Mises Institute: America’s Private Militias of the Nineteenth Century

Richardson Light Guard of Wakefield, MA

Ryan McMaken at the Mises Institute writes of some little known American history in America’s Private Militias of the Nineteenth Century

Since at least as early as the mid-1990s, the term “militia” has been increasingly used by journalists and scholars on the left in connection with alleged “right-wing extremists.”1

Over time, the term “militia” has been used to describe nearly any group of nonleftist armed men, and has been generally used in close connection with terms like “extremism,” “violence,” and “vigilante.” We have been reminded of this in recent years during riots in places like Ferguson, Missouri (in 2014), and Kenosha, Wisconsin (in 2020). In both cases, armed volunteers attempted to assist private sector business owners with protecting their property from looters and rioters. And in both cases, the volunteers were described with terms such as: “violent,” “militia,” “extreme,” and “white vigilante.”

Historically in the United States, however, the term “militia” had entirely different connotations. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, militias were considered to be common institutions central to civic and community life. They were a common fixture of local festivals and celebrations, and they functioned in some ways as fraternal orders function today.

Although some critics of the militia idea have attempted to claim militias existed primarily to suppress slave rebellions, the fact is militias were common and widespread in Northern states where they had no role whatsoever in maintaining the institution of slavery. In fact, militias often served an important role in providing opportunities and community cohesion for new immigrants.

The Local Militias of the Nineteenth Century

What’s more, many militias were independent of a centralized state militia system and functioned largely as private entities. They elected their own officers, were self-funded, and trained on their own schedules. Although they were ostensibly commanded by the state governors, this system of functionally private militias became an established part of daily life for many Americans. These were local volunteer militias with names like the “Richardson Light Guard,” the “Detroit Light Guard,” or the “Asmonean Guard.”2 They were essentially private clubs composed of gun owners who were expected to assist in keeping law and order within the cities and towns of the United States.

They were separate from the so-called common militias, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and which in many cases were staffed with conscripts, were funded with tax dollars, and were commanded by an established state bureaucracy.

But by the Jacksonian period, new volunteer militias began to arise. As noted by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, the United States by the 1830s had seen “a remarkable growth in the privately organized volunteer militia. The number of volunteer units had been expanding steadily since the American Revolution, but after the war of 1812, it exploded. Three hundred sprang up in California alone between 1849 and 1856.”3

These groups were, in the words of historian Marcus Cunliffe, “volunteer companies existing independently of the statewide system of militia, and they held themselves aloof from the common mass. They provided their own uniforms.”4

They also elected their own officers, did their own fundraising, staffed their own governing boards, and sought out for themselves a secure position within the communities where members lived. In earlier decades, especially the 1830s and 1840s, these groups tended to be “elite” in the sense that they attracted upper middle– and upper-class members of the community. This was in many cases because of the cost of funding these volunteer militias.

As a member of the Detroit Light Guard remembered, “at that time the company got nothing from the State. They had to pay for all they got, uniforms and all.”5

But by the 1850s, firearms and uniforms were becoming more affordable to the middle and working classes. This brought in many new members from outside the local elite circles of established families. Moreover, some militias were able to solicit funding from wealthy members of the community who acted as patrons. The case of the Richardson Light Guard (RLG) is instructive:

The RLG came into being in South Reading, Massachusetts, in 1851, in response to a perceived shortage of militiamen in the years following the Mexican War. At the time, all that was necessary for the militia to be regarded as legally sanctions was for the group to “petition the governor” for what amounted to a nod of approval. This was granted. But at that point, the group still lacked funding. Although members paid dues, historian Barry Stentiford notes that “Dues were not enough [to] cover the expenses of the fledgling company, and committee members had to use their own money to carry out its business.”6

Members came up with a plan to offer “honorary memberships” to wealthy members of the community. The largest donor in this scheme was a man named Richardson, after whom the militia was soon named. Funding from prominent community members also added legitimacy to the group and ensured it would continue to be regarded as a community-sanctioned group of armed men.

Although the RLG enjoyed legal sanction, it was essentially a private organization, and Stentiford notes, “At its inception, the RLG belonged to its members, and to prominent residents of the town of South Reading. The town of South Reading, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the federal government occupied a diminishing hierarchy of influence.”7

In other words, while everyone admitted local, state, and federal officials enjoyed some form of control of the militia, this authority was tentative at best.

Massachusetts wasn’t the only place were militias were privately funded and privately controlled. When Iowa became a US territory in 1838, for example, an “official” territorial militia was formed. On the other hand:

The formation of local militia groups was more relaxed in comparison to the State militia service. To form a local militia group one would simply ask for local men to sign up, name the group, possibly elect officials or form by-laws, and then write to the Iowa Territory legislature to introduce themselves and request weapons….If you received a positive letter back and weapons, you were a militia group in the Territory of Iowa.

Indeed, this sort of local—and even private ownership—was an increasingly common method of organizing militias by midcentury. Hummel concludes that “Because many volunteer units were privately organized, recruited, and equipped, the militia became a partially privatized system as well.”

Because of their local nature, many militias reflected local character as well—and access was hardly limited to national ethnic majorities. By the 1850s, immigrants had come to dominate many volunteer militias, with Irish, Scottish, and German militias becoming especially common. The Scottish militiamen wore kilts as part of their parade uniforms. The Italians created a “Guardia Nazionale Italiana.” Robert Ernst notes that the “significance of the immigrant military companies is evident in the fact that in 1853, more than 4,000 of the 6,000 uniformed militia in New York City were of foreign birth.”8

Nor were militia groups limited to Christians. Jack D. Foner recounts in the American Jewish Archives Journal:

Jews in New York City formed military companies of their own. Troop K, Empire Hussars, was composed entirely of Jews, as was the Young Men’s Lafayette Association. A third unit, the Asmonean Guard, consisted of both Jewish and Christian employees of The Asmonean, one of the earliest Anglo-Jewish weekly newspapers. “Our employees,” commented the newspaper, “have been seized with this military mania, as they have enrolled themselves into an independent corps.”

As militias became more middle class, their names changed as well. Militias began to refer to themselves with names that might be used for sports teams today, including terms like “Invincibles,” “Avengers,” and “Snake Hunters.”

Dress uniforms were often extravagant and modeled on Napoleon’s troops earlier in the century. These groups were even known to impress foreigners. As one Englishman remarked: “They marched in sections, with a splendid band at their head and…it would be impossible to find a more military-looking, well-drilled body of men.”9

These volunteer militias were attractive to potential members, because these groups served many social functions as well. As noted by historian Briton Cooper Busch, “in peacetime, all [volunteer militias] helped their communities celebrate festivals, holidays, and funerals with marches, balls, and banquets, helping out in emergencies, and often building an esprit de corps which established a basis for effective wartime service and even elite reputations.”10

In many cases, membership in a local militia provided opportunities for social advancement, and “it was not uncommon for individual families to have long associations with these institutions.”11 For newcomers to any community, whether or not of foreign origin, “the militia company provided a means for newer residents to embed themselves into the fabric of the community.”12

The volunteer militias played a similar role to that of the volunteer fire brigades of this period, which in many communities came to be dominated by immigrant groups and served as a way to and advance the social and economic lives of newcomers.13

Militias Replaced by Full-Time Government Police and Centralized “National Guard”

Needless to say, this model of American militias is long gone from the imagination of nearly all Americans. Modern-day journalists and scholars have been hard at work attempting to connect militias, past and present, either to slavery or to fringe groups and vigilantism. Moreover, many Americans now regard the idea of privately controlled bands of armed men with trepidation and fear.

As the size and scope of taxpayer-funded bureaucratic agencies grew throughout the nineteenth century, private volunteer militias were deemed increasingly unnecessary and undesirable. The late nineteenth century was a period during which states and the federal government went to great lengths to end the old system of locally controlled militias, and this was topped off by the Militia Act of 1903 which largely ended state autonomy in controlling state military resources as well. By 1945, the National Guard was well on its way to becoming little more than an auxiliary to the federal government’s military establishment, although some remnants of the old decentralized system remained.

When it comes to urban environments, these militia were in many respects replaced by today’s state and local police forces, which unlike the volunteer militias are on the job full-time and enjoy immunity and privileges far beyond what any militia member of old might have ever dreamed of having. Rather than private self-funded militias called out only occasionally to quell riots and uprisings, we have immense, taxpayer-paid police forces with military equipment, SWAT teams, and riot gear to carry out no-knock raids (often getting the address wrong).

The old militia system was by no means flawless, but this switch to a more centralized bureaucratic system is not without costs of its own, both in terms of dollars and the potential for abuse.

Moreover, as has become increasingly apparent in recent years, National Guard troops and local police forces are clearly inadequate to provide safety and security for private homes and businesses. Half of the nation’s violent crimes remain “unsolved” as police focus on petty drug offenses rather than homicides. Meanwhile—as happened in both Ferguson and Kenosha—National Guard troops focus their protection on government buildings while private businesses burn.

The dominant shapers of public opinion would have us believe that volunteer groups of armed men must be regarded with horror. Yet it is increasingly clear that the institutions that have replaced the militias of the past still leave much to be desired.

Ammoland: N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James Sues to Dissolve NRA

From Ammoland, N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James Sues to Dissolve NRA, detailing NY’s latest step in their months-long investigation into alleged NRA corruption and mismanagement.

New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday filed a civil lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, seeking to dissolve the National Rifle Association.

The move comes at a time when NRA is fully involved in the 2020 election process and will be interpreted by many as an effort to cripple the organization and reduce its political influence at a critical moment.

At the same time, the District of Columbia filed a separate lawsuit, naming the NRA and the NRA Foundation as defendants. This action was filed by Karl A. Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia.

Fox News reported the NRA immediately responded with a countersuit against James, insisting the organization is following New York’s not-for-profit law. The NRA lawsuit asserts James is “targeting the organization for its political positions, violating its free speech rights,” Fox News said.

Fox also quoted NRA President Carolyn Meadows, who describes the New York lawsuit as “a baseless, premeditated attack.” She questioned the timing of the lawsuit.

“You could have set your watch by it,” Meadows said in a prepared statement. “The investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle. It’s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda. This has been a power grab by a political opportunist – a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta. Our members won’t be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.”

Meadows, according to Fox News, insisted the gun rights organization “will not shrink from this fight – we will confront it and prevail.”

The 169-page New York lawsuit alleges that longtime NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre “has exploited the organization for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members, and vendors.” NRA is incorporated in the State of New York.

In addition to LaPierre and the NRA, the lawsuit names former NRA Treasurer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, Chief of Staff and the Executive Vice President of Operations Joshua Powell and General Counsel John Frazer as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that “With the assistance of Phillips, Powell and Frazer, LaPierre abused his position as a fiduciary to the NRA to obtain millions of dollars in personal benefits in the form of undisclosed, excessive compensation, which includes in-kind benefits and reimbursements from the NRA and its vendors.”

The document further alleges that “LaPierre has undertaken a series of actions to consolidate his position; to exploit that position for his personal benefit and that of his family; to continue, by use of a secret “poison pill contract,” his employment even after removal and ensuring NRA income for life; and to intimidate, punish, and expel anyone at a senior level who raised concerns about his conduct.”

In a statement quoted by the Washington Examiner, James declared, “The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets. The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.”

In her complaint, James asks the court to find “that the NRA is liable to be dissolved pursuant to (a) N-PCL § 1101(a)(2) based upon the NRA’s pattern of conducting its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, abusing its powers contrary to public policy of New York and its tax-exempt status, and failing to provide for the proper administration of its trust assets and institutional funds; and/or (b) N-PCL § 1102(a)(2) because directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporation assets, have operated the NRA solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner.”

Further, James asks the Court to rule “that the interest of the public and the members of the NRA supports a decision to dissolve the NRA.”

James is also asking the court to direct the individual defendants “to account, make restitution and pay all penalties resulting from the breach of fiduciary duties and their misuse of charitable assets for their own benefit and interests.” She also seeks to enjoin the defendants “from future service as an officer, director or trustee, or in any other capacity as a fiduciary of any not-for-profit or charitable organization incorporated or authorized to conduct business in the State of New York, or which solicits charitable donations in the State of New York, or which holds charitable assets in New York.”

Tanya Metaksa, who served as executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action—the organization’s political lobbying arm—told Ammoland News, “I hope it’s going to be a long fight. I think it’s all political.”

Metaksa, now retired, spent 4 ½ years in the position as NRA’s chief lobbyist. She also at one time served on the NRA Board of Directors.

Richard Feldman, an attorney who is also president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, Inc., said via email, “Perhaps the biggest swamp in the DC area is located at Waples Mill Road! Time to drain that swamp.”

In 2007, Feldman authored a memoir of his time working at the NRA titled, “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.” He was both applauded and castigated within the firearms community, depending upon the perspective of each observer.

In a subsequent telephone conversation, Feldman added, “I think it sucks that the NRA leadership has put American gun owners in this almost untenable position.”

He asserted the timing of both lawsuits is purely political.

“They didn’t wait until after the November election to drop this,” he said.

If the NRA is forced to dissolve, that could put enormous pressure on other gun rights organizations to fill a void.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, and also chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, provided a statement to Ammoland News.

“I firmly believe that you’re innocent until proven guilty,” he said of the allegations contained in the civil lawsuits. “But it is also my belief that the NRA board of directors should have taken action when these allegations were first raised and preempted any action that could be taken by the New York State attorney general and the attorney general for the District of Columbia.”

In recent years, SAF has become a legal powerhouse, fighting dozens of court battles to advance Second Amendment rights, an effort he has often described as a campaign to “make the Second Amendment great again.”

“While there is no doubt both of these attorney generals are opponents of Second Amendment rights,” Gottlieb said, “and have an axe to grind, these are serious allegations that have not been put to bed by the leadership of the NRA over the last several years.

“Fortunately, for the gun rights movement,” he observed, “the strength of the NRA is not only in its leadership but in its members. Its members will not abandon the fight to protect Second Amendment rights.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation—the firearms industry umbrella group—provided a statement to Ammoland:

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry’s trade association, is troubled by the politically-driven decision of New York Attorney General Letitia James to seek to dissolve the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest civil rights organization. The lawsuit filed today by Attorney General James seeks to punish the over five million members of the National Rifle Association based on mere allegations of possible wrongdoing by a few individuals.

“NSSF is deeply concerned about the apparent political agenda to silence the strongest voice in support of the Second Amendment ahead of the election in November.

“This lawsuit, and one filed today by the District of Columbia Attorney General, should concern all Americans who cherish both the First and Second Amendments to our Constitution regardless of their views on what laws and regulations are appropriate to address the criminal misuse of firearms.”

The legal action launched by the District of Columbia Thursday was filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.

There have been no criminal allegations in either jurisdiction. Both lawsuits are civil in nature.

In the District complaint, Racine notes the NRA Foundation was “established to operate solely for charitable purposes related to promoting firearm and hunting safety.”

In his complaint, Racine asserts, “In recent years, the NRA has experienced financial problems related, in large part, to low membership and the NRA’s decision to continue to waste funds on improper, lavish spending. To plug financial holes caused by its own poor management, the NRA turned to the Foundation’s funds. Because the Foundation’s Board of Trustees and executives are dominated by the NRA, and the NRA had subverted the Foundation’s independence, the Foundation has allowed itself to be financially exploited through, among other things, unfair loans and management fee payments to the NRA.

“In allowing its funds to be diverted from charitable purposes and wasted to prop up the NRA in impermissible ways,” the District complaint continues, “the Foundation Board of Trustees has failed to provide meaningful oversight and failed in its fiduciary duties. Through this enforcement action, the District seeks injunctive relief sufficient to reform the Foundation’s lack of proper independent governance and a constructive trust over Foundation funds improperly wasted on the NRA.”

Later in the 24-page District complaint, the District observes, “Charitable corporations receive various federal and state tax benefits, including eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions. Charitable corporations hold their assets for the benefit of the public and must ensure those assets are used for their intended and tax-subsidized purpose. Charitable corporations are not permitted to engage in or fund political campaign activity; may not engage in more than an insubstantial amount of lobbying activity; their assets may not inure to the benefit of insiders, and they may not be organized and operated for the benefit of private interests.”

With both legal actions coming 90 days before the national elections in November, many gun owners and Second Amendment activists, as Feldman and others observed for this story, will be immediately convinced this is a political maneuver to weaken the NRA at a time it needs to be strongest.

Black Man with a Gun: Why Is it Necessary for You to Get Firearms Training?

Photo courtesy realworld-tactical.com

Andrea Bell at Black Man with a Gun writes about Why Is it Necessary for You to Get Firearms Training?

Firearm ownership has been highly debated by international audiences. Policy-makers are always going back and forth about the legal position of firearms for public accessibility. With the increasing judicial limitations on the subject, it is evident that being responsible with weapons is critically important and cannot be taken for granted.

Because if you support the second amendment and would like to be the savior, you need to pick up an arm. Then the least you can do is sign up for training sessions and keep your skills well-honed.

Why do you need a firearm training?

The reason why people own firearms in the first place is to defend themselves and their loved ones in the worst-case scenario. Having a gun with no technical knowledge about its use is equivalent to leaving a nuclear bomb in the hands of an ape.

Imagine you are tied down on a chair and have someone across the room holding your loved ones on point-blank. You are tied down and are a picture of helplessness while the tormentor is agonizing your children.

You look around for some assistance and find a firearm lying right beside you. You strife to break away from the hold and try eventually to get rid of the rope tying you down. You have the arm in hand and are about to shoot the villain in the distance, but your firearm is jammed, and you do not know what else to do.

So you sweat more and think less, and an armed man comes to shoot you when you are awakened by a piercing scream of your toddler. You open your eyes and realize that it was a nightmare. Kiss your wife and child and search for the first firearm & bow range memberships to prevent this nightmare from becoming a reality.

Concerning the scenario written above, we would like to reiterate to our audience the reasons why firearm training is crucial for all gun-toting individuals.

Conduct Self-defense indoors and outdoors

Firearm training is not restricted to teaching you only about the shoot. In the long shot, it shows you to prevent losing focus in dangerous encounters. Training helps you develop an efficient strategy for the defense at home and in the outdoors.

These pieces of training inform you about the consequences of mishandling a potent device of violence. Most significantly, the training ingrains one thing in your mind, and that is the impact of shooting a person. Regardless of the circumstances, you were caught in, shooting a living being could shock your system into chaos and collapse and lead to life-altering consequences.

Discover the critical aspects of firearm handling

The basics of firearm safety and operations are often taught by friends and relatives who have prior training and experience. However, these brief sessions are never enough to learn all the critical aspects of firearm handling.

Hence we suggest our readers to invest their time and attention in taking classes from professional instructors so that they can stay updated about the subject and stay in prime shape. There is no denial in the fact that your marksman skills advance with every lesson learned and practically applied. So engage in this training to avoid any unfortunate events of  violence in your life…(continues)

Olympia Rally 4 UR Rights, GRC Lobby Day, Jan. 17, 2020

In case you missed the previous post, Washington state Democrats are introducing at least three, new anti-rights bills for the 2020 money grubbing  legislative session — assault firearm ban, a standard-capacity magazine ban, and ammunition purchasing restrictions. Gun Rights Coalition is planning a Rally 4 UR Rights event in Olympia at the Capitol on Friday, Jan. 17th, 2020 from 8:30 am to 12:00 pm.

Allevents.in link

Facebook link

Rally 4 UR Rights, GRC Lobby Day

 

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.”… Pericles

Rally 4 UR Rights
Gun Rights Coalition Lobby Day
hosted by Gun Rights Coalition

Join us at the Capital legislative steps continuing to defend your
2nd Amendment Rights. It’s TIME to fight back!
Listen to Pro2A legislators on how we can turn the tide, stay engaged and put pressure on elected officials in Districts that took your rights away!

0800-0900 Set up
0910-1030 Legislative Speakers
1045-1200 Meet up with your Legislators of your District
*** Contact your legislators for appointments for this day***
We will have a team there to both help you find your reps and to help you write letters to them.

* Goal is to have a large attendance, from as many legislative districts, voters engaged in civil dialog educating elected officials, find support for the Pro2A community, getting involved in 2020 Legislative session protecting your rights, and getting involved after session. (Vote OUT elected officials that don’t support YOU)

“You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.” …Margaret Thatcher

Please note: We would like to ask anyone that carries firearms to please keep them holstered or slung. Each of us is responsible for our own actions. That includes both appropriate safety and conducting ourselves in a respectful manner that will reflect positively on the group as a whole. Thanks and can’t wait to see you all there.

Virginia recently passed similar restrictions and citizens and the counties have overwhelmingly responded against the laws, passing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions in 89 counties, cities or municipalities. Will Washingtonians prove weaker?

Guardian: Why Leftist Groups Are Taking Up Arms

From The Guardian, ‘If others have rifles, we’ll have rifles’: why US leftist groups are taking up arms:

A John Brown Gun Club member wears a patch featuring the Trans Pride flag and an AR-15 while community defending Trans Pride in Seattle.
A John Brown Gun Club member wears a patch featuring the Trans Pride flag and an AR-15 while community defending Trans Pride in Seattle. Photograph: Grant Hindsley/The Guardian

The van lumbered down one of Seattle’s many steep hills. A half dozen people packed inside but despite the heat, most wore long pants and boots, and several sported black hoodies. The atmosphere was subdued, except for the occasional joke. It wasn’t so much tension as seriousness – there was work to be done.

The people in the van are members of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club (PSJBGC). Their stated aim is to fight white supremacy and build community defense in America’s Pacific north-west, and their presence has become a fixture of protests in the Seattle and Tacoma areas, where the group is often invited to provide security against rightwing aggression.

The night before, several of them had been called to a library in nearby Renton, Washington, where a Drag Story Time Hour, an event series in which a local drag queen or drag king reads to children in a library or bookstore, was being disrupted by rightwing protesters. The protesters, who opposed the event as “immoral”, held up signs equating drag with pedophilia, and screamed “Shame! Shame!” at parents and their kids. Among them were members of the Proud Boys, a violent rightwing street gang, and Three Percenters militia, who were open-carrying firearms.

The north-west has been at the center of tense political clashes over the last two years. The area is an adopted home base for far-right groups like Patriot Prayer, Identity Evropa/American Identity Movement and the Proud Boys, who have organized numerous marches that have ended in violence. In response, a range of leftist groups have organized self defence groups and, in doing so, present gun ownership as a way to protect themselves and others.

Now, the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club was en route to Seattle’s Trans Pride March.

In the weeks prior, word spread that a number of white supremacist groups had planned to disrupt the celebration. Hearing this, the club reached out to the organizers of the event, the Gender Justice League, and offered to assist with security or to provide escorts.

Brooke Wylie, the head of security for the Gender Justice League in charge of overseeing the 101-person security detail for the event, did some research on the club. She told them the event had a policy of having no open carry (that is, no visible weapon), which they were fine with. She accepted their offer. Police were also present, but many marginalized groups do not trust them to provide protection at public events, especially when far-right groups are involved.

Each member showed up with a concealed handgun. “We do our actions proportional to the threat, so when other people are out with rifles, we’ll be out with rifles,” Nick, the group’s de facto spokesperson, explained. “In this case, we don’t want to appear threatening for the people that we’re trying to protect and support; we want this to be a happy atmosphere, especially for a population that may have faced gun violence on the street just for being who they are.”

This scenario – in which armed community groups are working together to patrol a Pride event and protect it from other malicious and potentially armed groups – is becoming more and more common. There are more guns than people in America – approximately 393 million in a country of 328 million people…

Click here to read the entire story at The Guardian.

 

Related:

Defense Maven: Man killed in attack on ICE facility identified as Antifa militia member/John Brown Gun Club member.

…Van Spronsen was declared dead at the scene. The Pierce County medical examiner said he died of multiple gunshot wounds.

He was quickly identified as an active member of the John Brown Gun Club, a left-wing militia, who had been arrested in June of 2018 while protesting at the same facility he was trying to blow up when he was fatally shot, the Seattle Times reported…

RT: America Stumbling Towards Civil War One Terrible Tweet at a Time

Concealed Carry Permit Classes, June 19 and 20th, 2019, Tri-cities

Shaun Curtain of Firearm Training NW teaches a multi-state concealed carry permit class at Griggs, Pasco on June 19th at 6 pm and June 20th at the Kennewick Ranch and Home, also at 6 pm.

Concealed Carry Class

June  19th, 6pm.
Griggs Department Store: 801 Columbia St, Pasco.

Signup Form include date & time.

Class runs 3-hours, payment is cash or check at the class, drivers license is all you need to bring.  Pre-class movie starts 1/2-hour prior to class, the new NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home video, not required just a great movie.

Signs out-front and in the lobby. Meeting room is just to the right, before entering.

Class covers Oregon / Washington / Utah / Inter-State gun laws.

$45 Oregon-Only.

$80 Multi-State (valid 35-States).  Oregon included no-fee.

Concealed Carry Class

June  20th, 6pm.
Ranch & Home: 845 N. Columbia Center Blvd, Kennewick.

 

For multi -State permit(s):     Arizona or Utah, we fingerprinting, photo (for your new CHL), and a copy of your drivers license No-Fee. You put it all into the pre-addressed envelope and mail it to that State’s State Patrol. They will mail you back your permit.
Permit itself cost:
     Utah is $63.25 valid for 5- years, renewals are $15 every 5-years.
     Arizona is $60 valid for 5-years, renewals are $43 every 5-years.
Permit fee is paid when you mail application to that State, training is valid for 1-year from date of issue. Meaning you have 1-year to apply.
$45  Oregon-Only
$80  Arizona or Utah (Multi-State), we include Oregon no extra charge.

Combat Studies Group: Improving Your Pistolcraft

Combat Studies Group has an article up about how to improve your pistolcraft.

Between the rifle and the pistol, I will generally spend more training time on the pistol. There are a couple reasons for this…

1) All things being equal, it takes more skill to be consistently accurate with a pistol than with a rifle – the rifle having the benefit of a longer sight radius (or optics) and the inherent stability that comes with a stocked firearm. (Not to mention the weight-to-trigger pull ratio disparity with a pistol).

2) Unless you are a rifleman deployed on the battlefield, you are going to spend the lion’s share of your time armed with a pistol. Walking through the local supermarket with a rifle slung across your chest tends to get the locals excited.

3) Pistols fire a relatively weak projectile compared to rifles in general and thusly, may require more follow-on hits to get the job done; making recoil management, sight tracking and reload skills a must.

Here are some of the key training factors I always try to hit on every time I train:

1)Engagement speed

Don Brockett: State leaders wrong on I-1639

Don Brockett is the former Spokane County prosecuting attorney (1969-1994), and author of The Tyrannical Rule Of The U.S. Supreme Court: How The Court Has Violated The Constitution. He wrote this opinion piece which appeared in the Spokesman-Review on March 13, 2019.

Recently, Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson sent a letter to gun dealers about the provisions of Initiative 1639. Ferguson previously criticized sheriffs who are resisting the passage of the initiative. The sheriffs are correct; the governor and attorney general are wrong.

As state elected officials, Inslee and Ferguson take the following oath: “… I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, …”

The foundational documents of our state and nation are the Washington and U.S. Constitutions. These documents establish contracts between the people and their governments and form the basis for our constitutional republic. Both contracts have provisions for their change by amendment (WA Article XXIII, U.S. Article V).

Article I, Section 24 of the Washington Constitution provides:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired … .

The provisions of Initiative 1639 certainly “impair” the right to bear arms in violation of the provisions of the Washington Constitution and therefore can only be changed by amendment. Since the attempt to change the gun laws was not accomplished by that process, the provisions of Initiative 1639 are void.

In addition, Article I, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution provides:

SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is equally clear that the provisions of Initiative 1639 “infringe” on the right to bear arms under the language of the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution and are therefore void. Such a change would have to occur by amendment of that document.

Is it true that court proceedings should have to occur when laws are passed in violation of the mandated procedure? Even the ones that are void because of the manner in which they were established? The argument is made that Initiative 1639 expressed the will of the people. That may be true but all citizens and especially a lawyer guided by the contracts we call the Washington and U.S. Constitutions know that their provisions can only be changed by amendment. The initiative process allowed by Article II, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution is not an amendment.

A contract must be followed as written, until it is changed by amendment by the allowed procedure. Any other attempt to change the language or effect of the language in a constitution is void.

A simple example may make it clearer to see that the suggestions of the governor and attorney general would be dangerous. What if an initiative approved by the people were to take away the right of free speech or free press? Would they then argue that a vote on such an initiative should be followed until a lawsuit is brought and a court decides the issue? What if the initiative were to allow a search and seizure without a warrant being obtained based on probable cause? Would we all blindly accept such a change without the constitutional language being amended under the amendment articles and have to bring a lawsuit for a court to decide the issue? So even if the action is void we would have the burden to question it by filing a lawsuit and waiting for a decision in the meantime suffering a loss of our rights? To suggest such a procedure is ridiculous.

The governor and attorney general should obey their oaths and follow the provisions of the Washington and U.S. Constitutions or they should leave office. That is what they signed up to do.

Rally for Your Rights, Olympia, Jan. 18th, 2019

A rally in support of “the right of the individual citizen to bear arms” (WA state Constitution) will be held on the Capitol Campus Friday, January 18th. The rally will be held on the north steps of the Legislative Building and will begin at 9 a.m., ending at 12 noon. The rally is sponsored by the Gun Rights Coalition.

From The Olympian:

A gun rights rally next week on the Capitol Campus is expected to draw 150 people, including some with guns.

Rally for Your Rights will take place from 9 a.m. to noon Jan. 18 on the north steps of the Legislative Building. The event is organized by the Gun Rights Coalition and is permitted by the Department of Enterprise Services.

State law allows people to openly carry guns in most public areas, including on the Capitol Campus. Washington State Patrol will be at the scene that day.

 

WA GOAL Post 2019-1

From the Washington Gun Owners’ Action League:

GOAL Post2019-1

Legislative Update from Olympia 11 January 2019

RALLY IN OLY FRIDAY 18 JANUARY

LEGISLATURE CONVENES MONDAY, 14 JANUARY (105 DAY SESSION)

DEMOCRATS IN COMPLETE CONTROL

BILL INFORMATION

NEW GUN BILLS PRE-FILED

LEGISLATIVE TUTORIAL

LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR

NEXT WEEK’S HEARING SCHEDULE

LEGISLATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

HOW TO TESTIFY AT A PUBLIC HEARING

PUBLIC HEARING VERSUS EXECUTIVE SESSION

(This will be a long GOAL Post as I have to describe the environment and
the processes involved for new readers. Future issues will be
shorter. Also keep in mind that GOAL Post focuses on gun law only, we do
not cover hunting issues. The Hunters Heritage Council does that well.I
normally post GP on Friday evenings to summarize that week’s activities
and provide a forecast for the next. I’ll be on the road for the next two
weeks, so some issues might be late – or early.)

First business first: a gun rights rally will be held on the Capitol
Campus next Friday, January 18th. The rally will be held on the north
steps of the Legislative Building and will begin at 9 a.m., ending at 12
noon. The rally is sponsored by the Gun Rights Coalition. (Yes, it’s a
Friday, and unlike the people bussed in to attend many liberal rallies,
gunnies have to work. Are your gun rights worth a day off?) After the
formal presentation, attendees are encouraged to familiarize themselves
with the campus layout (the Capitol, or “legislative” building where
floor sessions are conducted, as well as the John L. O’Brien House
Office Building, the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building, and the
Irv Newhouse Senate Office Building. This is a great opportunity to
locate your two representatives’ and one senator’s office and introduce
yourself to their legislative aides. Hopefully over the coming session
they’ll become familiar with your name and maybe even your face!

The legislature convenes on Monday, January 14th , for its “long” (105
day) session. This is the start of the 66^th biennium, which will run
through next year (2020). The primary focus of the long session is
supposed to be preparation and passage of a two-year budget, but worry
not – they’ll find plenty of time for gun control. If their work is not
completed, they can be called back by the governor for any number of
30-day special sessions, as happened two years ago with THREE
back-to-back special sessions.

I’m not going to point fingers, as it’s not clear who to point fingers
at:overly enthusiastic liberal voters or discouraged
conservatives. Either way, the Democrats now have solid control of BOTH
the Senate and the House. We still have a few friendly Democrats in the
Senate and the House, but not enough to overcome the liberal majority.

The new Senate has 28 Democrats, 21 Republicans.The House will have 57
Democrats to 41 Republicans. This means not only will every committee
chair be Democrat (the committee chair controls which bills will receive
a hearing), but most committees will have a two-seat Democrat majority.

In the first session of the biennium, all new bills must be filed.You
may see familiar subjects brought back, but the bill numbers will be
new.Bills stay alive for the entire two-year biennium.

Text of newly filed bills can be found at
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/ Also on the bill information page are
links to “New Introductions” (daily), and at the bottom, “Bills by
topic” and “Bill Tracking.”

Pre-filing of bills for the new legislature begins in December, and
there are already a handful of gun-related bills in the hopper.

A complete list of bills under consideration is included below in the
“BILL STATUS” section.It also contains the bill’s prime sponsor, the
current status of the bill (committee location) and the GOAL position on
the bill. Committee abbreviations are provided at the bottom of that
section. As this is written there are currently 12 gun bills available
for consideration/action.

For those new to legislative affairs, here’s how the process works: When
a bill is filed in the House or Senate (or both, simultaneously, called
“companion bills”) it is assigned to a policy committee.Most gun-related
bills go to the Senate Law & Justice Committee in the Senate. In the
House it’s a little more complicated, as it may be sent to House Civil
Rights & Judiciary or House Public Safety (most will go to CR&J). Public
hearings may be held, after which the bill may (or may not) be voted out
of committee. If the bill has a fiscal impact (usually an expenditure of
more than $50,000), it must then go to Senate Ways & Means or one of a
couple of House fiscal committees. The bill then goes to the Senate or
House Rules Committee, where it must be voted on to pass out to the
floor for a full vote.

After a bill passes the Senate or House, it then goes over to the
opposite chamber (House or Senate), where the whole process starts over
again. If the bill passes the second chamber in the same form it passed
the first, it goes to the governor for signature (or veto or partial
veto). If changes are made in the second chamber, it goes back to the
first for concurrence. It may also go to a conference committee from both
chambers to resolve differences.The final version must pass both chambers.

The bill then goes to the Governor, who may sign it into law, veto
(kill) the bill, or sign a partial veto (killing just selected
section(s) of the bill). The governor may also allow a bill to become law
without his signature. Most signed bills take effect on 1 July, although
bills with an “emergency clause” (considered immediately necessary for
public safety) take effect upon signature by the governor.

One of the first items of business in each session is the adoption of
the session calendar, identifying dates by which bills must clear
various hurdles. A bill that fails to clear the policy committee or
chamber floor by the designated date is generally considered dead for
the year, although they may be “resurrected” by parliamentary
procedure. I’ll post the cut-off dates for the 2018 session in the next
issue of GOAL Post.

At this time, public hearings are scheduled for HB 1010 (disposal of
forfeited firearm) on Tuesday, January 15th , at 10 a.m. in the House
Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee, and for SBs 5072 (extreme risk
protection orders, under 18) and 5027 (extreme risk protection orders,
under 18) on Thursday, 17 January at 10 a.m. in the Senate Law & Justice
Committee.

The following links can be used to contact legislators .Lists won’t be
updated until new members are sworn in Monday):

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Senators/

http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Representatives/

Legislative e-mail addresses are available at
http://app.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx

The link contains a quick tutorial on providing testimony at public
hearings on bills under consideration. I would urge you to read it and
consider visiting Olympia to let YOUR voice be
heard.http://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Testify.aspx

Public hearings are committee meetings open to the public, where the
public is allowed to testify on bills, to give their views on the
bill. But all votes on bills taken by a committee are conducted in what
are called “executive sessions.” They are typically part of a public
session, with a few minutes set aside to vote on bills previously heard
by the committee. Public testimony is just that, open to the public for
comment.On the other hand, no public input is allowed during executive
session. You are welcome to sit there, and to count votes, but silence
from the public is the rule.Just FYI for those of you who have not
attended legislative public meetings before.

And you won’t find the House Judiciary Committee listed any more. It’s
now the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee.

The Senate Committee Services office has done us the favor of compiling
a 26 page summary of Washington state firearms laws and other data
surrounding firearms… with – at first glance – a typical Olympia slant
on it.The “study” us available at
http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/Washington%20Firearms%20Laws.pdf

BILL STATUS/GOAL POSITION:

HB 1010 Disposition of forfeited firearms by WSP Senn (D-41 )H.CR&J OPPOSE

HB 1022 Prohibiting handgun sale data base Walsh (R-19) H.CR&JSUPPORT

HB 1024 Prohibiting gun owner data base Walsh (R-19) H.CR&J SUPPORT

HB 1068 High capacity magazine ban Valdez (D-46 )H.CR&J OPPOSE

HB 1038 Authorizing armed school personnel Walsh (R-19) UnAsg SUPPORT

HB 1073 Undetectable and/or untraceable firearms Valdez (D-46) H.CR&J OPPOSE

SB 5016 Authorizing armed animal control officers Van De Wege UnAsg SUPPORT

SB 5027 Extreme risk protection orders, under age 18 Frockt (D-46) S.L&J OPPOSE

SB 5050 Sentence enhancement for body armor use in a
crime O’Ban (R-28) S.L&J NEUTRAL

SB 5061 Undetectable and untraceable firearms Dhingra (D-45) S.L&J OPPOSE

SB 5062 High capacity magazine ban Kuderer (D-48) S.L&J OPPOSE

SB 5072 Extreme risk protection orders O’Ban (R-28) S.L&J NEUTRAL

HB = House bill, SB = Senate bill. L&J = Law & Justice, CR&J = Civil
Rights and Judiciary, PubSaf = Public Safety, HC = Health Care, H. K-12
= House Early education, Aprop = Appropriations, Fin = Finance, W&M =
Ways & Means“S” before a bill number indicates Substitute (amended).

HEARINGS SCHEDULED:

15 Jan House Civil Rights and Jud Committee, John L. O’Brien Building

10:00 HB 1010

17 Jan Senate Law & Justice Committee, John A. Cherberg Bldg

10:00 SBs 5027 and 5072

LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by
calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The
hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!

1-800-562-6000TDD 1-800-635-9993

OTHER DATA:Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules
and other information are available on the legislature’s web site at
www.leg.wa.gov“. Bills are available in Acrobat (.pdf) format. You may
download a free version of Adobe Acrobat Reader from Adobe’s web site
(http://www.adobe.com). You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives,
etc, in the mail from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by
calling 1-360-786-7573. Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by
calling the Legislative Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear
floor and committee hearing action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need
“RealAudio” to do this, available free at the TVW web site).

By reading the House and Senate “bill reports” (hbr, sbr) for each bill,
you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the “roll
call” for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on
any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is
available, on line 24/7 , to any citizen.

GET THE WORD OUT:If you want to subscribe to the GOAL Post by e-mail,
send a message to “goalwa@cox.net “.Please pass GOAL Post on to anyone
you believe may have an interest in protecting our rights.Better yet,
make a couple of copies of this message, post it on your gun club’s
bulletin board, and leave copies with your local gun shop(s).PERMISSION
IS HEREBY GRANTED TO DUPLICATE OR REDISTRIBUTE GOAL POST PROVIDED IT IS
REPRODUCED WITHOUT TEXTUAL MODIFICATION AND CREDIT IS GIVEN TO GOAL

“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.”

Article 1, Section 24

Constitution of the State of Washington

American Partisan: Lawful Resistance

Bryce Sharper at American Partisan has written Case Studies in Lawful Resistance I in which he gives a brief synopsis of the doctrine of magistrates and its relation to lawful resistance, and also gives an example of lawful resistance from Illinois.

The state of Illinois is collapsing financially.  It owes its vendors in excess of $10 billion and has no money to pay its pension obligations.  Foolish state elected officials are floating every scheme under the sun to avoid the inevitable: declaring bankruptcy.  People are moving out in every direction.  The thing is, Illinois is a lot like California: there are a lot of decent, God-fearing people there.  Illinois is really the territory of the corrupt city-sanctuary-state of Chicago.  I have wondered for a long time why the rest of the state doesn’t secede or at least stop obeying Chicago.  I have to wonder no longer.  Second Amendment activists in the state have begun the basic process of resistance by creating sanctuary cities for gun owners.

Without gun sanctuary resolutions, these new state laws could take guns away from owners who need them: after all, people who believe in emergency preparedness and survival often purchase guns for protection. The sanctuary gun resolution is to protect homesteaders and those who believe in emergency preparedness from losing their second amendment rights.

It’s easy to understand how county officials feel the need to place the state on notice about restricting gun rights. These new Illinois laws could restrict someone who has a criminal record or history of violence, even if it was years and years ago, from owning a gun. They could have turned over a new leaf entirely and now want a gun simply for home protection or hunting, but the new laws would make that very difficult. It isn’t right to place a blanket ban on people because of some offense without looking at the circumstances surrounding the charge.

The article goes on to allude to the fact that these gun sanctuary city laws might not hold up to state law.  IT DOESN’T MATTER.  City leaders are perfectly justified in defying state law to allow their citizens to protect themselves.  The main duty of magistrates is to protect their citizens.  The state of Illinois sees its main duty as thievery and oppression…

For more about the doctrine of magistrates, you can read Theodore Beza’s De jure magistratuum
(On the Rights of Magistrates) at Constitution.org.

There is also a book by Matthew Trewhella titled The Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates. You can read a review of it here at The New American. The review covers the basics of the doctrine in more detail than Sharper’s brief summary, but in a more digestible format that Beza’s longer piece.

9th Circuit Three-Judge Panel Upholds Right to Open Carry Firearms

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined, in Young v. State of Hawaii, that the Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a firearm openly.”

Truth About Guns reports,

The right to carry a firearm for law-abiding citizens barely exists in Hawaii. A so-called may-issue state, the Pacific paradise hasn’t issued a permit to carry this century. As far as the fiftieth state is concerned, Americans only have a right to keep and bear arms in their own homes.

That violation of his Second Amendment rights (see District of Columbia v Heller) was the basis for George Young’s suit against the state. Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a two-to-one decision, agreed with Mr. Young.

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home. …

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges voted to reverse a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii that state officials did not infringe on the rights of George Young, the plaintiff, in twice denying him a permit to carry a gun outside.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

You can read the full ruling here. The majority opinion wasn’t friendly to concealed carry, but here’s the main takeaway:

The panel acknowledged that while the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside Second Amendment protection, see Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016) (en banc), it was satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense. Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. The panel stated that once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public. The panel held that because Hawaii law restricted plaintiff in exercising the right to carry a firearm openly, it burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

In determining the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to section 134-9, the panel first held that the right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense falls within the core of the Second Amendment. The panel stated that restricting open carry to those whose job entails protecting life or property necessarily restricts open carry to a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens. The panel reasoned that the typical, law-abiding citizen in the State of Hawaii was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense. The panel concluded that Hawaii’s limitation on the open carry of firearms to those “engaged in the protection of life and property” violated the core of the Second Amendment and was void under any level of scrutiny.

 

 

WA Gun Owners Action League Update, Mar. 9th, 2018

From the Washington Gun Owners Action League:

Legislative Update from Olympia 9 March 2018

SINE DIE

48 GUN BILLS FILED IN 2017-2018 BIENNIUM

GOV SIGNS BUMP STOCK BAN

2519, 5553 AND 6298 TO GOV

PHOTOS ON CPLS?

MISSED ONE – AMMO BAN

WHY ONLY FOUR BILLS PASSED

INITIATIVE

LAST GOAL POST OF 2018 — HOPEFULLY

It’s over!The fat lady has done her part and has waddled off the stage,
and our legislators are packing up and heading home from Olympia.At this
point there is no talk of the need for a special session, unlike the
three special sessions we had last year..

The 2017-2018 biennium set a record for the number of gun related bills
filed: 48, 25 anti-, 20 pro- and three neutral.But as foretold in the
Book of Matthew, “Many are called but few are chosen.”Only four of the
48 managed to make it to the governor’s desk:None of the pro-gun bills
made the cut in the Democrat-dominated legislature, surprise,
surprise.HB 2519 and SBs 5553, 5992 and 6248 were the chosen few.SB
6620, the last minute “assault weapon” bill, failed to get a vote on the
last day of the session (given the time allowed, it was unlikely to pass
the House anyway).

On Tuesday, 7 March, Governor Inslee signed SB 5992, the “bump stock”
ban.In its final version, it only applied specifically to bump stocks
and not to other “trigger devices,” and allows for a one-year buy-back
period to be set up by the Washington State Patrol.Your reward for
complying with the law is $150.(As far as I can tell, nothing prevents
you from shipping or selling them out of state, as long as the
transaction occurs out-of-state).

HB 2519and SBs 5553 and 6298 sit on the governor’s desk awaiting his
action.He has three options: sign the bill(s) as is, section veto
portions he doesn’t like allowing the remainder to become law, or let it
sit without his signature, at which point it will become law.Unlike the
president, Washington has no provision for a “pocket veto” (no
signature) to kill a bill.I expect the governor to sign all three bills,
as he did SB 5992.

As I reported earlier, HB 2519 was amended in the House to allow issue
of CPLs to current and former military members aged 18-20.That amendment
was pulled by the Senate Law & Justice committee.The conference
committee also amended the final version of the bill added language that
allows the issuing authority to require a photograph be submitted with
the application, and that photograph to be embossed on the license.This
was discussed by the Department of Licensing more than ten years ago but
never implemented.It is solely up to the issuing authority to require
it.Some states have photo CPLs, other do not.

It appears in my rush to head for Las Vegas in January for the annual
Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trades show, I missed an anti-gun bill
filed.HB 2805 (Rep. Pollet, D-46) would ban the sale of exposed lead
projectile ammunition to those 18-20 years old.Concerns about lead
poisoning among the young, according to the bill language.Maybe Chicago
should consider such a bill.

Given the fact that for the first time in several years Democrats
control both the House and Senate as well as the governor’s mansion, why
so few anti-gun bills passed?One or two pro-gun Democrats in each
chamber helped us, and 2018 is mid-term election year.Had they passed a
slew of anti-gun bills, they likely would have lost perhaps several
rural-area legislative seats in November.Expect them to come back in
January, 2019 with blood in their eyes for gun owners.

By failing to address the “assault weapon” issue, it opens the door for
an initiative later this year that is likely to go well beyond simple
registration and/or age limits.And as we’ve been hearing from Florida
over the past week, where the Republican-majority legislature just
raised the age to buy long guns to 21 AND imposed a three-day waiting
period because of the Parkland school shooting, there are far too many
gun owners out there who don’t like “black rifles.”Or as we call them,
Elmer Fudds, “As long as they don’t come after my wabbit gun, I don’t
care what they do about other guns.”

Continue reading “WA Gun Owners Action League Update, Mar. 9th, 2018”