JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
It's really easy to suggest taking one for the team when you're not the one taking it, isn't it?
Next year or two?
How fast do you think we could get all these laws overturned?
Let's see... Rhode v Bonta (Ammo purchase restrictions) is in its 6th year
Duncan v Bonta ("Hi cap mag ban) This latest case against the mag ban is around 7 years old
Miller v Bonta (Assault weapon ban) is around 5 years old
And Duncan and Miller are just the newest cases against SB 23 (AW & Mag bans) which was enacted back on 1/1/2000 These fights have been going on for over 2 decades.
How long are you willing to go without the ability to buy a gun? How badly damaged will the gun culture in Washington be even if we got this law tossed in only a year or 2.
And remember All the appeals have to go through the 9th Circuit.
No single FFL is going to make a decision to shut down their business based on a recommendation from some anonymous dude on this forum (me). I'm trying to paint a picture of what the future COULD look like. I would be very very very surprised if the lawyers at 2nd Amendment Foundation haven't already started war gaming this one out. If they have, they aren't going to advertise it out in public as they would be giving up the element of surprise. What I have done is describe some things that I think they are probably war gaming in private. Why would I do this? Because it shows that a tactical victory by Washington Democrats could turn into a strategic defeat for them. I'm going to speculate that 2nd Amendment Foundation is probabaly already asking questions like this -

1) How many FFLs will be shut down?
a) Will it be half of them?
b) Will it be all of them?
c) Will it be all, except one of them?

2) For each scenario, what are options?
a) Can we leverage a complete knockout of all FFLs as a means to attack federal laws that control mail order sales across state lines? If so, which circuits will we file the lawsuits? 5th circuit? How about having a plaintiff attempt a mail order sales across ALL circuits in the country, and then file lawsuits in every single circuit, in hopes of getting just one of them to issue an injunction?
b) If there are only 1-2 FFLs left standing can we attack the state on anti-trust grounds, due to them having artificially created a monopoly.

Also consider this, as the Democrats have obviously not even thought of the obvious. Without FFLs police, sheriffs, and the WSP cannot enforce laws against citizens that control tansfers between citizens. They want to build a database of transfer transactions, but now they will have blocked themselves from achieving that goal. Also, they will not even have a mechanism by which they can perform transfers between themselves. The state actually needs FFLs and they don't even know it. They are really that stupid.

What this all boils down to is this -- a tactical victory by Washington State Democrats is not a strategic victory for them. They make think it is, but it is not.
 
Last Edited:
No single FFL is going to make a decision to shut down their business based on a recommendation from some anonymous dude on this forum (me). I'm trying to paint a picture of what the future COULD look like. I would be very very very surprised if the lawyers at 2nd Amendment Foundation haven't already started war gaming this one out. If they have, they aren't going to advertise it out in public as they would be giving up the element of surprise. What I have done is describe some things that I think they are probably war gaming in private. Why would I do this? Because it shows that a tactical victory by Washington Democrats could turn into a strategic defeat for them. I'm going to speculate that 2nd Amendment Foundation is probabaly already asking questions like this -

1) How many FFLs will be shut down?
a) Will it be half of them?
b) Will it be all of them?
c) Will it be all, except one of them?

2) For each scenario, what are options?
a) Can we leverage a complete knockout of all FFLs as a means to attack federal laws that control mail order sales across state lines? If so, which circuits will we file the lawsuits? 5th circuit? How about having a plaintiff attempt a mail order sales across ALL circuits in the country, and then file lawsuits in every single circuit, in hopes of getting just one of them to issue an injunction?
b) If there are only 1-2 FFLs left standing can we attack the state on anti-trust grounds, due to them having artificially created a monopoly.

Also consider this, as the Democrats have obviously not even thought of the obvious. Without FFLs police, sheriffs, and the WSP cannot enforce laws against citizens that control between citizens. They want to build a database of transfer transactions, but now they will have blocked themselves from achieving that goal. Also, they will not even have a mechanism by which they can perform transfers between themselves. The state actually needs FFLs and they don't even know it. They are really that stupid.

What this all boils down to is this -- a tactical victory by Washington State Democrats is not a strategic victory for them. They make think it is, but it is not.
I think this pre-gaming is important, I have seen several angles I never thought of, and I do hope that SAF, or some other group, is doing this in private. I myself, don't want to denigrate the work others have put into compliance so far, but we should also be fighting back hard. ALL of this infringes on my God given right to have/purchase/possess firearms and ammunition. I'm not the best at being told what to do, that's why I am self-employed. I know my boss is an bubblegum, but can convince him sometimes…. My first thoughts goes to how to get around these constitutionally repugnant laws Olympia passes, not how to comply. I do agree that the knee jerk reactions from these dingleberries cuts their nose of despite their face, and they never seem to realize the unintended consequences of their actions.
 
I think this pre-gaming is important, I have seen several angles I never thought of, and I do hope that SAF, or some other group, is doing this in private.
As a plaintiff in 3 separate firearms lawsuits against the state of Washington, and a board member of SAF...the legal brain trust has been discussing this bill since it was introduced. NSSF, NRA, SAF and a number of local FFLs have all been going through this with the legislative and the legal analysis' to determine how this goes down. It will see a courtroom, guaranteed.
 
As a plaintiff in 3 separate firearms lawsuits against the state of Washington, and a board member of SAF...the legal brain trust has been discussing this bill since it was introduced. NSSF, NRA, SAF and a number of local FFLs have all been going through this with the legislative and the legal analysis' to determine how this goes down. It will see a courtroom, guaranteed.
Would it be fair to say that you have been wargaming this from a wide variety of angles, many of which will come as a complete surprise to Washington Democrats? I'm not asking you to post any secrets. I just hope that you have a whole barrage of torpedos ready to unleash that will make them regret they ever started down this road.
 
Would it be fair to say that you have been wargaming this from a wide variety of angles, many of which will come as a complete surprise to Washington Democrats? I'm not asking you to post any secrets. I just hope that you have a whole barrage of torpedos ready to unleash that will make them regret they ever started down this road.
And I would hope they won't be discussing any of that on a public forum.
 
Would it be fair to say that you have been wargaming this from a wide variety of angles, many of which will come as a complete surprise to Washington Democrats? I'm not asking you to post any secrets. I just hope that you have a whole barrage of torpedos ready to unleash that will make them regret they ever started down this road.
There are other similar laws being challenged elsewhere in the country.
And I would hope they won't be discussing any of that on a public forum.
Correct.
 
Any WA members or groups going to start a counter initiative in 2025? (Odd election year, better chance to get grassroots support and apathy from the opposition). Last time was i-1094 from the WA 3 percenters for the 2020 cycle. Didn't go far and started late. It didn't make it to the ballot.
 
Any WA members or groups going to start a counter initiative in 2025? (Odd election year, better chance to get grassroots support and apathy from the opposition). Last time was i-1094 from the WA 3 percenters for the 2020 cycle. Didn't go far and started late. It didn't make it to the ballot.
Lets Go Washington had one last year (for 23 election), along with 8 other initiatives that didn't get qualified. This year they got 6 initiatives certified and the Dems have refused to give them a hearing this session, so they'll be on the November ballot. i-1094 was a late start, poor ballot title and was certified 8 weeks before signatures were due. It was destined to fail but was a remarkable effort for grassroots during November and December, holidays, weather, and such.
 
This is what you do. Write your Dem reps and tell them that you have voted Dem or left your entire life, but this time you have no choice but to vote for whichever candidate ends or reverses these laws. And that means for Bob F.U., an automatic no. That'll get their attention.

EDIT: Probably works best if you have not written your reps before :p.
 
Last Edited:
This is what you do. Write your Dem reps and tell them that you have voted Dem or left your entire life, but this time you have no choice but to vote for whichever candidate ends or reverses these laws. And that means for Bob F.U., an automatic no. That'll get their attention.

EDIT: Probably works best if you have not written your reps before :p.
Now the Democrats are on to banning car tires that grip the road too well. That one might get some blow back, but gain it may not. Maybe people in Washington get excited at the thought of more traffic accidents.
 
I was talking about this bill with some coworkers and one of them responded with, "Well I have about 100 rounds of deer hunting ammo for my .270 so I should be good there. The previous bills were mostly targeting the sport shooters so I didn't care so much."

This is exactly the wrong attitude that any gun owner should have. It's clear that these anti-gun laws are not interested in compromise and it's all about eliminating Washington's second amendment rights. It hurts everyone, and hunters need to pay more attention because when they don't speak up these representatives think they can tweak the hunting laws/seasons into such obscurity as to limit recreation as well.

I actually heard from a couple of my friends that they didn't care about the mag limits, saying things like, "I have all the mags I need," "It would help reduce a mass shooting casualty list," and "Gun culture has gotten out of control anyway." And before you say I need new friends, this was only a couple of them and I was trying to inform them.

If you know anyone who owns guns but isn't politically minded, now is the time to bring up the new laws that the Dems are trying to introduce.
 
"Well I have about 100 rounds of deer hunting ammo for my .270 so I should be good there

How to answer such morons -

"So, you are planning to kill 100 people? You sound just like Charles Whitman who used a sniper rigle (aka "deer rifle") to committ mass murder at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966. All of these rifles should have been justifiably banned following that mass murder with a so-called "deer rifle" No one needs a high powered, high precision sniper rifle that is used as a weapon of war. Violence is never the answer."
 
How to answer such morons -

"So, you are planning to kill 100 people? You sound just like Charles Whitman who used a sniper rigle (aka "deer rifle") to committ mass murder at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966. All of these rifles should have been justifiably banned following that mass murder with a so-called "deer rifle" No one needs a high powered, high precision sniper rifle that is used as a weapon of war. Violence is never the answer."
Indeed, there have been "scholarly" papers and articles making exactly that claim. And, of course, once the most popular rifles are banned, the next most popular become most popular - and in the sights of those will work to ban them as well. And on down the line. Check Australia for an example of that in action. Never surrender!
 
Does anyone remember Ginny Burdick, the gan prohibitionist from Oregon? She came up to promote gun control bills in the Washington State legislature. One of her talking points to the legislature was that gun control was popular among gun owners. She cited her own examples of herself going to NRA sponsored events and getting gun owners to sign her petitions. I had heard a confirmation from someone that she did indeed go to these events, and that gun owners were signing her petitions.
 
Does anyone remember Ginny Burdick, the gan prohibitionist from Oregon? She came up to promote gun control bills in the Washington State legislature. One of her talking points to the legislature was that gun control was popular among gun owners. She cited her own examples of herself going to NRA sponsored events and getting gun owners to sign her petitions. I had heard a confirmation from someone that she did indeed go to these events, and that gun owners were signing her petitions.
They need to send that dumb bubblegum to the nursing home.
 
SO go ahead buddy, give Inslee and Ferguson a call and tell them all about it. Im sure it will make a huge difference
I already let those two pieces of dog excrement how I feel about them, more than once, & their policies! I'm pretty certain they're not sleeping well after reading my msg to them. :)

Dan
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top