations.

Just because you do not see the NRA logo, does not mean they are not there.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/NRA-donates-150K-more-in-fight-against-I-594-279215002.html

The problem was not the NRA or any other Pro-Gun Rights organization NOT doing enough. The problem was/is the gun owners of WA not getting off their couches and voting this damn thing down.

Blame the NRA if you want, but a 36% turn out is about as pathetic as it can get when YOUR second amendments rights are on the line. The gun owners of WA need to look in the Mirror not blame the NRA for abandoning them, they abandoned themselves.
 
For those of you who do not watch TV in Washington state, let me summarize what we saw here. Ads funded by a handfull of billionaires in favor of I-594 ran over and over and over and over on every major TV station for weeks in advance. I don't recall seeing even one ad against I-594. If any ads against did run, they were very scarce and not on major programs at key times. I think NRA is the only orgainization that could have come up with enough money to provide a meaningful counter punch to the billioraires, but they didn't. Now the billionairs smell blood, and they may visit your state next.
 
I don't recall seeing even one ad against I-594. If any ads against did run, they were very scarce and not on major programs at key times.
Click to expand...
So, because they didn't have ads running on the prime-time networks, they weren't doing anything?

Let's consider the cost of making the ad and the cost of getting it aired. Could that money be better spent getting the base mobilized, running interference with politicians, and preparing legal action?

Then there's the question of finding a network willing to run their ads. In Washington state.

Blame the NRA if you want, but a 36% turn out is about as pathetic as it can get when YOUR second amendments rights are on the line.
Click to expand...
Anything over 25-27% is considered a decent turnout. It says something sad for our civic involvement in general, but those are the numbers. 36% is actually pretty good.
 
So let me get this straight. If I'm shooting in Washington, and let my buddy at the range shoot my gun, that is a crime?
 
I am in the Yakima area and there were televised ads that supported the competing iniative. What you all need to remember is that this was a low voter turn out election and in any election it is hard to beat anything that the Seattle sheep want simply because of the body count.
 
If I'm shooting in Washington, and let my buddy at the range shoot my gun, that is a crime?
Click to expand...
Yes. First offense is a gross misdemeanor. Second offense is a felony.

Who wants to hazard a guess how many people know that?

This is a horrible law, and I understand tempers running high. That said, let's dial back on the strong language and broad generalizations of people.
 
The biggest problem I can see after reading the entire text of the initiative is the idea of a temporary transfer including letting someone shoot your gun whether it is at a range or not. It *appears* that if the other person is either your spouse or under 18 and it is for "educational" purposes you are OK, but if the other person is over 18 it isn't clear. If the short term loan was at a competition it also appears to be OK. I see this as being one of the first areas to come under scrutiny. If the gun is not in your possession, but you aren't giving it to them either it should not be considered a "transfer". Especially if you are there supervising it shouldn't matter whether they are over 18. Below is a copy of the relevant text from sos.wa.gov

Cases where it does NOT apply:

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the
transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group
that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
 
dakota.potts said:
I thought a sanctioned shooting range was an exemption?
Click to expand...

Only if

the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located;
 
I just happen to have two of the mailers sitting here.

PO Box 21712, Seattle, WA 98111 is the mailing address.

The top five contributors were Nicolas Hanauer, Every Town for Gun Safety Action Fund, William Gates III, Melinda Gates, Paul Allen

All of them from Seattle area

Susan Segall from Seattle and Don Pierce of Belligham then Paul Warden of the puny town of Prosser were the three faces on the mailers.

The majority of police chiefs supported the opposing bill.

The bill only passed in 11 counties of the state all on the West side.

We Eastsiders have been trying to deal with the West side for deckades but we keep getting overrun.

25% voter turn out is pathetic especially since all one has to do in this state is to fill it out and mail it in
 
I live on the east side, and I know Prosser. its not "puny", despite not having a large population. Prosser is trying hard to become a wealthy "upscale" community (complete with west side liberal attitudes), thanks to the growth of the wine industry and the money that brings in.

Where we used to have a diner, we now have a bistro (with prices to match).
Things like that are the visible signs, there are others, and more subtle things happening too.

I never saw a single TV commercial against 594, or for 591. Lots and lots of commercials FOR 594, and all the ones I saw focused on how 594 was going to protect women from convicted domestic abusers. And how in states that passed laws like this, how the number of women murdered dropped, etc.

Lies and distortion, but with billionaires footing the bill, ordinary working class heroes don't stand much chance of getting the truth out there.
 
I'm in Washington. I voted. I read the full text of the bill a few times in the last few months. A few thoughts:

As far as the law being challenged, my guess is that the people behind it could probably afford a lawyer who knew how to write a bill that would stick.

People will buy whatever they see advertised on TV.

I'm pretty sure that this law will have very little effect on me. That doesn't mean I like it.

The NRA was a complete no show. Months ago, people were wondering where they were. Now that it's over, I expect the NRA to use Washington as a terrifying example of what can happen, to aid their future fundraising.
 
SSA, I don't see how it can. As I read it, if a rent-a-cop ever disarms you, that violated 594. If they give you back the gun, you violate again. So in my scenario with a hospital, where I am forced to disarm to be treated, I will be violating 594 (or going without treatment.) That is effectively infringing on my 2A right to bear arms (and even IF it isn't lawful for the hospital to disarm me - am I REALLY going to be standing there with a broken arm going "you can't lawfully disarm me!" - you can bet I'll be yelling "take it and help me!")

Moreover, it violates the single subject rule in WA on measures. That's where the first challenge will be.

To everyone in WA, contact your reps and senators. Push them to get the AG to clarify this law, as well as pushing them to get a 2/3rds majority to alter the law.
 
one does have to wonder about the logic of YOU violating the law when someone else returns YOUR property.

Also, apparently in order to comply, I have to gift my firearms to my wife when I leave for work, and she has to gift them back to me when I get home. Otherwise, we're both breaking the law, a couple times a day, without either of us even touching a gun.

(would community property rules change that???)

Also, if I'm reading it right, while it allows for those under 18 to handle a gun without the check, WHILE UNDER INSTRUCTION, it does not allow legal adults to do the same. or did I miss something???
 
Also, if I'm reading it right, while it allows for those under 18 to handle a gun without the check, WHILE UNDER INSTRUCTION, it does not allow legal adults to do the same. or did I miss something?
Click to expand...
You're correct on that part. There are some "transfers" that are only permissible if the receiver is a minor.

I've read through I-594 several times, and the only conclusion I can draw is that it was done in great haste, and with a great many hands in the cookie jar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top