imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
This is why these organizations don't get money from me. I am not open to any compromise of my rights.
Can you actually tell me what they actually compromised on? I'd like to see actual evidence of what you're talking about here. About the only thing you have is a comment made by Alan Gottlieb on a national cable news show in regards to he personally wouldn't open carry, or do what Chris Broughton did in Phoenix outside of the presidential event. Big whoop.
Though open carry at the presidential events did not blow up in our faces, things we found out later about the associations of the two main "presidential event" open carriers certainly gave a lot of heartburn later on.
Chris Broughton's TPM profile
The 24 Hour Cable News Cycle died down, and MSBNC got a lot of egg on the face when they tried to conceal Chris' race to attack all open carriers as rabid white racists. That's about the only thing, along with time, that quieted down the rhetoric. We got lucky.
I have a pretty long list of what CCRKBA (The Lobbying Organization) and SAF (The Legal Foundation)has done for us as leaders here in Washington (some of this may be ancient history for all of you):
1) In 1994, during the debate of the Violence Prevention Act (which included some rewrites of the RCW 9.41), they stopped training from being required for CPL's. It was a tiebreaking vote and they managed to get one to vote against. This legislator was harshly punished by majority party caucus and the Governor, but the blowback from gun owners over the VPA on the state level and from the AWB on the federal level made it to where the Democratic Party was swept out of office.
2) Due to changes to RCW 9.41.050, it was illegal to openly carry a pistol without a CPL when the VPA became effective. This became known as the "Case and Carry Law". Due to provisions in the new statute, 34 out of 39 counties completely exempted themselves from this law, and made it essentially effective in only 5 counties (take a huge guess which counties did NOT exempt themselves). Essentially, the only way you *could* open carry legally without fear of something bad happening to you was *with* a CPL, making Washington effectively a "Green State".
3) In 1996, when discussions of repealing the "Case and Carry Law" was going through the legislature (bill was sponsored by Sen. James Hargrove (D-Hoquiam), a Seattle PD representative was asked how many people they arrested under "Case and Carry". Answer: Zero. The bill wouldn't pass that year because Gov. Mike "Grabass" Lowry threatened to veto it.
4) It got passed out of the Legislature in 1997, where Gov. Gary Locke made some leanings that he would veto, but Senator Hargrove had a sit down discussion with him and explained that the law was completely ineffective, was likely unconstitutional for many different reasons (equal protection being chief among them, along with violations of A1S24), and had costed their party the majority in the Legislature. CCRKBA's lobbyist was involved in that conversation. It is because of the efforts of CCRKBA and allied organizations that got "Case and Carry" removed from the law, or else the recent history of open carry would have been based on a bit of a different footing.
5) The worst that anyone has thrown gun owners thus far from the Legislature was SB5197 (2007), which was a "gun show loophole" bill. We packed the legislative hearing rooms and pushed it to overflow (with closed circuit TV). Our message was clear: "If you pass this law, 1994 will happen again". It passed the first committee, but Rules Committee is controlled by the Senate Majority Leader, who wanted NO part in their majority having a sudden reduction in seats in 2008. We made passing further gun control in the state legislature a rather politically toxic thing that they will not touch.
6) Employees are SAF and CCRKBA was critical to my original research on understanding what the purpose was for RCW 9.41.270, and gave me the link I needed (the passage of case and carry) to prove that the Legislature did not de-facto ban open carry, and never had throughout the legislative history of this state. They were also critical in advice on trying to fix the open carry situation via the "Training Advisory Method" as the only effective means of ending the wholesale and continued terrorizing of OC'ers, as litigation of open carry issues
at that point may have resulted in negative consequences for gun owners in general with a bad ruling on OC.
7) SAF is currently funding 4 federal civil rights lawsuits:
A)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, which suggests overturning Slaughterhouse and applying the entire Bill of Rights to the states, the LAST legal battle of reconstruction to be waged, and would have direct effects here in Washington. This case will give gun owners the ability to challenge illegal parks gun rule in federal courts under the 14th amendment's privileges and immunities clause, should the state courts fail to do their job as required by A1S24, State Law, and the 2nd amendment. We would also have the return of grand juries as an additional check and balance against prosecutorial abuse and misconduct, and the ability to ask for juries for all criminal and civil cases, not just on felonies. Expect a decision on this by June 2010.
B)
Sykes v. McGinness, which would require that California PC12050 carry licenses be issued on a shall-issue basis for self defense rather than the current crony may-issue system. This is using Alan Gura's "surgical legal strikes" method. As Washington requires a CPL to carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle, it would essentially require the CPL to always be shall-issue. There could be no retreading back to may-issue which occurred pre-1961 in this state. Adding restrictions or otherwise requiring training would also be legally risky for Washington to do after a good ruling. It would also subject Oregon's non-resident licensing to legal jeopardy due to the existence of loaded carry restrictions in some cities. They must allow the applications, or repeal the authority of the cities to pass loaded carry bans, to comply with a good
Sykes ruling. This is currently on hold due to
Nordyke v King in banc hold, and the Nordyke en banc panel is currently holding for
McDonald.
C)
Palmer v. District of Columbia, which challenges DC's total handgun carry ban (Despite a statute saying that one can carry if they have a license from the Chief of Police, the licensing statute was repealed). DC is claiming that the entirety of DC is a "sensitive area", despite the fact that the licensing statute existed until 2008 which allowed carry for those given the permission by DC Metro's Police Chief. A ruling at ANY level would be binding on both DC and the US government, as there's no 14th amendment holdup which is being delt with by McDonald.
D)
Hodgkins v. Holder, which challenges the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which disallows persons from being able to buy handguns in a state where they are not a resident. The method of challenge is via US Citizens who are currently not residing in any state in the United States (two US citizens living in Canada and the UK respectively). If this law is struck down, you can buy handguns in any state that allows you to buy it, and if it makes it to the Court of Appeals or SCOTUS level, it would also call into question any state laws which attempt to ban it's residents from buying guns out of state in further litigation, or vice versa. How is it that a person can vote in federal elections even if they reside exclusively overseas, and have that protected by law and constitution, but not the buying and carrying of handguns for self defense?
So what exactly has SAF and CCRKBA compromised on?