Washington Activism and Vigilance Sending the Message in WA

[whitney]

Washington's next legislative session starts in January and Bob Ferguson's assault weapons ban will be on the block.

I wrote this letter to the editor several weeks ago and sent it off to almost every newspaper in the state.

My local paper published last week over on page 4; The slow erosion of our gun rights.
Central Kitsap Reporter | Kitsap Daily News
(links to every paper with my notes)

I received a lot of good feed back and only two papers said they would not publish it as I was not in their circulation area.

Today I wrote what I thought I would send to the general legislature regarding Bob Ferguson's proposed ban on the most popular firearm in the country. After some consideration I decided I should instead share this in hopes that others might write similar letters-to-the-editor or legislature. My thought process behind this is twofold, grass roots letters and informing the folks who might not otherwise hear about the proposed legislation. In the past we have won up-hill fights with the legislature only to loose to citizen initiatives. It is my hope this is shared and inspires others to write their own letters-to-the-editor.

Your letter does not have to be your own words but it should resonate with you. I mostly write how I talk then go back and clean it up with input from trusted confidants.

~Whitney
>>>>>>>>>>

Todays Musings

Notwithstanding the constitutional questions I previously shared with Mr. Hanson; this proposed legislation serves only to further erode the right of Washingtonians to keep and bear arms.

Let's be perfectly clear here, this proposed legislation is an emotional response to a young Mukilteo student who murdered his friends in a fit of anger and revenge. A young man, who lacks the tools to comprehend and deal with rejection, is now in prison writing song lyrics about his act of killing.

The legislation in question is really a distraction from bigger problems the AG and the legislature continue to ignore, don't understand or simply don't care.

While Allen Ivanov's calculated killing of his ex-girlfriend, Anna Bui, as well as Jacob Long and Jordan Ebner, is absolutely tragic, the banning of otherwise legal activity to curtail murder is wrong headed and the antitheses to liberty and freedom. Ivanov conspired to kill these people; he acquired his firearm legally passed the requisite background check and waiting period. The citizens of Washington State are not the ones responsible for this heinous act yet the AG proposes to punish them for it. This is the type of legislation that continues to divide fomenting hate and intolerance on all sides.

When are you going to enforce the existing laws? You know the ones that state prohibited persons who attempt to purchase fire arms are prosecuted. Even the AG acknowledges in his white paper, Access to Firearms in Washington, the difficulty with "lie and try" prosecutions. His paper states, in 2013, over 1,500 Washington purchasers were denied due to a felony criminal history and 1,400 more were turned away due to a domestic violence history or active protection orders. Men like King County Sheriff John Urquhart have publicly stated they do not have the resources to arrest prohibited persons who attempt to purchase fire arms. Further stating these prohibited persons easily buy illegal guns on the street. This is only one example gun owners keep shouting about with regard to enforcing current law, yet the answer again is "making a new law" and forcing otherwise law abiding citizens to capitulate. Why isn't the AG or the legislature giving men like Sheriff Urquhart the tools to enforce existing laws?

There is plenty of finger pointing to go around, but you are treeing the wrong cat. In this New Year I hope the legislature will stop acting and thinking like "Republicans" or "Democrats" and start acting and thinking like Americans.

Read More

 

[tiggers97]

Totally Awesome! People DO read letters to the editor as they often like reading the opinions of others in their area. Great way to influence opinion and educate the public.

Great job!

 

[whitney]

Totally Awesome! People DO read letters to the editor as they often like reading the opinions of others in their area. Great way to influence opinion and educate the public.

Great job!

Feel free to use all or part of my letters. Typically the news room will not accept a second letter from the same person within 30 days. The links to state wide papers, letter to the editor is in my OP. Send the same letter to each paper then share with all your liberty minded freedom loving friends.

Here is a factoid to get some more letters ginned up.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Those folks in Washington state who are opposed to private ownership of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a state constitutional problem. Washington state RTKBA provision is explicitly protective of the right of individual citizens to possess so-called assault weapons. In Article I, Section 24, of the WashingtonConstitution, the right of the citizen to possess military-type arms isliterally hiding in plain-view:

"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."

The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of . . . the state, shall not be impaired . . ."

How successful do you think the AG will be arguing that revolvers, shotguns and bolt-action rifles are the only type of arms which
Washington citizens have the right to bear in the (thankfully) unlikely event they must defend the state during a dire and catastrophic
emergency? Does the AG really want to argue that citizens would be expected to lose their lives, while defending the state, fielding
outdated arms?

Washington's RTKBA provision, unlike the 2nd Amendment, has no controversial 'well-regulated militia' clause by which the AG could
argue the right only belongs to those citizen 'actively serving' in the state militia. Therefore, it is unclear how those who propose to adopt a complete ban on civilian ownership of the very type of arms most suited to defend the state, if and when needed, would pass constitutional muster. The very purpose of Article I, Section 24 is to prohibit the state legislature from doing exactly what it is that the AG is now currently proposing. If Washington's RTKBA clause meant anything, it meant to prohibit exactly such a scenario. Someone ought to point the obvious out to Bob Ferguson. His proposed ban directly conflicts with the state constitution and he ought to explain to the citizenry why he thinks the state constitution doesn't say what it says.

If the AG doesn't like that, too bad, the solution is to amend the state constitution.

Washington is not alone. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.

I would bet my last dollar that whatever court cases, if any, that the AG cites to justify his assault-weapons ban deal only with the type of arms suitable for 'self-defense' rather than the separate yet equally valid 'state-defense' purpose clearly enumerated in the text. I have no doubt that future litigation over the scope of arms suitable for 'defense of state' would be a long-overdue case of first impression.

Article I, Section 24's bearing arms for 'defense of state' is an individual citizen's enumerated rights for goodness sakes! You may lose
the PR battle and at the district court, but make no mistake, the appellate and state supreme courts really have no other alternative but to strictly adhere to the plain text of the state constitution.


Merry Christmas and God Bless


~Whitney

 

[Brutus57]

Not to be a Sally Soul Smasher here but I have lived most my life in WA. If they do pass it the very liberal state supreme court will back it with some garbage justification. I'd virtually bet money on it. Have you paid attention to what the Court and legislature do if the a citizens' initiative gets past to...oh, I don't know, cap vehicle registration fees, or any other sort of tax?? They either ignore it or let local municiapal jurisdictions ignore it. The SCOWA and the Dems are in lock step in WA state now.

Keep fighting but don't ever pin your hopes on the state supreme court finding forcefully for 2A type rights in the state constitution.

Brutus Out

 

[Stomper]

Whitney.... you're awesome and you posses a beautiful mind!

 

[Koda]

excellent well written letter. To the point. Keep up the activism...

 

[Diamondback]

Whitney, Ferguson held out on you as I noted in the other thread.

 

[PaulB47]

Keep the letters short. Long ones don't get read.

Here's an example:
"I intend to ignore any law that would confiscate my firearms, and will not submit to arrest for such either."

I'm scratching my head about the advocacy of enforcing existing laws, since every one of those laws is both immoral and unconstitutional. Not exactly the kind of message people should be sending...

 

[hoosierdome]

Nice letter but you simply cannot reason with LEFT WING LIBERALS. Like Obama they are locked into there ideology, they see the world as they want it to be, not as it is.

 

[whitney]

My 30 day wait for submission of letters to the editor expires this weekend. I was discussing this effort with a co-worker and it was suggested my list of news media was a bit onerous to execute.
So...trying to find a more efficient way to submit letters led me to this.

Media Guide

It turns out the NRA has already developed a quick and easy way to submit comments to the news media.
The previous link will open a new page with radio buttons allowing you to select the news media you want, then you compose your comments and hit the send button.

This most resembles the "Take Action" button GOA uses. Note the ending "wa" state abbreviation.

The URL may be appended with another state such as...Media Guide

Easy Peasy.

~Whitney

 

[Caveman Jim]

My 30 day wait for submission of letters to the editor expires this weekend. I was discussing this effort with a co-worker and it was suggested my list of news media was a bit onerous to execute.
So...trying to find a more efficient way to submit letters led me to this.

Media Guide

It turns out the NRA has already developed a quick and easy way to submit comments to the news media.
The previous link will open a new page with radio buttons allowing you to select the news media you want, then you compose your comments and hit the send button.

This most resembles the "Take Action" button GOA uses. Note the ending "wa" state abbreviation.

The URL may be appended with another state such as...Media Guide

Easy Peasy.

~Whitney

Thanks for the link Whitney.
Now everyone should share this till the cows come home, more awareness is what is needed along with people finally saying ENOUGH & getting busy!!!

 

[whitney]

Local weather delayed everything today so after the power came on I used the following Media Guide and sent off another letter to the editor. I'm trying to figure out how to send it to KIRO and KING with a challenge to report to the viewing public the nuances not previously detailed.

Media Guide

~Whitney

>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Economic Impact of Bans

Those folks in Washington state who are opposed to private ownership of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a state constitutional problem. All the while dodging the fact that the Washington state RTKBA provision is explicitly protective of the right of individual citizens to possess so-called assault weapons. In Article I, Section 24, of the Washington Constitution, the right of the citizen to possess military-type arms is literally hiding in plain-view:

"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."

The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of the state, shall not be impaired . . ."

Washington's RTKBA provision, unlike the 2nd Amendment, has no controversial 'well-regulated militia' clause by which the AG could argue the right only belongs to those citizen 'actively serving' in the state militia. Therefore, it is unclear how those who propose to adopt a complete ban on civilian ownership of the very type of arms most suited to defend the state, if and when needed, would pass constitutional muster. The very purpose of Article I, Section 24 is to prohibit the state legislature from doing exactly what it is that the AG is now currently proposing. If Washington's RTKBA clause meant anything, it meant to prohibit exactly such a scenario. Someone ought to point the obvious out to Bob Ferguson. His proposed ban directly conflicts with the state constitution and he ought to explain to the citizenry why he thinks the state constitution doesn't say what it says.

If the AG doesn't like that, too bad, the solution is to amend the state constitution.

Washington is not alone. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.

Article I, Section 24's bearing arms for 'defense of state' is an individual citizen's enumerated right for goodness sakes! Advocates will defend the ban but make no mistake, the appellate and state supreme courts really have no other alternative but to strictly adhere to the plain text of the state constitution.

Not withstanding the constitutional questions raised, the AG office appears to actually understand the proposed legislation is in violation. In response to my FOIA request was the following buried in an email;,

"In the definition of assault weapon, we have removed a semi automatic rifle that has a barrel shroud. This was not in other states' definition, and was added to capture the "California compliant" Ares Defense SCR semiautomatic rifle. Ultimately, we decided including the barrel shroud would encompass too many traditional hunting style rifles."

Every modern rifle produced today has a stock or forearm that meets the definition of shroud as it is written in the proposed legislation. This language was not removed from the bill as stated, and as such will effectively eradicate all retail and private sale of EVERY semi-automatic rifle in production today, and most semi-automatic handguns and the tax base that is derived from them. This language deceit is the same tactic former Senator now Mayor Murray attempted with his safe storage legislation. The Senator then claiming ignorance when it was pointed out his legislation did not pass constitutional muster. Yet he attempted this twice and each time professed ignorance claiming he did not know it was in the bill.

The economic impact of this legislation is immeasurable and far reaching. It will affect every retailer and sportsman who buy arms, ammunition, licenses, and equipment.

The Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act provides funding for habitat management and restoration. Funds are derived from an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment and a 10 percent tax on handguns. Loss of these funds would severely impact any wildlife management or habitat restoration.

The Wildlife Restoration Account provides funding for four grant programs (Wildlife Restoration,

Multi-state Conservation, North American Wetlands Conservation Program, and Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program) as authorized by Congress. Interest earned on the Wildlife Restoration Account goes to the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, while reverted Wildlife Restoration funds are deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The Wildlife Restoration Account does not require appropriations language because there is permanent authority to use the receipts in the account in the fiscal year following their collection


The Pittman-Robertson Act granted $7,264,229.00 to Washington State in 2013.

The argument isn't bad people don't obey laws so don't have laws, it's bad people don't obey laws so

1. don't try regulating law abiding people to try and alter their behavior and
   
   
2. laws impacting bad people will practically be limited to punishing them after the fact for the sake of punishment.
   
   
3. Stop criminalizing people who aren't doing bad things to other people, as it usually ends badly, with tax payers footing the bill.

In the words of Bob Ferguson, "I said from the beginning, it is not the loudest voice that prevails in the courtroom. It's the Constitution."

Whitney Slater
Poulsbo


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>After Thoughts<<<<<<<<<<<<,

Why didn't the AG include semiautomatic shotguns in his bill ???

 

[Slobray]

Local weather delayed everything today so after the power came on I used the following Media Guide and sent off another letter to the editor. I'm trying to figure out how to send it to KIRO and KING with a challenge to report to the viewing public the nuances not previously detailed.

Media Guide

~Whitney

>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Economic Impact of Bans

Those folks in Washington state who are opposed to private ownership of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, which they themselves often helpfully define as proper military weapons, have a state constitutional problem. All the while dodging the fact that the Washington state RTKBA provision is explicitly protective of the right of individual citizens to possess so-called assault weapons. In Article I, Section 24, of the Washington Constitution, the right of the citizen to possess military-type arms is literally hiding in plain-view:

"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."

The part most relevant, to the ill-conceived assault weapons ban, is this: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of the state, shall not be impaired . . ."

Washington's RTKBA provision, unlike the 2nd Amendment, has no controversial 'well-regulated militia' clause by which the AG could argue the right only belongs to those citizen 'actively serving' in the state militia. Therefore, it is unclear how those who propose to adopt a complete ban on civilian ownership of the very type of arms most suited to defend the state, if and when needed, would pass constitutional muster. The very purpose of Article I, Section 24 is to prohibit the state legislature from doing exactly what it is that the AG is now currently proposing. If Washington's RTKBA clause meant anything, it meant to prohibit exactly such a scenario. Someone ought to point the obvious out to Bob Ferguson. His proposed ban directly conflicts with the state constitution and he ought to explain to the citizenry why he thinks the state constitution doesn't say what it says.

If the AG doesn't like that, too bad, the solution is to amend the state constitution.

Washington is not alone. Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming also have similar constitutional provisions protecting the right of their respective citizens to keep arms for defense of the state.

Article I, Section 24's bearing arms for 'defense of state' is an individual citizen's enumerated right for goodness sakes! Advocates will defend the ban but make no mistake, the appellate and state supreme courts really have no other alternative but to strictly adhere to the plain text of the state constitution.

Not withstanding the constitutional questions raised, the AG office appears to actually understand the proposed legislation is in violation. In response to my FOIA request was the following buried in an email;,

"In the definition of assault weapon, we have removed a semi automatic rifle that has a barrel shroud. This was not in other states' definition, and was added to capture the "California compliant" Ares Defense SCR semiautomatic rifle. Ultimately, we decided including the barrel shroud would encompass too many traditional hunting style rifles."

Every modern rifle produced today has a stock or forearm that meets the definition of shroud as it is written in the proposed legislation. This language was not removed from the bill as stated, and as such will effectively eradicate all retail and private sale of EVERY semi-automatic rifle in production today, and most semi-automatic handguns and the tax base that is derived from them. This language deceit is the same tactic former Senator now Mayor Murray attempted with his safe storage legislation. The Senator then claiming ignorance when it was pointed out his legislation did not pass constitutional muster. Yet he attempted this twice and each time professed ignorance claiming he did not know it was in the bill.

The economic impact of this legislation is immeasurable and far reaching. It will affect every retailer and sportsman who buy arms, ammunition, licenses, and equipment.

The Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act provides funding for habitat management and restoration. Funds are derived from an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment and a 10 percent tax on handguns. Loss of these funds would severely impact any wildlife management or habitat restoration.

The Wildlife Restoration Account provides funding for four grant programs (Wildlife Restoration,

Multi-state Conservation, North American Wetlands Conservation Program, and Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program) as authorized by Congress. Interest earned on the Wildlife Restoration Account goes to the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, while reverted Wildlife Restoration funds are deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The Wildlife Restoration Account does not require appropriations language because there is permanent authority to use the receipts in the account in the fiscal year following their collection


The Pittman-Robertson Act granted $7,264,229.00 to Washington State in 2013.

The argument isn't bad people don't obey laws so don't have laws, it's bad people don't obey laws so

1. don't try regulating law abiding people to try and alter their behavior and
   
   
2. laws impacting bad people will practically be limited to punishing them after the fact for the sake of punishment.
   
   
3. Stop criminalizing people who aren't doing bad things to other people, as it usually ends badly, with tax payers footing the bill.

In the words of Bob Ferguson, "I said from the beginning, it is not the loudest voice that prevails in the courtroom. It's the Constitution."

Whitney Slater
Poulsbo


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>After Thoughts<<<<<<<<<<<<,

Why didn't the AG include semiautomatic shotguns in his bill ???

I agree that he knows (HB 1134/SB 5050) the "assault weapon ban" may be ruled unconstitutional and that is why they did remove the "barrel Shroud" language as a feature for "assault rifles", but not for "assault pistols" though. Maybe he's thinking that might be enough to pass constitutional muster. Then again, unconstitutionality has never stopped a politician from trying to ram their personal agenda down our throats.

Either way, he's hedged his bet by getting (HB 1387/SB 5444) the "assault weapon registration" bill before the legislature, as a backup to screw us, if the ban goes under because constitutional issues.

I'd bet that he's confident that the "progressive" justices (most of them) on the state supreme court to rule in his favor for the ban, but if they don't, he knows for a fact that they will rule in his favor on the registration scheme. As we all know, "progressive" judges have never ruled and will never on what the Constitution says, they only rule on what they feel it should say.

State Supreme Court: activist justices, or just different?


Ray

 

[Diamondback]

WSSC: Wholly-owned Subsidiary of the WEA, and thus the Democratic Party.

 

[Caveman Jim]

If these bills do not pass the legislator, you better get organized to fight the next election when the AWB & registration initiatives get on the ballot!!! That was said to me in an email of one of my reps, Mike Chapman....

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Nice letter but you simply cannot reason with LEFT WING LIBERALS. Like Obama they are locked into there ideology, they see the world as they want it to be, not as it is.

This is true for all ideologues. The other side is always wrong. Sound familiar?

 

[Stomper]

Well, it's because they ARE always wrong.

 

[PNW Tom]

Link to NRA's main "Media Guide" page…

<http://nra.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/>