I-591 Petition drop Thursday 11-21

[Dave Workman]

THE REASONABLE FIRST STEP...


I-591 backers to deliver petitions Thursday

Backers of Initiative 591 announced today that they will deliver their first batch of petitions bearing some 340,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office this Thursday at 11 a.m.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Caveman Jim]

Great job!!!

 

[U201491]

Outstanding work

 

[BigStick]

So if I have another petition sheet about half full, do I still have time to fill it up, or will it do any good to send it in at this point?

 

[simon99]

I salute you all.....

 

[2506]

Dave, just an fyi--I never saw anyone around collecting signatures for this initiative. Although I do understand that in my neck of the woods, they'd have to stand next to the dirty hippies gathering signatures for whatever hare-brained, tofu-fueled initiative they're working for.

 

[simon99]

Dave, just an fyi--I never saw anyone around collecting signatures for this initiative. Although I do understand that in my neck of the woods, they'd have to stand next to the dirty hippies gathering signatures for whatever hare-brained, tofu-fueled initiative they're working for.

Just put an ad on Craigslist for a free seminar and marijuana brownie samples at one of the downtown "gun free" shops listed under Seattle's initiative the day you want to gather signatures. All the low-brain activity crowd would be gone....at least for the day.

 

[mancat]

The first comment on the article raises an interesting question about I591

<broken link removed>

Is I591 actually just a scam initiative to trick WA gun owners into weakening the WA state constitution?

 

[Dave Workman]

So if I have another petition sheet about half full, do I still have time to fill it up, or will it do any good to send it in at this point?

Do what you can to fill it up, but if you can't, send it in

 

[Dave Workman]

The first comment on the article raises an interesting question about I591

<broken link removed>

Is I591 actually just a scam initiative to trick WA gun owners into weakening the WA state constitution?

No, It's a serious measure aimed at preventing the backers of I-594 from "weakening the WA state constitution."

 

[pchewn]

Isn't I591 the proposal for universal background checks in WA as long as those universal background checks adhere to a "National Standard"... i.e. federal law? Why would any reasonable gun lover propose this?

Section 1 of I591 is reasonable, but I could never sign a petition with section 2 in it:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm
unless a uniform national standard is required.

If it was worded this way, I would sign it:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm.

Can someone explain to me why the authors of I591 want a nation-wide universal background check?

Yes, I understand that there is a far more dangerous I594, but why counter it with something worded as poorly as I591?

Yes, I understand that as an Oregonian, I can't participate in either I594 or I591..... but I don't see why you guys in WA have to choose among these two evils.

 

[Dave Workman]

Isn't I591 the proposal for universal background checks in WA as long as those universal background checks adhere to a "National Standard"... i.e. federal law? Why would any reasonable gun lover propose this?

Section 1 of I591 is reasonable, but I could never sign a petition with section 2 in it:


If it was worded this way, I would sign it:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm.

Can someone explain to me why the authors of I591 want a nation-wide universal background check?

Yes, I understand that there is a far more dangerous I594, but why counter it with something worded as poorly as I591?

Yes, I understand that as an Oregonian, I can't participate in either I594 or I591..... but I don't see why you guys in WA have to choose among these two evils.

And your better idea is???
(and keep it in the realm of possible, not fantasy; i.e. "We vote these laws down and repeal the gun laws")

Perhaps the backers of I-591 are derailing I-594 so that the idea doesn't spread south of the Columbia River. You should ask them. Maybe they're doing you a favor.

In case you missed it, we've had background checks on a national standard for many years. It's the FEDERAL Brady Law, which established the NICS system. That is the "national standard." A state can't opt out of that, no matter what your wishful thinking might otherwise suggest.

 

[mancat]

No, It's a serious measure aimed at preventing the backers of I-594 from "weakening the WA state constitution."

But 591 would provide wording that would override the WA state constitutions' RKBA clauses and replace them with whatever federal standard is put in place. What if that standard becomes more strict than what is defined by the WA state constitution?

It doesn't seem like you're objectively considering this possibility.

SAF already backed the poisonous M-T UBC bill.

I'm seriously considering voting NO on BOTH 591 and 594.


edit: I have read your comment above more closely and I see what you mean.. I may have reacted too harshly after reading sec 2.

 

[deen_ad]

Well, we're, in all probability going to end up with 591 or 594, which would you rather have?


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[Dave Workman]

Supporters of I-591 deliver signatures as promised

Backers of Initiative 591, which will prevent government gun confiscations without due process and require that any background checks done in Washington comply with a uniform national standard, delivered petitions bearing an estimated 340,000 signatures to the Secretary of State's office in Olympia this morning.

<broken link removed>


ya shoulda been there.

 

[meener777]

Awesome. Sometimes when you are out there collecting signatures it feels like you might be wasting your time. Seeing this many signatures handed in is just awesome. Congrats to everyone who signed this and spent their time making this happen! I am glad that Washington citizens are fired up and I cant wait to vote in 2014.

 

[pchewn]

And your better idea is???
(and keep it in the realm of possible, not fantasy; i.e. "We vote these laws down and repeal the gun laws")

In case you missed it, we've had background checks on a national standard for many years. It's the FEDERAL Brady Law, which established the NICS system. That is the "national standard." A state can't opt out of that, no matter what your wishful thinking might otherwise suggest.

In case you missed it, Dave, my better idea was to re-word section 2 to remove the words "unless a uniform national standard is required".

In case you missed it , Dave, the Brady law is FEDERAL, and I591 is WASHINGTON. I see no reason why WASHINGTON should be embracing the (wrongful) Brady federal law.

In case you missed it , Dave, It is possible for STATE laws to be less intrusive and controlling than FEDERAL laws. (e.g. Marijuana, Gun transfer)

 

[Dave Workman]

In case you missed it, Dave, my better idea was to re-word section 2 to remove the words "unless a uniform national standard is required".

In case you missed it , Dave, the Brady law is FEDERAL, and I591 is WASHINGTON. I see no reason why WASHINGTON should be embracing the (wrongful) Brady federal law.

In case you missed it , Dave, It is possible for STATE laws to be less intrusive and controlling than FEDERAL laws. (e.g. Marijuana, Gun transfer)

All interesting points but you cannot change the wording of an initiative once it is filed, and as Deen-ad noted above: "Well, we're, in all probability going to end up with 591 or 594, which would you rather have?"

You simply can't say "neither" or insist that we take a short cut to Utopia.

There was no doubt going to be an anti-gun measure. What would you say if everybody just decided to sit this one out an let the anti-gunners do their thing? I-591 puts "them" in a corner, not us. The other side is going to have to explain to voters what the problem is with the uniform national standard. That may take some 'splainin.

In the meantime, we have he upper hand. We have more signatures on more petitions, we have a broad statewide coalition and they have essentially a bunch of rich Seattle liberals who have spent about twice on their effort already as we have.


My apologies for snapping at you, as we're all on the same side, but throughout my adult life, I've seen over and over and over again conflicts that attract people late in the game who invariably show up and declare "I would have done it differently" as a reason for sitting back and just watching.

There are people who make things happen, watch things happen, or wonder what happened. Like to have you all on board to make things happen, so that a year from now, the gun grabbers are wondering what happened.