• 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.
  • 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.

Seattle anti-gunners reveal 2019 agenda and OC is mentioned

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
, ,
#1
WA gun control lobby will target preemption, magazines, open carry

The Seattle-based gun control lobby has announced its Washington State legislative priorities for 2019, and among them are state preemption, possession of so-called “high-capacity magazines,” and open carry, according to a news release.

https://conservativefiringline.com/wa-gun-control-lobby-will-target-preemption-magazines-open-carry/
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,768
Location
here nc
#5
Mr workman, i notice with extreme interest you cite an organizational blog, which presents itself as a glossy national ‘hustler in your face style’ shock & awe, ‘the sky is falling’ type of electonic newspeek media outlet as the basis for your astounding proclamation regarding possible/maybe/could be future anti firearm OPEN CARRY issues in the Evergreen state instead of using the true source of the information, the alliance for gun responsibility [ http://mynorthwest.com/1207768/stat...pacity-magazines-more/?show=comments#comments ]

Their blog seems not so hysterically oriented where they blatantly stated, quote:
...the advocacy group is seeking to expand Extreme Risk Protection Orders, to include “hate-based threats,” to limit open carry firearms in crowded public events, parks, and libraries, and to restrict access to high-capacity magazines. Unquote. Hummm doesn’t seem as much shock & awe bravado as the conservative blah blah newspeek article, especially regarding their reporting on practice of OPEN CARRY in the Evergreen state!

This group is pushing their agenda in the legislative body...political careers through re-election are now at stake if legislators advocate these measures.

Mind you, those few Washingtonian citizens left who are in fact firearm advocates should rightly be concerned but truth be told, their might should be pushing at the root cause of their frustrations ~ the initiative process which well funded special interest individuals can legally force therir will on the state’s population without any legislative oversight as the process removes any further legislative accountability so legislators have no political reputation to lose since the initiative process is the “voice of the people.”

Sorry Mr. Workman but why not fire up & stir the pot for the masses to fix or correct, once and for all, the root cause of plethora of anti firearm initiative generated issue(s) instead of promoting knee jerk 15 minutes of bravado fame from glossy newspeek media pushing such blatant misinformation ?
 

Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
3,991
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
#6
What are their plans for Article 1 Section 24? I doubt they won't go after that, not if they are going this far to strip our rights.
Whatever plan to repeal, will not work.

Per Article I of the constitution:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY.
The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
SECTION 30 RIGHTS RESERVED.
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.
§24 says The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself.... shall not be impaired. Any law that impairs the type of arms and their components (size of magazine) is unconstitutional. §29 says that The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory. This section makes it clear that any statutory law passed in derogation of §24 is unconstitutional. And, §30 says that even if §24 was repealed the right to bear arms would remain a right.

 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,768
Location
here nc
#8
This would not be an issue if the People actually voted, instead of trying to fix the problem after the fact. You get what you vote for.
But eliminating/changing the initiative process would stop/hamper the big bucks special interest individual(s) from self-promoting their agenda on the Evergreen’s citizens!
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
, ,
#10
Mr workman, i notice with extreme interest you cite an organizational blog, which presents itself as a glossy national ‘hustler in your face style’ shock & awe, ‘the sky is falling’ type of electonic newspeek media outlet as the basis for your astounding proclamation regarding possible/maybe/could be future anti firearm OPEN CARRY issues in the Evergreen state instead of using the true source of the information, the alliance for gun responsibility [ http://mynorthwest.com/1207768/stat...pacity-magazines-more/?show=comments#comments ]

Their blog seems not so hysterically oriented where they blatantly stated, quote:
...the advocacy group is seeking to expand Extreme Risk Protection Orders, to include “hate-based threats,” to limit open carry firearms in crowded public events, parks, and libraries, and to restrict access to high-capacity magazines. Unquote. Hummm doesn’t seem as much shock & awe bravado as the conservative blah blah newspeek article, especially regarding their reporting on practice of OPEN CARRY in the Evergreen state!

This group is pushing their agenda in the legislative body...political careers through re-election are now at stake if legislators advocate these measures.

Mind you, those few Washingtonian citizens left who are in fact firearm advocates should rightly be concerned but truth be told, their might should be pushing at the root cause of their frustrations ~ the initiative process which well funded special interest individuals can legally force therir will on the state’s population without any legislative oversight as the process removes any further legislative accountability so legislators have no political reputation to lose since the initiative process is the “voice of the people.”

Sorry Mr. Workman but why not fire up & stir the pot for the masses to fix or correct, once and for all, the root cause of plethora of anti firearm initiative generated issue(s) instead of promoting knee jerk 15 minutes of bravado fame from glossy newspeek media pushing such blatant misinformation ?
I'm not entirely certain what you just said. It seems like an insult to somebody.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
6,768
Location
here nc
#12
I'm not entirely certain what you just said. It seems like an insult to somebody.
Mr. Workman, I am truly sorry you, by your own admission, had difficulting understanding my previous post. please allow me to reiterate and quantify the gist of my comment regarding your inital post...

1. Why did you cite the slick newspeek, shock & awe op-ed media article instead of the actual organizational agenda who is postulating their legislative based agenda not initiative driven?

2. Why aren’t you, from your established leadership of firearm advocacy within the PNW, pushing firearm advocates on WA firearms forums as well as with State & Community leaders to mitigate the root cause of the 594 & 1639 debacles which was initated through the well funded promotion by special interest individuals who are abusing the early 1900 initiative process?

Mr Workman, I am terribly sorry you misinterpreted and felt my post was intended as an insult to someone [?], perhaps you felt this way because, as you stated above, you ‘were not entirely certain what’ i said, which is perhaps why you you reached such an erroneous conclusion?

I certainly hope that clarifies the subject for you and look forward to seeing advocacy on mitigating the root causal issues [lack of voter support isn’t it!] instead of same old “the sky is falling type shock and awe’ which didn’t work worth a plug’d nickel as 594 & 1639 have shown!
 

Top