June WAC gunshow

[just_a_car]

imported post

CC27 wrote:

For the life of me I cant figure out why WAC is not on the Do Not Patronize list. If any other business pulled this @#$% it would be a done deal.

Because of the rules I laid down for the original post.

If there's a general concensus here on the WA forum (of WA residents) that WAC should be on the list, then I'll consider making an exception, but as it stands they don't qualify for even the Watch List, since they allow firearms, just not loaded ones.

As I'm sure you're aware from my previous post, I'm in no way supporting WAC or their policy... just saying they don't belong on the DNP List as the rules stand.

 

[CC27]

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

CC27 wrote:

For the life of me I cant figure out why WAC is not on the Do Not Patronize list. If any other business pulled this @#$% it would be a done deal.

Because of the rules I laid down for the original post.

If there's a general concensus here on the WA forum (of WA residents) that WAC should be on the list, then I'll consider making an exception, but as it stands they don't qualify for even the Watch List, since they allow firearms, just not loaded ones.

As I'm sure you're aware from my previous post, I'm in no way supporting WAC or their policy... just saying they don't belong on the DNP List as the rules stand.

They denyyou the right to defend yourself. What good is a unloaded firearm?

Also, How did Larry's GunShopin Olympia qualify for the list and WAC not? It seems to me that thier policies were very similar.

It just seems to me that by adding WAC to the list and spreading the word they could possibly see a drop in membership and rethink thier policy. Isn't this the purpose of having a Do Not Patronize list?

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

TWICE, when I went to testify in Olympia in front of the Committee for Higher Education, I was joined by representatives from the NRA, CCRKBA, and the Hunter's Association... but no WAC; twice. I took the time out of my day (and out of my classes) to go down there because it was important to support my rights as a firearms owner and a student at a higher education institution. I was VERY disappointed in WAC that they couldn't even show up, as did the other major Pro-2A groups. I can't support a group that can't put the effort into supporting my 2A rights when they're being assaulted directly with legislation.

The "WAC representative" yo were looking for was Joe Waldron, WAC president at the time and lobbyist for GOAL, the grassroots group.

The room was full of WAC members. Just who in hell do you think those people were, eh?

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

WAC's directors are guilty of pure hypocrisy on this issue.  I'm not a member of WAC and will never join as long as they have a policy to create a disarmed victims zone.  Their policy actually creates unnecessary risk by all of the unholstering, reholstering, unloading, and reloading when entering and exiting.

I recall an e-mail that Joe Waldron once sent out to a Yahoo group defending the policies of WAC.  He stated that the property owner threatened to shut down future gun shows if their were any accidental discharges.  Again, I disagree with WAC because they have multiple options:

1) Pick a location where they don't have a threat hanging over their head.
2) Stop inducing unnecessary risk by forcing people to holster/unholster, and unload/reload upon entrance and exit.
3) Implementation of a policy upon which holstered pistols must stay in the holster, but everything else has to be tied up.

You are not a member. You have no horse in the race. You want to change WAC policy, join, run for the board, get elected and work to change the policy. Campaign for WAC office on that platform.

YOU "pick a location" blah blah blah.
Find WAC a location that is convenient (i/e/ location, parking, location, parking), affordable and can host 1,200 display tables or more, and host crowds of several thousand. Present that to the WAC board for consideration, I am sure they would be interested.

And best for last:
You get elected to the WAC board. You accept fiduciary responsibility in the event there is an ND because some bonehead over whom you have no personal control got careless; a discharge that results in serious injury or death.

And then trot into court with a full record of these e-mail postings and defend against the civil lawsuit certain to follow.

There is, of course, another option. Stop living in fantasy land about how things "ought to be different." We live in a world where there are legions of attorneys just sitting around looking for such lawsuits. You don't seem to get that.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

44Brent wrote:

WAC's directors are guilty of pure hypocrisy on this issue. I'm not a member of WAC and will never join as long as they have a policy to create a disarmed victims zone. Their policy actually creates unnecessary risk by all of the unholstering, reholstering, unloading, and reloading when entering and exiting.

I recall an e-mail that Joe Waldron once sent out to a Yahoo group defending the policies of WAC. He stated that the property owner threatened to shut down future gun shows if their were any accidental discharges. Again, I disagree with WAC because they have multiple options:

1) Pick a location where they don't have a threat hanging over their head.
2) Stop inducing unnecessary risk by forcing people to holster/unholster, and unload/reload upon entrance and exit.
3) Implementation of a policy upon which holstered pistols must stay in the holster, but everything else has to be tied up.

You are not a member. You have no horse in the race. You want to change WAC policy, join, run for the board, get elected and work to change the policy. Campaign for WAC office on that platform.

YOU "pick a location" blah blah blah.
Find WAC a location that is convenient (i/e/ location, parking, location, parking), affordable and can host 1,200 display tables or more, and host crowds of several thousand. Present that to the WAC board for consideration, I am sure they would be interested.

And best for last:
You get elected to the WAC board. You accept fiduciary responsibility in the event there is an ND because some bonehead over whom you have no personal control got careless; a discharge that results in serious injury or death.

And then trot into court with a full record of these e-mail postings and defend against the civil lawsuit certain to follow.

There is, of course, another option. Stop living in fantasy land about how things "ought to be different." We live in a world where there are legions of attorneys just sitting around looking for such lawsuits. You don't seem to get that.

Don't make me laugh. WAC ran at least 3 elections in a row several years backwhen other than the people they wanted on the board got elected. It's either their way or the highway. You as a member can't change WAC because they won't even listen to you. I spent a year telling them their tied gun policy was wrong and why and their only answer was, "Well, that's the way it is." I was a member for almost 20 years and had tables for many of them, but finally decide I couldn't belong to such a two faced organization. BTW this was years before I came to this forum.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

CC27 wrote:

  They deny you the right to defend yourself. What good is a unloaded firearm?

Defend yourself against what? The expensive hot dogs?
This is a gun show. Hardly a "gun free zone." About the only "crime" in any gun show I've ever attended is the ridiculously high prices some people think they can charge for beat-up used guns.

But seriously, folks... There IS a safety measure here, and WAC has learned from past experience that anyone can make a mistake, no matter how absolutely gun safe they insist they are, day in and out.

I don't know of a gun shop in the region that doesn't have some kind of sign posted about keeping guns holstered, or "no loaded guns" or whatever. The reason is because not everyone is as safe with firearms as you all think you are, and gun dealers, like gun show promoters and operators, do not have the luxury of clairvoyance to pick out the numbskulls and keep them off premises.

And WAC is obligated to abide by the terms of its lease.

Just because some of you think "Well, WAC shouldn't have such a lease" or "I don't like that, so there!" does not mean everything operates on YOUR world view.

Life isn't like that.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Don't make me laugh.  WAC ran at least 3 elections in a row several years back when other than the people they wanted on the board got elected.  It's either their way or the highway.  You as a member can't change WAC because they won't even listen to you.  I spent a year telling them their tied gun policy was wrong and why and their only answer was,  "Well, that's the way it is."  I was a member for almost 20 years and had tables for many of them,  but finally decide I couldn't belong to such a two faced organization.  BTW this was years before I came to this forum.

I'm not trying to make you laugh. I'm trying to explain how WAC stays out of civil court, and continues operating under terms of a lease agreement.

Are you suggesting that WAC elections are unfair, somehow rigged? You should really take that up with the elections chairs, the ballot counters, and the members who vote. I've done all three, and I can guarantee that when I was involved, those elections were run scrupulously.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

You spent a year telling them their tied gun policy was wrong.

Did it ever occur to you that YOU WERE WRONG? Maybe you're the one who is in error?

Oh, perish the thought that YOU might be wrong about something.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Don't make me laugh. WAC ran at least 3 elections in a row several years backwhen other than the people they wanted on the board got elected. It's either their way or the highway. You as a member can't change WAC because they won't even listen to you. I spent a year telling them their tied gun policy was wrong and why and their only answer was, "Well, that's the way it is." I was a member for almost 20 years and had tables for many of them, but finally decide I couldn't belong to such a two faced organization. BTW this was years before I came to this forum.

I'm not trying to make you laugh. I'm trying to explain how WAC stays out of civil court, and continues operating under terms of a lease agreement.

Are you suggesting that WAC elections are unfair, somehow rigged? You should really take that up with the elections chairs, the ballot counters, and the members who vote. I've done all three, and I can guarantee that when I was involved, those elections were run scrupulously.

If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.

You spent a year telling them their tied gun policy was wrong.

Did it ever occur to you that YOU WERE WRONG? Maybe you're the one who is in error?

Oh, perish the thought that YOU might be wrong about something.

Are you denying my right to disagree? Please explain the rerunning of the election 3 times until the board got the results they wanted. Sound way to much like "she's not my governor's" election.

 

[CC27]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

CC27 wrote:

They denyyou the right to defend yourself. What good is a unloaded firearm?

Defend yourself against what? The expensive hot dogs?
This is a gun show. Hardly a "gun free zone." About the only "crime" in any gun show I've ever attended is the ridiculously high prices some people think they can charge for beat-up used guns.

But seriously, folks... There IS a safety measure here, and WAC has learned from past experience that anyone can make a mistake, no matter how absolutely gun safe they insist they are, day in and out.

You just basically repeated word for word theanti'sargument for keeping guns off the street and out of businesses.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

Are you denying my right to disagree? Please explain the rerunning of the election 3 times until the board got the results they wanted. Sound way to much like "she's not my governor's" election.

And this happened when?

you go ahead and disagree. You like being disagreeable.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

CC27 wrote:

 You just basically repeated word for word the anti's argument for keeping guns off the street and out of businesses.

Bullshit.
I am merely explaining the world as it is, not how you would like it to be.

I'm no fan of rules. Any rules, really. But until and unless YOU can come up with a fool-proof method of keeping idiots from doing stupid things with loaded guns, in the WAC show or anywhere else, then we live with the world as it is, not how you envision it.

In places of business, the gun stays put in its holster. same on the street unless something really goes bad.

In a gun show, however, guns have a nasty history of being occasionally pulled out for this or that reason, or for no reason at all. I've seen it happen. I've been swept by the muzzle of somebody's gun more than once. To argue that it doesn't happen, one is either a fool or a liar.

 

[just_a_car]

imported post

CC27 wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

CC27 wrote:

For the life of me I cant figure out why WAC is not on the Do Not Patronize list. If any other business pulled this @#$% it would be a done deal.

Because of the rules I laid down for the original post.

If there's a general concensus here on the WA forum (of WA residents) that WAC should be on the list, then I'll consider making an exception, but as it stands they don't qualify for even the Watch List, since they allow firearms, just not loaded ones.

As I'm sure you're aware from my previous post, I'm in no way supporting WAC or their policy... just saying they don't belong on the DNP List as the rules stand.

They denyyou the right to defend yourself. What good is a unloaded firearm?

Also, How did Larry's GunShopin Olympia qualify for the list and WAC not? It seems to me that thier policies were very similar.

It just seems to me that by adding WAC to the list and spreading the word they could possibly see a drop in membership and rethink thier policy. Isn't this the purpose of having a Do Not Patronize list?

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't supporting their policy about unloaded firearms?... Why do you think I don't go to the shows anymore?

As to why Larry's was on the list (past tense, mind you. New manager Jeff is totally OC-awesome) is because of what "good ol' Larry" said and how he acted towards an OC'er: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=4395
His actions disgusted me so much that I added the business... and I made it clear that I was making an exception to the rules because of it. Is is fair that I got to "bend" the rules that I made for the thread? Sure, I made the rules and keep the list up to date (as best I can with schooling) with good formatting and links for relevance. Maybe it's just me, but I think I've earned a little discretionary leeway on how that list is handled. At the same time, it should be rather apparent that I'm very open to the opinions of this forum and it's members, as I've added businesses to the DNP List that I really didn't want to.

And yes, that is the general purpose of a DNP List... to "vote with your dollar", so to speak.

 

[just_a_car]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

just_a_car wrote:

TWICE, when I went to testify in Olympia in front of the Committee for Higher Education, I was joined by representatives from the NRA, CCRKBA, and the Hunter's Association... but no WAC; twice. I took the time out of my day (and out of my classes) to go down there because it was important to support my rights as a firearms owner and a student at a higher education institution. I was VERY disappointed in WAC that they couldn't even show up, as did the other major Pro-2A groups. I can't support a group that can't put the effort into supporting my 2A rights when they're being assaulted directly with legislation.

The "WAC representative" yo were looking for was Joe Waldron, WAC president at the time and lobbyist for GOAL, the grassroots group.

The room was full of WAC members. Just who in hell do you think those people were, eh?

Thanks for letting me in on that. I was totally unaware that any members were there, as none identified themselves as such. I do recall the GOAL person testifying, though.

Consider this a rescinding of my objection and disappointment in WAC's participation... and furthermore, an appreciation for standing with me as I sat before our state's governing body as a "mere individual" to testify.

As a total aside, did you get to see the elderly man and woman that came down from Arlington (I think?) to testify for the Pro-Gun cause... BOTH TIMES!? Honestly, it was good to see everyone from the elderly to the young college student stand up for what is right. Same goes for the Democrats on the committee that made pro-gun statements. The one that stood out to me was the lady on the right that related a story about going shooting with her father and that she took the rifle she inherited out shooting every once in a while and she asked if the bill before them (the first one I testified at) would prevent her from simply having it in her vehicle to take with her shooting after attending classes (which it would have).

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

just_a_car wrote:

As a total aside, did you get to see the elderly man and woman that came down from Arlington (I think?) to testify for the Pro-Gun cause... BOTH TIMES!? Honestly, it was good to see everyone from the elderly to the young college student stand up for what is right. Same goes for the Democrats on the committee that made pro-gun statements. The one that stood out to me was the lady on the right that related a story about going shooting with her father and that she took the rifle she inherited out shooting every once in a while and she asked if the bill before them (the first one I testified at) would prevent her from simply having it in her vehicle to take with her shooting after attending classes (which it would have).

I think I know those folks.
s far as you being a "mere citizen" while testifying, just keep this in perspective. In a room full of politicians, you outrank everyone there by being a "mere citizen."

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Are you denying my right to disagree? Please explain the rerunning of the election 3 times until the board got the results they wanted. Sound way to much like "she's not my governor's" election.

And this happened when?

you go ahead and disagree. You like being disagreeable.

Mainly with people who are never, ever wrong. I don't remember you ever admitting you were ever in error about anything. Never met or talked to a perfect person, but I do fine them to be extremely disagreeable individuals.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

[
And this happened when?

you go ahead and disagree. You like being disagreeable.

Mainly with people who are never, ever wrong.  I don't remember you ever admitting you were ever in error about anything.   Never met or talked to a perfect person,  but I do fine them to be extremely disagreeable individuals.[/quote]

Answer the question. This happened when?
Documentation.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Aww crud people. It's obvious some don't like disarming for a gun show. I personally won't go there for that reason. Of course I don't have a car, live in Oly and work Saturdays so it's really a moot point for me.

It's bad enough I have to disarm for work, so I tend to get my hackles up when a pro gun organization wants me to disarm. OTOH I understood I couldn't pack at work when I took the job, so mebbe pissing about WAC is a bit hypocritical for me. I dunno. I know there is a difference between making a living and having a hobby. There are plenty of gunshops that have no objection to me walking in with a gun on my hip that I can give them my business. My gun and ammo needs are so narrow that I really don't need a gun show to fill them, so again it becomes a moot point for me.

At any rate this thread is getting so squabbly it is could send the wrong message to noobs watching us. Or antis. This subject comes up so often and always ends the same.

Let's just smile and enjoy Independence Day. I got rained on so hard walking home from work I gave up on going back downtown and taking my Ruger for a walk. Time to enjoy some good food and consider the events that lead us to this day where we are free to piss about things like places that sell guns making us take them off to get it.

At least we can grumble AND own guns. Not everyone enjoys those freedoms.

I read a sig line somewhere that said only two definable groups have died for you. Christ for your soul and a member of the US Armed Forces for your Freedom. Well I have the freedom to ignore WAC and will do so. Others have the freedom to embrace them and will do so. And the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, blah blah blah.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

[
And this happened when?

you go ahead and disagree. You like being disagreeable.

Mainly with people who are never, ever wrong. I don't remember you ever admitting you were ever in error about anything. Never met or talked to a perfect person, but I do fine them to be extremely disagreeable individuals.Answer the question.

Answer the question. This happened when?
Documentation.

[/quote]

[/quote]About 10 years ago, maybemore,a group started collecting proxies from members to block vote against the good old boys in-charge and theywon the first and second rounds until the board decide proxies were illegal. There had been nothing illegal before. It was pure backroom bad politics at it's worse and that's when I started my move toward leaving WAC.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Aww crud people. It's obvious some don't like disarming for a gun show. I personally won't go there for that reason. Of course I don't have a car, live in Oly and work Saturdays so it's really a moot point for me.

It's bad enough I have to disarm for work, so I tend to get my hackles up when a pro gun organization wants me to disarm. OTOH I understood I couldn't pack at work when I took the job, so mebbe pissing about WAC is a bit hypocritical for me. I dunno. I know there is a difference between making a living and having a hobby. There are plenty of gunshops that have no objection to me walking in with a gun on my hip that I can give them my business. My gun and ammo needs are so narrow that I really don't need a gun show to fill them, so again it becomes a moot point for me.

At any rate this thread is getting so squabbly it is could send the wrong message to noobs watching us. Or antis. This subject comes up so often and always ends the same.

Let's just smile and enjoy Independence Day. I got rained on so hard walking home from work I gave up on going back downtown and taking my Ruger for a walk. Time to enjoy some good food and consider the events that lead us to this day where we are free to piss about things like places that sell guns making us take them off to get it.

At least we can grumble AND own guns. Not everyone enjoys those freedoms.

I read a sig line somewhere that said only two definable groups have died for you. Christ for your soul and a member of the US Armed Forces for your Freedom. Well I have the freedom to ignore WAC and will do so. Others have the freedom to embrace them and will do so. And the wheel in the sky keeps on turning, blah blah blah.

That would be Dawei, another one of you ultra- liberal Olympians.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

That would be Dawei, another one of you ultra- liberal Olympians.

LOL. Don't see why people think you are a grumpy guy. Heck this the second time you made me laugh today. Of course I need to be nice to you, I need that ride on the 13th, and those SKS accessories still...

Of course most Olympians think I'm nuts, but then again I think most Olympians are nuts so it evens out.