User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:52:38 AM EDT
[#1]
GOAL Alert 3-2014 Election update 22 October 2014 TACOMA NEWS TRIBUNE GUEST COLUMNIST OPPOSES I-594 MAJORITY OF WASHINGTON SHERIFFS NOW OPPOSE 594 MAJORITY OF RANK AND FILE WASHINGTON COPS OPPOSE 594 WHY ARE YOU RECEIVING THIS ALERT? The following article was published in the Tacoma News Tribune on Sunday, 19 October. The author, Phil Shave, is the retired Chief of Law Enforcement for Washington State Parks and a long-time instructor with the Criminal Justice Training Commission. He is currently the Executive Director of the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC). http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/10/19/3437947/no-on-i-594-dont-turn-neighbors.html NO ON 594: DON'T TURN NEIGHBORS INTO ACCIDENTAL CRIMINALS Would you vote for a law that would make criminals of half your neighbors? Initiative 594 would do exactly that. In their zeal to impose "universal background checks," the creators of I-594 have written a law that would require nearly all “transfers” of firearms to be conducted at the premises of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer. I-594 defines transfers as a change of possession, no matter how temporary, including gifts and loans. There are exceptions for family gifts, organized competitions and youth activities, but they are so narrow that most recreational, non-sale transfers would be crimes. The father who loans a hunting rifle to an adult son during hunting season would commit a misdemeanor (upon the first violation). When the rifle is returned, both father and son would be two-time offenders, and thus felons under I-594. Shooting buddies who met on public land or their own property to target practice with shared firearms would violate I-594. Routine gun repairs would also be criminalized. The initiative would effectively forbid you from dropping your firearm off with a gunsmith friend unless he had a federal license. Most gunsmiths in this state, often the most skilled, lack federal licenses. Women are targeted by several provisions. Instructors could no longer provide loaner firearms during introductory women's self-defense classes. And if your sister were being stalked and in fear of her life, and you loaned her a firearm, you would both be criminals. I-594 has an exception to "prevent imminent death," but the legal definition of imminent means "about to happen." Widows and heirs beware: If your spouse died and you found a couple of handguns in your husband's sock drawer 61 days after death, then you’d be an accidental felon. I-594 only allows you 60 days to register those guns; after that, they’d become contraband. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and intent to commit a crime is not an element written into 594. Why write a law that makes inheritance of grandpa's old guns a crime? Colorado passed a law in 2013 requiring universal background checks, but the Colorado law includes exceptions for temporary transfers without change of ownership, transfers while hunting or target shooting, transfers for gun repairs and loans for 72 hours. The transfer fee is capped at a reasonable $10 (fees are unlimited in I-594). If only I-594 were that reasonable. Failure to complete the Colorado paperwork is a misdemeanor, whereas I-594 makes the first offense a gross misdemeanor and the second a Class C felony. I urge you to follow the lead of our state's law enforcement officers, those who deal with crime and criminals on a daily basis; they oppose I-594 and support passage of Initiative 591. Vote yes on I-591 because it leaves intact our current background check laws while allowing our state to implement future enhancements adopted at the federal level for all 50 states. I-594’s penalty provisions are one huge reason that law enforcement officers oppose this flawed initiative. Its promoters cleverly revised the law to define an I-594 felony as a "serious" offense, placing it in the same category as child molestation, third-degree rape, leading organized crime and drive-by shootings. You could loan your gun to a friend for the weekend, and the judge hearing your paperwork crime would have to follow "serious" crime-sentencing guidelines, including consecutive sentences for these newly defined "serious" crimes. No law enforcement organization supports Initiative 594. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs represents the majority of law enforcement line-level officers in our state; it opposes the initiative. The Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association opposes it. These are the firearm professionals who would be tasked with enforcing this unreasonable law. Nineteen elected sheriffs oppose I-594. They understand that the initiative will consume scarce resources in the prosecution and imprisonment of its accidental violators. (When Phil's column was submitted to the T-N-T, nineteen sheriffs had joined us in opposing I-594. In the past few days, six more sheriffs have climbed aboard, bringing the total to 25 of the state's 39 county sheriffs.) As noted above, 25 county sheriffs have added their names to the list of those opposing I-594. In addition to their law enforcement expertise in addressing this issue, there is one more important thing you should understand: all of these sheriffs are ELECTED OFFICIALS, and answerable to their constituents. At this time, the 25 sheriffs who are opposing I-594 are (in county alphabetical order): Sheriff John Hunt -- Adams County Sheriff Steven Keane – Benton County Sheriff Brian Burnett -- Chelan County Sheriff Bill Benedict - Clallam County Sheriff Rocky MIller -- Columbia County Sheriff Mark Nelson -- Cowlitz County Sheriff Harvey Gjesdal – Douglas County Sheriff Pete Warner -- Ferry County Sheriff Richard Lathim – Franklin County Sheriff Ben Keller -- Garfield County Sheriff Thomas Jones – Grant County Sheriff Rick Scott - Grays Harbor County Sheriff Rick McComas -- Klickitat County Sheriff Steve Mansfield -- Lewis County Sheriff Wade Magers – Lincoln County Sheriff Frank Rogers -- Okanogan County Sheriff Scott Johnson -- Pacific County Sheriff Alan Botzheim -- Pend Orielle County Sheriff Dave Brown, Skamania County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich -- Spokane County Sheriff Kendle Allen – Stevens County Sheriff John Snaza – Thurston County Sheriff Mark Howie – Wahkiakum County Sheriff John Turner – Walla Walla County Sheriff Brett Myers -- Whitman County If YOUR sheriff isn't on this list, you might ask him why? Note that sheriffs AND rank and file police officers -- the officers that actually patrol the streets, oppose 594 and support 591. The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS), the largest police union in Washington representing a majority of sworn officers, has formally adopted a position opposing I-594 and supporting I-591. The same is true of the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearm Instructors Association (WSLEFIA). Who would know better the negative impact of I-594 than these dedicated officers. What about police chiefs? As noted above, sheriffs are elected by residents of their county. They pay attention to their constituents. Rank and file officers that daily patrol our streets have minds of their own, and opinions of their own Neither support 594. So how about chiefs? One thing to keep in mind: police chiefs work for City Hall, and hold their positions at the pleasure of the mayor or city council. Their opinions tend to match those of their bosses. Having said that, police chiefs statewide are represented by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs -- WASPC. WASPC does not have a dog in this fight, they're neutral. Why are you receiving this e-mail? Theoretically no one on this list should need this e-mail. I would hope all of you are going to vote the right way on both initiatives: YES on 591, NO on 594. So why am I preaching to the choir, as it were? Because we need YOUR HELP in getting the word out -- to fellow gun owners who are not as politically-attuned as are you, and more importantly to the non-gun owning voters out there who are NOT getting the full story, especially on I-594. Our budget is extremely limited. The other side has nearly $9 MILLION to throw into television, radio and print media advertising. As Joseph Goebbels observed more than 70 years ago, if you repeat a big lie often enough, people WILL believe it. And that is what billionaires Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and Chip Hanauer are counting on (all with private security details). They don't need to fool all of the people all of the time, they only need to fool 51% of the people through election day. I'm sending this information out in the hope that YOU will pick up pen, or sit at keyboard, and help get the word out to others. A simple and cheap way to do this is letters to the editor of your local newspaper. Newspapers DO print letters whose position they do not agree with. Over the years I have been reasonably successful in getting several letters published in the Seattle Times and P-I, no friends of gun owners. Letters should be brief -- ideally 150 words or less, and limited to one or two points. Taking your cue from this alert, you might bring out the fact that law enforcement statewide is opposed to I-594 and supports I-591. That message is NOT being conveyed by the mainstream media. This is your opportunity to do that, using their print space! E-mail and snail mail addresses for your paper's Letters to the Editor may be found on the letters page, usually in a box at the side or on the bottom. Policy on word limits are usually there, too, but 150 is a good number. Enough to get your point across. I haven't said much about I-591 here. I'm saving that for another alert. But it's there on the ballot, too, and it needs and deserves your YES vote. That's another way of fighting 594. -- VOTE YES ON 591 VOTE NO ON 594 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 2:04:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Already voted. Judging by signs and bumper stickers in my area, it's about 10:1 pro-594:pro-591.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2014 3:12:09 PM EDT
[#3]
GOAL Alert 4-2014 Election update 9 November 2014 HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MARINES SILVER LINING MOMENTUM FOR GUN CONTROL? I-594: WHAT NEXT? WARNING!!! THE OTHER WASHINGTON Tomorrow, 10 November 2014, is the 239th birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps. Happy birthday to all of my Marine brethren and to our "FMF Corpsman," the highest calling in the Navy. Right after "Semper fidelis" comes "Corpsman up!" (The devil made me put that in GOAL Post.) 47% of the registered voters in Washington took the trouble to return their mail-in ballots this time around. Shame on any gun owners who failed to vote. For gun owners, the passage of I-594 will no doubt dominate the discussion, and I'll get to that next. But there is a silver lining in the election. My biggest fear the day before the election was that I-594 supporters would use their $9 MILLION bank account to conduct a massive get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaign. Without question that would have had a spillover effect on the legislative elections. But apparently they didn't -- and it didn't. The overall result of the legislative elections was a net plus for Republicans. Former Democrat Representative and now Republican Senator-elect Mark Miloscia (R-30-Federal Way) won his bid to replace retiring Democrat Tracy Eide, giving Republicans clear majority control of the state Senate, 25R-24D. Add to that the fact that nominally-Democrat Senator Tim Sheldon beat off an attempt by Party loyalists to run a Democrat challenger, Irene Bowling, against him. No doubt with a lot of help from Republican voters in the 35th, Tim won his election, and will no doubt continue to work with Republicans in the Majority Coalition. (And congratulations to WAC Honorary Life Member Pam Roach (R-31) for her victory over a Republican challenger.) On the House side, the GOP picked up four seats, and a fifth seat awaits a recount vote. Welcome Representatives-elect Lynda Wilson (R-17) (also an NRA-certified firearms safety instructor), Melanie Stambaugh (R-25), Michelle Caldier (R-26) and Dan Griffey (R-35). All four defeated incumbent Democrats. That gives us a House make-up of 51Ds-47Rs, not a Republican majority, but a lot closer. All but one of the pro-gun Democrats also won reelection, so from a purely gun rights perspective, we should be in good shape. Immediately following the election, in press conferences crowing about their initiative victory, I-594 supporters promised an aggressive gun control campaign in the next legislative session, looking at things like "assault weapon" bans, magazine capacity limits, mandatory safe storage, etc. At least theoretically, a Republican-controlled Senate and a pro-gun majority in the House should bring all such designs to a rapid halt. But politics doesn't always work that way, especially in the House where control still rests with Democrats, and leadership decides which bills move and which bills die. There is no doubt gun control advocates believe momentum is on their side, and they'll attempt to exploit it. As for I-594, at this point there are more questions than answers. Given the ambiguity of many provisions in the initiative, it's going to boil down to a question of interpretation, followed by a decision of what will be enforced, in which way. Without doubt you can expect full enforcement of background checks at gun shows and for any other permanent transfer (sale) of a firearm. While a strict reading of the provisions for loans, etc, would call for background checks here, too, that's going to be difficult to enforce, and it remains to be seen what guidance will be given to police. This should all be hashed out before the initiative takes effect on 4 December, a day before the WAC gun show in Monroe, coincidentally! There are discussions underway about how to attack 594, and how to limit its impact on law-abiding gun owners. As an initiative passed by the people, for two years any legislative fixes would take a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature -- and that ain't gonna happen. But there are potentially some legislative actions that can be taken around the to ameliorate the impact. Court challenges are also a possibility, for portions of the initiative. Again, the issue is being worked. More on that as they develop. I'll be publishing more information about enforcement, and the gun community's reaction to it, as the effective date approaches. WARNING! I expect our law enforcement professionals to be exactly that -- professionals. While most did not support I-594, now that it is law they have a duty to enforce it, as interpreted by their chain-of-command. What I DO expect to see is attempted stings -- entrapment scenarios played out, especially at venues like gun shows. Not by police officers, but by 594 supporters. You get out of your car at the gun show, pull a shotgun out of the trunk and head for the gate. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone approach you and make an offer for the shotgun. You ask, "What about the background check," and the "buyer" responds, "Hey, who's to see or know?" The person that will see and know is the guy the next lane over, with his cellphone camera or videocam up and running, recording the whole transaction. And that will force our police friends into enforcing a law they may not like or agree with, but it's the law. DO NOT GET TRAPPED. LIKE IT OR NOT, FOLLOW THE LAW UNTIL WE GET IT SORTED OUT! By now the whole world knows that Republicans have taken control of the U.S. Senate, giving them a 52-46 majority in that body. Two seats are still up for grabs, both likely to go to Republicans, giving them 54-46 control when the new, 114th, Congress convenes in January. The only thing we know for sure at this point is that it will be an interesting two years! Hopefully Republicans understand that the election results were not so much an embrace of Republican policies and principles as it was a rejection of Obama policies. There's a big difference there, obviously. But it's hard for someone who just won an election to think that it wasn't so much his or her winning personality as much as dislike for the other guy -- or the other guy's surrogate, President Obama. It wasn't particularly encouraging to hear the president say that he not only heard the voters, he heard "the voice of those that did not vote." Huh? He's hearing voices? Is this the same guy who said in 2012, "If you don't like my policies, go win an election." Well, they did. In 1994, after the Democrat disaster that saw Republicans take control of both chambers of Congress, then-President and master politician Bill Clinton acknowledged that some of the loss was due to his policies, and he accepted full responsibility for that. Three words you will NEVER hear Barack Obama say are, "I accept responsibility." In 1995 and beyond, Clinton moved to the center, worked with Republicans on many issues, and passed landmark legislation such as welfare reform (since overturned by a stroke of Obama's executive pen). President Obama is still threatening us with that executive pen, apparently with immigration "reform" (i.e. amnesty) at the top of the list. And how close to the top is gun control? One clear outcome is that for the first time in his presidency, Obama will have to take responsibility for using that pen, whether for executive orders that exceed his authority or for use of the veto. For the past four years, the Republican-controlled House has been passing bill after bill, only to have them stonewalled in the Senate by Harry Reid. Reid has been running interference for Obama. That firewall is gone. Bills will now move to the president's desk, and if he vetoes them, we will know where the "gridlock:" lies. Expect a lot of, "Well, the Republicans MADE me veto the bill, it's not my fault. They knew I wouldn't sign it." I guess that's an improvement from pointing the finger at George W. Bush! One last shot. 53% of your fellow citizens did not vote in the election. The next time someone complains to you about the effect of I-594, ask them if they voted. If they didn't, you know where the blame lies. Shame on them. The next legislative session begins on 12 January. I expect to start publishing GOAL Post a week prior to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 3:36:51 AM EDT
[#4]
Quick correction, I was also told by the county voting office it was 100% mail-in, so I thought that was it. There was a "Computer error" and I was never sent a ballot. The day after elections I called to complain and was told you could print them out from the county website, or each county had several polling machines as required under the ADA. So it's not 100% mail-in, there are options...if you get someone intelligent on the phone to tell you about them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 10:11:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quick correction, I was also told by the county voting office it was 100% mail-in, so I thought that was it. There was a "Computer error" and I was never sent a ballot. The day after elections I called to complain and was told you could print them out from the county website, or each county had several polling machines as required under the ADA. So it's not 100% mail-in, there are options...if you get someone intelligent on the phone to tell you about them. And those "computer errors" coincidentally happened in more conservative-leaning districts? So, that's it? Because of this you and most likely several others could not vote? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 6:24:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryWhat I DO expect to see is attempted stings -- entrapment scenarios played out, especially at venues like gun shows. Not by police officers, but by 594 supporters. You get out of your car at the gun show, pull a shotgun out of the trunk and head for the gate. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone approach you and make an offer for the shotgun. You ask, "What about the background check," and the "buyer" responds, "Hey, who's to see or know?" The person that will see and know is the guy the next lane over, with his cellphone camera or videocam up and running, recording the whole transaction. Andthat will force our police friends into enforcing a law they may not like or agree with, but it's the law. This also incriminates the person(s) doing the entrapment? Hey that person sold me a gun without a background check; the officers response should be yep and you bought one without a background check. I have a pair of handcuffs for you too. And for fun RCW 9A.16.070 Entrapment. (1) In any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that: (a) The criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and (b) The actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit. (2) The defense of entrapment is not established by a showing only that law enforcement officials merely afforded the actor an opportunity to commit a crime. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
