Reason: Problems with Expanded Background Checks for Gun Buyers

This article comes from Reason magazine, detailing some of the problems with Attorney General Barr’s proposal to expand background checks for buyers of firearms.

Here Are the Problems With the Attorney General’s Plan To Expand Background Checks for Gun Buyers

Attorney General William Barr is reportedly floating a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers that is similar to an unsuccessful 2013 bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R–Pa.). The proposal would require background checks for “all advertised commercial sales, including gun sales at gun shows.”

Manchin and Toomey’s Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act would have required that federally licensed firearm dealers, who are already required to conduct background checks, be involved in all sales at gun shows and all transfers resulting from online or print ads. It explicitly exempted transfers “between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins.”

Barr’s proposal would do pretty much the same thing, but it also would authorize licenses for “transfer agents” to help gun owners comply with the background check requirement. The idea, presumably, is that the new category of licensees would make compliance easier by providing an alternative to firearm dealers.

This proposal is less sweeping than the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which the House of Representatives approved last February. That bill, which was supported by 232 Democrats but only eight Republicans, would ban almost all gun transfers by people who are not licensed dealers. It applies to any sale, whether or not it happens at a gun show and whether or not the firearm was advertised.

The House bill makes an exception for “a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren.” If money changes hands, in other words, a background check would be required even for transfers between relatives.

Both proposals share the same problems as any other effort to expand the reach of background checks. First, the categories of prohibited buyers are irrationally and unfairly broad, encompassing millions of people who have never shown any violent tendencies, including cannabis consumers, unauthorized U.S. residents, people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies, and anyone who has ever undergone mandatory psychiatric treatment because he was deemed suicidal.

Second, background checks are not an effective way to prevent mass shootings…

Click here to read the entire article at Reason.com.

American Militias After the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond

Ammo.com has written a long article on the history of militias in America. Here is an excerpt from the second part of that article, titled American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond. If you find this interesting, please read the entire article at Ammo.com, starting with the first part.

The Civil War (1861-1865) was nothing less than a revolutionary reorganization of American government, society, and economics. It claimed almost as many lives as every other U.S. conflict combined and, by war’s bloody logic, forged the nation which the Founding Fathers could not by settling once and for all lingering national questions about state sovereignty and slavery.

The postwar period, however, was one of arguably greater turmoil than the war itself. This is because many men in the South did not, in fact, lay down their arms at the end of the War. What’s more, freedmen, former slaves that were now American citizens, had to take defensive measures against pro-Democratic Party partisans, the most famous of whom were the Ku Klux Klan.

America’s militia has existed for a number of purposes and has exercised a surprising number of roles over the years. But at its core, it’s a bulwark of the power of the country against the power of the state…

The Reconstruction Era (1865-1877) is one of the most fascinating – and violent – periods of American history. After the defeat of the Confederate States, the United States Army took direct control of the quelled rebel states. Elections were eventually held and Republicans won every state, with the exception of Virginia. The state governments then organized militias, which were comprised of a majority of black men.

To say that there was racial tension in the former Confederate states would be an understatement. Not only was the South under continued military occupation, but they were also being occupied by their former slaves, now armed by what was until very recently a foreign power. The white population of the South responded to what they considered to be an attack on them and their rights by organizing militias of their own, despite the fact that this was prohibited by law. In fact, postbellum laws on militia organization prohibited drilling, parading, or organizing…

A correspondent writing at the time spoke of the palpable fear of the white population: He believed that a massacre of the entire white population was impending. This anxiety is what led to the so-called “Black Codes” of the postwar era, which included tight restrictions on the weapons that could be owned by free blacks – if any at all. Some laws even restricted blacks from owning knives.

It’s worth noting that black veterans of the time were armed quite well. Not only did many keep their service weapons after the war was over, but they were also in possession of weapons claimed as war prizes. The average black citizen of the time, however, wanted only arms for self defense. Indeed, the mutual feeling of uneasiness in the postwar South seems to have a solid foundation for each group…

Some of the first anti-gun control movements in the United States were among freed blacks seeking to keep and bear arms for their own protection against the white independent militias. The names are familiar to most Americans: The Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, The Red Shirts, The White League, The White Brotherhood. These white independent militias have been called by George C. Rable the “military arm of the Democratic Party.” Many blacks who had no intention of firing a shot in anger wanted a weapon simply to keep themselves and their families secure in the face of armed terrorist gangs seeking to circumvent the Reconstruction…

Read the entire article American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond at Ammo.com.

Black Man with a Gun: That’s Crazy Talk

David Cole at Black Man with a Gun has a short article up on mental health and red flag laws titled That’s Crazy Talk.

I was recently listening to a talk given by my friend Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio on the topic of “red flag laws,” and she said something that caught my ear. She was explaining the difficulty that trained psychology and psychiatry professionals have in predicting violent behavior, and said “we suck at it.”

Minority Report is fiction, you know.

She’s absolutely right. It does not take much research to discover that it is in fact extremely difficult to predict violent behavior in even those clinically diagnosed…by professionals…as mentally ill. It is also a widely recognized fact that mental illness does not automatically mean someone is dangerous.

So why would we get in such a big hurry to take guns from people suspected of being dangerous, as assessed by the untrained non-professional…when the professionals admit that they “suck at it,” and that the vast majority of legitimately mentally ill people are not dangerous?

And why, if the mental health of the person is in question, do “red flag laws” confiscate the gun(s) but not the person? If the person is suspected of being dangerous, why should they not be immediately confined for assessment by mental health professionals? If their mental health were really that important to us, wouldn’t we want to see that they receive immediate care? And if the safety of those around them were truly the priority, how effective is it to just confiscate the guns we know about, while leaving the supposed dangerous person free to a gun we missed, obtain a replacement gun, or substitute another weapon to commit violence? After all, you could even leave the guns right where they are if you simply take the dangerous person away from them and into treatment.

Seems like there’s an awful lot of holes in that red flag.

You just know what she’s going to do if she gets out…

It is because it actually has nothing to do with mental health or violence prevention, and everything to do with removing as many guns as possible from the hands of free, law-abiding citizens. There are already plenty of laws on the books to prohibit criminals, addicts, and those who have been legally designated as mentally ill from possessing guns. But “red flag laws” are nothing more than an attempt to throw the largest possible net over as many gun owners as possible, without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

And that’s crazy talk.

Benton County Passes Resolution Against I-1639

From YakTriNews.com:

Benton County Commissioners are publicly showing their opposition to Initiative 1639.

On Tuesday [April 2, 2019], commissioners unanimously approved a resolution that supports Sheriff Jerry Hatcher’s opposition to the initiative, which imposes strict gun regulations statewide.

The resolution is meant to “recognize the right of citizens of Benton County to self-defense with the legal and constitutional right to lawfully purchase, own and possess firearms as permitted under the federal and state constitutions,” according to a news release.

Sheriff Hatcher was one of more than a dozen sheriffs across the state who have said they will not enforce I-1639, claiming that the legislation violates citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Commissioner Shon Small told KAPP-KVEW the resolution is meant to send a message to the community on where he and his fellow county leaders stand on the matter.

“The bottom line is that we believe in our citizens of Benton County, we believe in our sheriff, we’re going to support our sheriff and any kind of law enforcement action that he’s planning on doing, specifically toward 1639,” said Small.

Franklin County Commissioners passed a similar resolution in January in support of Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond.

Yakima Herald Gets It Wrong on Ferguson Complaints

The Yakima Herald published an article yesterday, Some say attorney general broke law in endorsing I-1639. The Yakima Herald and others get it wrong in saying that the criminal complaints against Attorney General Ferguson are attempts to fight against the unconstitutional I-1639 measure. (They also severely understate the limitations and deprivations of your rights resulting from I-1639.) The article implies that the complaints are over the constitutionality of I-1639, and they quote Attorney General Ferguson saying that he is confident of the constitutionality of I-1639 and thus is not concerned about these criminal complaints.

While most all of the complainants are certainly against the rights-stripping and limiting provisions of I-1639, these lawsuits are about a public servant in the executive branch of Washington state’s government, abusing his office to push legislation. That activity is not permissible under Washington state law. AG Ferguson improperly campaigned for and used government resources to push I-1639 and he continues to push more legislation, further abusing his power of office. If the attorney general is not stopped from these illegal activities, he will continue violating law. Now he declares the constitutionality of I-1639, appropriating the role of the judicial branch. AG Ferguson is subsuming the powers of all three branches of the government.

Bob Ferguson said in an interview, “The law is a powerful thing, everyone is accountable to it. It’s the great equalizer.” Ferguson claims that the attorney general’s office has a “culture of independence” from politics, but he does not practice what he preaches. Bob Ferguson must be held accountable. It doesn’t matter that he is the attorney general; it just makes his crimes worse.

In Yakima County, there is a hearing at the Yakima County District Court at 11:00 am on Friday, March 15th, 2019 for an initial hearing on the complaints that have been filed in Yakima County.

Washington Strikes Back is a grassroots effort to hold the attorney general accountable for his crimes against the people of the state. You can find more information about it through the link.

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.

Scott Brumback to Speak at Next LVA Meeting, Mar. 14th, 2019

Scott Brumback of the Washington Strikes Back movement will be speaking at the next LVA General Meeting on March 14th at Caffe Villa, 602 7th St, Prosser, WA at 6:30 PM.  Washington Strikes Back seeks to hold AG Ferguson accountable for violation of his oath to uphold the US and Washington Constitutions and for overstepping the authority of his office.

Update from 3/6/19 as posted by Scott on Facebook:

Yakima filing update.

First, I talked with the district court clerk today. She is very nice, cordial, cooperative and is working to help this be a fair, open hearing. I detect no bias or consternation at all. Very professional. She’s helping to make sure we have a projector and screen to put up exhibits.

Second, we have a cause number that this action is filed under in the clerk’s office. It is: “Citizen 01”. We are the first. If you wish to submit an Affidavit, you may do so. You can file the completed affidavit at the Yakima County District Court Clerk’s office this week. After that, I would recommend that you bring the affidavit to the court with you.

Third, we have a judge assigned from Benton County. His name is Judge Terry Tanner. He did his undergrad study at the University of Washington and law school at Pepperdine University. He is a prior city attorney for Richland, Pasco, West Richland and Connell. He appears to have a good background to hear this matter. I have no concerns at this point.

Fourth, the hearing is TENTATIVELY set for Friday, March 15, at 11:00 a.m. at the Yakima County District Court in Grandview, WA The district court clerk is still finalizing this. It may change, but I doubt it. I will post any update about that if it occurs.

Again, citizen attendance is welcome. Those who filled out Affidavits for Yakima are encouraged to attend. I hope that we all conduct ourselves accordingly. It is important for the judge to see concerned, responsible citizens standing up for their rights.

Below are videos of a seminar that he gave last month.

In the video below, Scott Brumback speaks at a Liberty State rally in Olympia.

In the video below, Yakima County Sheriff Bob Udell discusses I-1639 at the same meeting as the seminar above.

Yakima Herald: Klickitat County Sheriff Won’t Enforce New Gun Law

Joining the growing chorus of Sheriffs and law enforcement chiefs against the laws passed in Initiative 1639, now Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer comes out to say he won’t enforce it, either. here an excerpt from the Yakima Herald’s article Drawing a line: Klickitat County sheriff says he won’t enforce Washington’s new gun law. While residents of Seattle and Olympia were only too happy to vote away the rights of others, most of the rest of the state voted against the initiative, giving yet more reason to separate into a new state.

Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer says he’s not enforcing the state’s new initiative that places stiff requirements on the sale and ownership of semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s, calling it unconstitutional.

“I think it’s a bad law and I think it violates people’s rights,” he said. “This law will do nothing to stop crime or do anything to make our communities safer. But what it will do is make criminals out of our honest citizens.”…

Not all law enforcement agencies in the state are taking a stance as hard as Songer’s. But many are concerned about the constitutionality of the measure and the additional workload enhanced background checks will bring when the initiative takes effect in July, said Steven Strachan, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office and Republic Police Chief Loren Culp announced shortly after the November general election that they wouldn’t enforce the new law…

In November, the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a joint lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of I-1639…

Click here to read the entire article at Yakima Herald.

Related:

Wahkiakum Sheriff, Citing Constitution, Says He Won’t Enforce I-1639

Lewis County Sheriff’s Office Won’t Actively Enforce I-1639

Washington Sheriff [Ferry County] Vows to Not Enforce I-1639

Police Chief Instructs Officers Not to Enforce I-1639 Gun Regulations

 

Mises: Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws

From the Mises Institute comes the article A Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws

Arguably one of the rights that has seen less government encroachment in the US — in contrast to other activities such as commerce — gun rights are now witnessing unprecedented attacks at the state level and even from politically-connected corporate entities.

Although gun control laws are not created equally in terms of overall impact, gun confiscation holds a special place in the halls of political repression. A trip down memory lane will give us a refresher of how gun confiscation has helped consolidate government power.

The Soviet Union and Its Satellite States

The Soviet Union left its mark as one of the deadliest political regimes in the history of mankind. However, it could not get away with such atrocities without having a complete monopoly on the use of force…

Although the numbers are highly disputed, Robert Conquest contends in his book The Great Terror that at least 15 million people perished under Soviet rule.

Nazi Germany

These days the word Nazi is tossed around liberally, almost rendering its definition meaningless. Regardless, the history of Nazi Germany should never be forgotten. Interestingly, both sides of the gun debate make mistakes when discussing gun control policy in Nazi Germany…

…Gun control may not have a path dependency toward tyranny. However, gun confiscation is an egregious form of gun control that allows authoritarians to steamroll their subjects at will. The way gun confiscation enhances the consolidation of state power is undeniable. A disarmed populace is simply no match for a repressive apparatus that has a monopoly on the use of force.

Gun rights might not guarantee victory against tyrants, but being deprived of them all but guarantees submission.

Click here to ready the entire article at Mises.org.

Republicans Are Anti-Second Amendment, Too.

Karl Denninger at Market-Ticker.org has an article up titled Trump’s Gun Control (And Other Broken Promises): PA, but it’s really about Republican politicians at all levels voting against your right to protect your own life.

…The common rubric from the NRA and others is that one must vote “Red” lest the gun-grabbers get in power and do their thing.  Uh, no — the last 20+ years says exactly the opposite.  Even a Democrat majority in all three locations of the Federal Government was unable to do anything destructive to gun rights during Obama’s first two years.

Yet a Republican majority in all three houses plus in Florida has been extremely destructive in a matter of weeks and it was a Republican governor that signed that bill in Florida along with a Republican House and Senate that passed it.

It gets worse.  The Trump ATF is doing the exact opposite of honoring the Second Amendment.  In fact they and Trump literally just ripped up the entire Constitution including the 5th Amendment. Right here, right now.

Contemplate the entire “bump stock” thing folks.  These were sold as legal accessories for years.  Millions of dollars changed hands for them, people were employed and now they’re in the hands of individuals.  A formal legal ruling was issued by the BATFE that these were legal accessories; the manufacturers and buyers didn’t assume, they asked for and obtained a written declaration that these devices not only complied with the law they didn’t require any sort of labeling, serialization or other form of control (such as a background check) as legally they were nothing more than piece of plastic.

The government is, of course, entitled to be wrong and repair that error which is what they’re claiming they’re doing now.  What it’s not entitled to do, however, is turn you into a felon if you don’t destroy or turn over a thing you were explicitly told, in writing, was legal and nothing more-nefarious or subject to regulation than a plastic box.  At absolute minimum the government is required (under the 5th Amendment) to pay you for the current fair market value of that device plus all your costs (e.g. sales tax) associated with same and to pay the manufacturers the imputed value of their facility, inventory and forward foregone earnings (and employee salaries) that would have been generated but for their error.  They could also ban the things on a forward basis (limiting any 5th Amendment claim of “taking” to the manufacturers) and leave alone anyone who already owns one.

Instead they claim to be able to retroactively declare anyone who has one of these a felon and then shoot them if they refuse to either turn them over or report to prison for 10 years after having given written confirmation that the device in question is lawful to own, possess, use and sell without any permit whatsoever...

Read the entire article by clicking here.

A Good Sheriff Is Important

From Conservative Tribune

A Democrat candidate for sheriff in Buncombe County, North Carolina, says that he has no problem killing legal gun owners to confiscate their weapons if the situation arises, according to video posted to social media.

If similar video on R. Daryl Fisher’s Facebook page is labeled accurately, the candidate’s remarks came at a monthly meeting of gun control group and Everytown for Gun Safety subsidiary Moms Demand Action on March 7.

“You’ve heard people say, ‘You’ll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands,’” Fisher said, and then gave a shrug. “OK,” he said to laughter.

There is video posted with the article.

Gun Control is Bearing False Witness Against Your Neighbor

From Kenn over at Black Man with a Gun. Full podcast below quoted text.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16

It is exactly what prohibitionist, and anti-rights do when they push for gun control. The people, you and I that are affected by the changes in laws not the criminals, the insane, the evil or the terrorist.

To be a false witness against our neighbor basically means to falsely accuse someone else of wrongdoing. In the Torah, false witnesses were dealt with very harshly. We see in the above verses that if a person was found to be bearing false witness against another person, they would be given the punishment that the other person would have received if the witness was true! With such a righteous law, we can understand why ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses’ every matter truly was established. If anyone rose up as a false witness, they would be given the same punishment they thought to give to their neighbor…. risking their own life! With such a thing facing them, they would be very careful, yes?

Washington: Hearing Scheduled for Legislation to Ban Long Gun Purchases by Law-Abiding Adults

From the NRA-ILA and the Gun Owners’ Action League:

Tomorrow, February 27th at 8:30AM, the Washington state Senate Ways & Means Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 6620, which includes provisions that would raise the minimum age to purchase many common semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to 21 years of age and would also establish a 10 day waiting period.  In addition, anti-gun legislators in Olympia also submitted House Bill 3004 on February 24th, a companion to SB 6620.  This comes just two weeks before the end of the current legislative session, as they rush to accomplish their agenda.

NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters are strongly encouraged to attend the committee hearing tomorrow morning to voice their opposition.  Also, please use the “Take Action” button below to contact Senate committee members as well as your state Senator and Representative and urge them to remove all anti-gun provisions in SB 6620 and HB 3004!  Click the “Take Action” button below to contact senate committee members and your state Senator and Representative.

Senate Bill 6620, sponsored by Senator David Frockt (D-46), and House Bill 3004, sponsored by Representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), would raise the minimum purchasing age for semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in the State of Washington from 18 to 21 years of age based on cosmetic features.  Federal law already prohibits adults under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun from a licensed firearm dealer.  Legislative proposals to prevent law-abiding adults aged 18-20 years old from acquiring modern semi-automatic rifles or shotguns would deny them access to the most modern and effective rifles for self-defense, thus depriving them of their constitutional rights.

This legislation attempts to brand these firearms as having “tactical features” to drum up unnecessary fear of their ownership.  In reality, these firearms are only being defined by aesthetic features that in no way affect the functionality of the rifle.  Semi-automatic firearms only fire one shot per action of the trigger, and such technology has been available to American consumers for over a century.  Semi-automatic firearms are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for various purposes such as self-defense, recreation, competition, and hunting.

SB 6620 and HB 3004 would also establish what amounts to a 10-day waiting period for transfers of these firearms by requiring that they go through the state background check like handguns rather than the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that is currently used for all long gun transactions.  While federal law allows for such transactions to be completed if three days have elapsed from the time of the “delayed” response, the state check requires a wait of ten days in such a scenario.

We need serious proposals to prevent violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from acquiring firearms.  Passing a law such as this punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals.  The NRA supports efforts to prevent those who are a danger to themselves or others from getting access to firearms.  At the same time, we will continue to oppose gun control measures that only serve to punish law-abiding citizens.  These are not mutually exclusive or unachievable goals.

Again, please contact Senate committee members and your Senator and Representative urging them to remove all anti-gun provisions in these bills!

From GOAL of WA

GOAL Alert 2018-2
Legislative alert from Olympia 25 February 2018

HOUSE COUNTERPART TO SB 6620

ACTION NEEDED, NOW!

I’d say I’m sorry for the rush of messages, but I’m not. The rush is caused by end-of-session manipulation by Democrat “leadership” in Olympia, and calls for a strong response.

As I have posted frequently, it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings. And she’s not scheduled to sing until midnight on 8 March (a week from this coming Thursday). While the legislature sets cut-off dates and other procedural processes to keep bills moving and cull out other bills, the bottom line is that these are not written in the state Constitution, they are internal rules adopted by the legislature and may be changed by the legislature at will.

The House has filed a “counterpart bill”, HB 3004, to SB 6620. A counterpart bill is a verbatim duplicate of the bill filed in the other chamber. If both pass unamended, it/they go straight to the governor for his signature.

SB 6620/HB 3004 is a 14 section, 28 page bill in their words, “Improving security in schools and the safety of our students.” What it is is a Trojan horse, gun control hidden under the guise of the standard Democrat mantra “It’s for the children.”

Part I of the bill is a single section less than one page in length and talks about unspecified funding for “school emergency response systems.” Part II, “Students protecting students,” is three more sections spread over 10 pages and discusses nominally establishes a program whereby students may – anonymously if so desired – report potential threats to school safety and sets out procedures, including court action, to be followed, as well as identity protection for all involved in the process up to and including law enforcement and court personnel.

Part III is the zinger, “Semiautomatic rifles or shotguns with tactical features.” 18 pages, 24 sections describing the offending firearms as semi-auto rifles or shotguns with detachable magazines (mostly the features such as pistol grip, thumbhole stock, flash hider, grenade launcher – the standard litany of evil features from the federal 1994 Clinton/Feinstein “assault weapon ban”). There are some omissions here but I’m not going to identify them. Please note that these definitions do not include tube-fed firearms or manually operated firearms.

The principal focus in Part III is shifting “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns” to the same category as that applied to handguns: they can only be sold to individuals age 21 and over, and are subject to the additional requirements for handguns: additional state paperwork and waiting periods (with the existing CPL exemption).

Keep in mind, under I-594 ALL firearm transfers must be processed by a licensed dealer, meaning that de facto registration already exists via the FFL’s required record-keeping, but this would effectively add offending semi-auto firearms to the state pistol registry, creating an on-line data base of such firearms.

It also increases the state firearm dealers license fee from $125 to $150.

Text of SB 6620: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6620.pdf

Text of HB 3004 has not been posted yet, but the bill’s home page is at: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=3004&Chamber=House&Year=2017:

It is the intention of legislative “leadership” to ram this bill through before the end of the session. How much time will be given to public testimony remains to be seen – at this point no public hearings are scheduled.

It is imperative that you contact your legislators as soon as possible to ask that they remove Part III from the bill. Parts I and II are likely legitimate, but Part III is strictly a ploy to use school and children’s safety as a cover for more gun control.

You can find your legislators by visiting: http://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder

Once you find your district, simply scroll down to see your Senator and Representatives listed. Click on their name and it will take you to their information, including a link to e-mail them.

Or you can call the Legislative Hotline tollfree at (800) 562-6000.

We need to flood the legislature with you going on record opposing Part III of SB 6620/HB 3004.

This is just step one on their agenda. There is already discussion of raising the age limit for the purchase of ALL firearms to age 21. The Bill of Rights does not impose an age limit on the exercise of fundamental, enumerated (listed) constitutional rights. Not to mention the fact that you can enlist in the military, or be drafted, and fight for your country at age 18.

If anyone receiving this is attending the WAC gun show in Puyallup today, please make copies of this and take them to the show. Thank you/.

Curtailing Mass Murder

This article is from American Founding Principles.

Once again we are faced with another tragic school shooting and once again many people beat their drums for gun control. Yet, is gun control the solution to our nation’s recent epidemic of mass shootings? Asked in this way, the answer is obviously yes, because other than firearms, there is nearly no other object that people use to lethally “shoot” another person. But such a question is equivalent to, “Have you stopped beating your spouse?”

The first step in finding a solution to any problem is defining the problem one is trying to solve. Putting a definition, to the issue at hand, in the form of a question, the actual question should be, “How can we, as a society, curtail mass murder in America, no matter the method used?”

It would be very short sighted to assume that firearms are the cause of this epidemic and ignore all other possible reasons for what is happening. Imagine if we were able to magically stop killers from using guns and they instead turned to some other form of murder that is more lethal. Our efforts would have been futile indeed. Besides, firearms have been a prevalent part our society since its inception, and until relatively recently people did not use them to indiscriminately kill others, even when fully automatic weapons, like the Thompson submachine gun, were commercially available without restriction.

The second step in finding a solution to any problem is collecting information on all the possible causes that may contribute to the problem at hand, and then researching them down to their root cause. Root cause analysis is critical to problem solving, because only removing a surface cause will superficially affect the outcome, but the problem will still persist.

Some possible causes, which have been proposed by pundits, for this shift in the willingness of a few people to indiscriminately kill their fellow Americans, is prescription psychotropic drugs, single parent homes, and a culture that glorifies killing via many forms of social media, such as movies and video games. Without further research into all the non-jihadist mass murders in America, it is impossible to speculate how much these potential causes influenced the killers in each of the numerous incidents since 1966, when Charles Whitman shot people from the University of Texas clock tower, and especially those that have occurred since Columbine.

A root cause behind each of these potential causes is the belief that it is acceptable, or at least not prohibited, to murder another person…

Read the entire article my clicking here

See also T. L. Davis’ Child Sacrifice of the Left.

…First, this is a republic, not a democracy. The majority has absolutely no say in what rights the individual has. Those rights, though often treated as privileges in many states and cities, remain rights, the security of which may have to be defended the old-fashioned way, through force. Chief among them is the right to self-defense using whatever tools one is most comfortable with, including and especially guns. This is not up for debate, it is not even up for discussion. Hold all of the meetings and all of the discussions that one chooses to have, but it still comes down to having to enforce whatever law is agreed upon by people who were not elected to arbiter our rights away, but to defend them with the full force of law. Granted, they may take the coward’s way out, they are good at that, but then it falls to us to enforce our own rights. One only possesses the rights they are willing to defend with their lives.

Second, their conclusion that some sort of gun restrictions will end school shootings is absolutely false. There are only two solutions to school shootings: 1) end public schools and the congregation of hundreds of children in the same place at the same time; 2) harden those schools with armed guards, administrators and/or teachers. Simply putting the weapons in their hands will stop mass killings at schools. It has worked at every venue it has been tried, schools are no different.

If those solutions are not part of the discussion, then there can be no solution at all and only a gigantic social upheaval that will make the occasional school shooting pale in comparison to the carnage served up by one section of the nation deciding to debilitate, unarm and make victims of the other half. Everywhere there is strict gun control there is rampant crime, a concentration of gang violence and murder rates that are unacceptable to those of us who understand what a republic is and how it works…

And also Davis’ Public School Death Traps.

Add Malcolm Pollock’s Reaping the Whirlwind.

Brandon Smith of Alt-Market weighs in “The solution is simple — abolish all gun free zones…” in Mass Shootings Will Never Negate The Need For Gun Rights.

And for those who think “these things only happen in America,” we present the following statistics from crimeresearch.org.