A letter I emailed to Dan Satterberg about I-594

When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” ...

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, until I-594, this practice was not illegal. I suspect that many guns were transferred in this manner and no crime was evident from that transfer.

Work to get that nitwit fired.

marshaul said:

With the prevalence of "lesser of two evils" thinking, there is zero incentive for either party to actually represent its constituents.

Click to expand...

No consequences ....

END_THE_FED said:

Update:

Last night I emailed the following to Dan Satterberg with the subject "Follow up":

Mr. Satterberg,


I am a Republican PCO for precinct 43-1271. On 11/08/14 I sent your office an email with the subject "A few questions". On 11/13/14 I sent the same email to you directly. The letter expressed several concerns that myself, and many of the republicans I have the honor of representing have with I-594. I was seeking information from you on these concerns. I have not received a response. Your lack of reply sends a message as loud and clear as any written response could have, perhaps even more so. I will be notifying the people of my district that you do not care about their concerns.



Today I received the following response:

I received dozens of messages about I-594 and did not directly answer hypothetical questions because I cannot give legal advice to individuals – it would not protect you or bind a prosecutor who might have jurisdiction. Having said that, the implementation of this law by my office will avoid the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.

When you do see prosecutions under this law it will be of those who continue to sell guns for cash “no questions asked” and of people who gave their criminal friends guns to use in crimes.

Sincerely,

DAN SATTERBERG
King County Prosecuting Attorney
516 Third Avenue, W400
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 477-1200



If I decide to reply to him I will post it here.

Click to expand...

Satterberg is a jerk. Him and Don Pierce really believe that nonsense about "oh don't worry, 50% of the law will never be enforced."

So then why were those parts included?!

-Inheritance section
-No use tax exemption
-transfers instead of sales

etc etc.

END_THE_FED said:

my office will avoid the absurd and unjust hypothecticals that many opponents of the law were promoting during the campaign.

Click to expand...

Which hypotheticals might those be, I wonder? While there was a fair amount of scare mongering, the truth is actually worse than almost all of it -- I wonder what part of the commonly understood plain meaning of the law as written he finds to be absurd or hypothetical?

Difdi said:

Which hypotheticals might those be, I wonder? While there was a fair amount of scare mongering, the truth is actually worse than almost all of it -- I wonder what part of the commonly understood plain meaning of the law as written he finds to be absurd or hypothetical?

Click to expand...

Should ask him if you were to give your 5 year old nephew, who is on many mental medications for being hyper and to control his killing of animals, your 357 then would that violate the law?

Or ask if you can sell your 357 to a felon who just got outta jail and is now looking for some "payback" if this would be illegal for you to do.

Difdi said:

Which hypotheticals might those be, I wonder? While there was a fair amount of scare mongering, the truth is actually worse than almost all of it -- I wonder what part of the commonly understood plain meaning of the law as written he finds to be absurd or hypothetical?

Click to expand...

I am going to bring up that very point when I reply to him. All of the points I mentioned were legitimate concerns based on the plain reading of the text. The real absurdities are his (apparent) faith in government to only enforce it a certain way, and his endorsement of a law that he feels shouldn't be enforced as written. Why endorse a law (especially as a prosecutor) that you don't think should be enforced as written? Why not wait until something is presented to you that you feel should be enforced as written?

One theory, and this is pure speculation is that he made a deal with the Democrats.... he endorses I-594, they agree not to put anyone against him in the general election. He was up for reelection last month and ran unopposed, seems strange that the Dems wouldn't put a candidate up against a republican, especially in King County. Again, this is pure speculation.

I will be replying to him in the next day or two.

As a side note: Does the State even have the authority to require the participation in a FEDERAL program (FFL/NCIS) and the payment of a fee to a private company as a condition of exercising a right?

Stick to 3 paragraphs, about 4 sentences in each one.

Or file a court case.

Otherwise, it ends up filed in the round can.

Dave_pro2a said:

Stick to 3 paragraphs, about 4 sentences in each one.

Or file a court case.

Otherwise, it ends up filed in the round can.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I must admit that my first email was rather verbose. Any future replies or follow ups will be much shorter.

davidmcbeth said:

Should ask him if you were to give your 5 year old nephew, who is on many mental medications for being hyper and to control his killing of animals, your 357 then would that violate the law?

Or ask if you can sell your 357 to a felon who just got outta jail and is now looking for some "payback" if this would be illegal for you to do.

Click to expand...

Awesome straw man you have there. But if you have to build a straw man to 'win' an argument, you're better off not even replying. Straw man arguments aren't clever, they're pathetic.

But since you asked, how about asking him about whether it would violate the law if I had to use the toilet while cleaning my gun, and my girlfriend walked into the room while I was away?

Or perhaps who at Home Depot is criminally liable when they sell a powder-actuated nailgun without a background check, the store manager or the clerk operating the register? Or is it a criminal conspiracy, and everyone employed at the store is a co-conspirator in a gun smuggling operation?

Difdi said:

Awesome straw man you have there. But if you have to build a straw man to 'win' an argument, you're better off not even replying. Straw man arguments aren't clever, they're pathetic.

But since you asked, how about asking him about whether it would violate the law if I had to use the toilet while cleaning my gun, and my girlfriend walked into the room while I was away?

Or perhaps who at Home Depot is criminally liable when they sell a powder-actuated nailgun without a background check, the store manager or the clerk operating the register? Or is it a criminal conspiracy, and everyone employed at the store is a co-conspirator in a gun smuggling operation?

Click to expand...

You learned just a little .. you need to learn much more.

If what Satterberg said about prosecuting violators of 594 is really his intent and the "true intent" of the initiative, the law should have been written that way. While I think he is right that "letter of the law" arrests and prosecutions won't occur as a rule, all it takes is one DA or cop with a vendetta against gun owners to make our concerns a reality.

Oh, on another note, I have sent messages to Renton PD asking how we can expect this initiative to be enforced on the streets - they still don't have a policy or standard practice yet.

Prosecutor Cuts Deal with Killer After Penalizing Law-Abiding Gun Owners

END_THE_FED said:

I emailed the below letter to Dan Satterberg. He is the king County prosecutor and self identifies as a "republican". He officially endorsed I-594. I dont expect anything other than a form-letter in return, but we will see. Any response he sends will be posted here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Edited quote for brevity>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SNIP.

Click to expand...

Not wanting to hijack your thread but thought this article might be of interest.

Prosecutor Cuts Deal with Killer After Penalizing Law-Abiding Gun Owners

(FUQ)
Yesterday, Satterberg's office announced a guilty plea from Ja'Mari Alexander-Alan Jones in the murder of DeShawn Milliken at a Bellevue Square restaurant/bar, noting that a firearms charge was dropped as part of the deal that will send Jones to prison. Had the case gone to trial and Jones been convicted of murder and the firearms charge, he could have faced a much longer prison sentence, according to published reports.
"I am stunned that Dan Satterberg's office cut this deal with the thug who had previously done time for the killing of Edward 'Tuba Man' McMichael in 2009," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "It is astonishing, not only for the severity of this second crime, but because Satterberg helped lead the campaign to pass Initiative 594, the new gun control law that treats law-abiding gun owners like criminals of Jones' ilk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Satterberg traded away gun charges in a plea deal with a two-time killer. Comments may be made to (206-296-9000) or e-mail sent to Prosecuting.Attorney@kingcounty.gov.


~Whitney

Without the coercive power of plea bargains, the criminal justice system would grind to a halt.

Create a bunch of trumped up charges, that the average person cannot afford$ to fight. Let them face a lifetime in prison. Suddenly, 10-20 seems like the safe bet, because team Judge & prosecutor isn't going to let the average (non-OJ Simpson) citizen get away with it.

Dave_pro2a said:

Without the coercive power of plea bargains, the criminal justice system would grind to a halt.

Click to expand...

Another way to phrase that would be to point out that without the ability to bully and terrorize innocent people into pleading guilty, the prosecution would actually have to prove people guilty in order to get convictions.

Difdi said:

Another way to phrase that would be to point out that without the ability to bully and terrorize innocent people into pleading guilty, the prosecution would actually have to prove people guilty in order to get convictions.

Click to expand...

It's good to see others like yourself, know how the system really works. ^^^^^^^^ absolutely correct.

Whitney said:

Not wanting to hijack your thread but thought this article might be of interest.

Prosecutor Cuts Deal with Killer After Penalizing Law-Abiding Gun Owners

(FUQ)
Yesterday, Satterberg's office announced a guilty plea from Ja'Mari Alexander-Alan Jones in the murder of DeShawn Milliken at a Bellevue Square restaurant/bar, noting that a firearms charge was dropped as part of the deal that will send Jones to prison. Had the case gone to trial and Jones been convicted of murder and the firearms charge, he could have faced a much longer prison sentence, according to published reports.
"I am stunned that Dan Satterberg's office cut this deal with the thug who had previously done time for the killing of Edward 'Tuba Man' McMichael in 2009," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "It is astonishing, not only for the severity of this second crime, but because Satterberg helped lead the campaign to pass Initiative 594, the new gun control law that treats law-abiding gun owners like criminals of Jones' ilk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Satterberg traded away gun charges in a plea deal with a two-time killer. Comments may be made to (206-296-9000) or e-mail sent to Prosecuting.Attorney@kingcounty.gov.


~Whitney

Click to expand...

Keep calling Satterberg's office guys, I called and spoke with his assistant and she told me they are being flooded with calls. They are feeling the heat, keep it up. She told me I should also email, so make sure you do both.

He is in a political office. He's a Repulsive Republican who doesn't like pot so he does this: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2025219185_potcharges1xml.html


When we get a Dumbo Democrat who doesn't like guns, then we'll see some harsh application of I-594.

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2003979268_elexpros0finance28m.html