• 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.

Statement to share on I-594

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,025
Location
Central South Sound
I think it needs to be made clear how I-594 will affect non gun owners if you want people to vote no. At the Seattle Rally, and in your statement, pretty much all that was said was how I-594 would affect gun owners. The largest population of people inclined to vote yes on I-594 are the non gun owners and they don't give a rat's butt about how it will affect us.

I-594 has no additional funding associated with it. How many tens of thousands of "transfers" of firearms between private parties occur in Washington every year? Nobody can know, but we can guess it is in the magnitude of tens of thousands with such a broad definition of "transfer" that I-594 allows. Since there is no funding for I-594 - who or what is going to cover the expense and time required for LEO agencies to conduct these tens of thousands of additional background checks? Nothing is going to fund that or provide the manpower to accomplish it. That means that LEO agencies must use existing resources, which are already stretched to breaking, to do these background checks with. So ask the person voting yes what would they prefer? Would they prefer that LEO agencies will tie up their resources doing background checks on tens of thousands of people who are volunteering to have a check done on them, who are 99% likely chance to pass it, and for which there is no penalty associated if they fail the background check because no crime is committed if they fail as long as the firearm is not transferred to them? Or would they prefer that those resources be used to investigate actual crimes and be used to catch the criminals who have already committed criminal acts?
I agree with you on the voters comment...this is largely about getting the vote out in one respect, but I am not sure that we can climb that hill alone. I've been discussing this with a number of my friends that are gun neutral...(don't have them, don't care) to help them understand the issues and am getting some resonance.

I think the pushback from them to your proposition of the loss of police resources is easily answered by the opposition's 10 day limit on the sale to proceed if it is not responded to. "Yes, It is an inconvenience, but not an unreasonable one, if it saves one life" is the attitude.

We had been out for our weekend walk with them and bkf after and my wife drew us into the conversation, our friends wife was surprised that I carried, and felt a need to carry in the "park" for our walk (Pt. Defiance), her perception of risk and situational awareness is exceedingly low. I asked her about coffee shops, (Tully), My bank that had been robbed at gunpoint just several hours after I had been there on a Saturday, the local pizza place where we go in a strip mall that had a fight break out and two people died in the ensuing shooting....she was just "unaware" of any of these things and couldn't relate to them as real.

I was happy to read through the opposition position and examples and the prosecutors who wrote it and could easily pick out the weakness'....but disappointed to see a similar tack of fear based rhetoric in the support statements for the initiative we support. I am not sure that it will speak to "gun-neutral" voters who could play a key role in the decisions.

I'm not sure that anyone actually remembers the door to door confiscation in the hurricane in Louisiana or reasonably thinks "that could happen here if this law is passed!" "All it would take is a lahar from Mt Rainier!"....it just doesn't sell very well.

Remember these are the voters....who elected Inslee. The State House will remain controlled by the D's, If the State Senate tumbles, it will be tougher to slow down the onslaught.
 
Last edited:

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
I'm not sure that anyone actually remembers the door to door confiscation in the hurricane in Louisiana or reasonably thinks "that could happen here if this law is passed!" "All it would take is a lahar from Mt Rainier!"....it just doesn't sell very well.
It surprises me that many people still cling to American "exceptional-ism" that things that have befallen other nations can't happen here. Or that restrictions will stop with "one more reasonable and prudent measure." First it is I-594, then an "assault weapons" ban, then high cap magazines, then confiscation of any of the above. It never stops.
 
Top