• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I-591 certified; more signatures than I-594

D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
EMNofSeattle

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Well this is what I've notices lately, that liberals have taken huge advatage of Citizens United and have outspent conservatives, in some cases up to 6 to 1, to either lose, or to win by such a small margin that the money almost doesn't work out.

examples are the Colorado Recall, the Virginia executive races, the Colorado education tax measure, etc. and now 594.

a few more "victories" will about bankrupt them I think...
 
D

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
EMNofSeattle said:
Well this is what I've notices lately, that liberals have taken huge advatage of Citizens United and have outspent conservatives, in some cases up to 6 to 1, to either lose, or to win by such a small margin that the money almost doesn't work out.

examples are the Colorado Recall, the Virginia executive races, the Colorado education tax measure, etc. and now 594.

a few more "victories" will about bankrupt them I think...
Click to expand...


Yeah, but they can't keep up with you at a microphone!
:lol:
 
M

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Can anyone tell me what a "public safety background check" is?

Reading through 594 it looks as if they have intentions to create a state-wide background check that would be in addition to the current one.
(1) The results of all required background checks are known and the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or
possessing a firearm under federal or state law;
Click to expand...
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

deanf said:
Do we know how many signed both? If not, comparing the numbers reveals nothing.
Click to expand...

deanf said:
Not unless we know how many signed both.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

1245A Defender said:
You keep saying that, as if it changes the comparison!

If,,, ANY number of folks signed both, then ANY number can be subtracted from both...

Net change? NONE!

591 got more sigs than 594
Click to expand...

deanf said:
[591 got more sigs than 594

Right, but if we don't know the motivations of each signer, then conclusions can't be drawn from the numbers.
Click to expand...

If,,, 346,834 folks were MOTIVATED enough to sign both,,, because they both say "background checks"...
Then,,, I can CONCLUDE that 3,026 of us were smart enough to only sign the one we want on the ballet...

BTW? Will they both be on the ballet?
What if each one gets more yes votes than no votes?
Will their be a special vote to pick one?
Can they both exist as Washington state laws?
 
Last edited:
Grim_Night

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
1245A Defender said:
If,,, 346,834 folks were MOTIVATED enough to sign both,,, because they both say "background checks"...
Then,,, I can CONCLUDE that 3,026 of us were smart enough to only sign the one we want on the ballet...

BTW? Will they both be on the ballet?
What if each one gets more yes votes than no votes?
Will their be a special vote to pick one?
Can they both exist as Washington state laws?
Click to expand...

No, they both cannot exist together as Washington state laws. They are mutually exclusive. Because I-591 says that background checks must conform to a uniform federal standard which does not include background checks on private sales or in fact on "all transfers". It really has to be one or the other.
 
Alpine

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
The nightmare scenario is if they both pass.

Theoretically they do not cancel each other out. 591 would essentially put 594 on an indefinite hold and if the feds ever adopted a national standard that was what 594 is, then 594 would go into effect. So if both passed 591 should legally pause 594 from going into effect.

However... I don't think the courts would correctly interpret them that way. There are a lot of people who mistakenly believe they are mutually exclusive, and when Komo interviewed a former state supreme court judge, the judge suggested the court might "pick the one that got the most votes," which of course is an insane approach. However, given the rampant insanity and unconstitutional actions we've seen from this court as demonstrated by the McCleary decision, they just well might do that.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

Grim_Night said:
No, they both cannot exist together as Washington state laws. They are mutually exclusive. Because I-591 says that background checks must conform to a uniform federal standard which does not include background checks on private sales or in fact on "all transfers". It really has to be one or the other.
Click to expand...


Really, I DO understand.
My "BTW" was just some musing about two competing bills on one ballet.

I wonder if they may be presented for a vote as...

VOTE FOR ONE ONLY!!!

. I want 591
. I want 594
. I dont want either one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top