I-594 is bad news, tell your neighbors, friends, family, etc............

[BoatRanch]

I've read on Satterberg. More of a political hack than a DA of substance. My bet is that he did not read the bill in its entirety before signing on to it. He's going to have egg on his face if he ever has to defend it in a debate.

 

[Kable]

Gun advocates ask for funs to fight billionaire ad blitz

Washington State gun rights advocates fighting to pass Initiative 591 issued an urgent appeal this morning to get their message out in 23 newspapers around the state, an effort that is being overwhelmed, they say, by billionaire-backed advertising that threatens to "crunch our gun rights."


<broken link removed>

Just dropped $50 to Yes On 591 (about the price of a background check)

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Wow! But nonetheless, all those laws have not made places like Oakland, Sacramento, Vallejo, Richmond etc. etc. more safe. I know for a fact that guns in bad guys hands is still a big deal down there.
So, proof positive that Washington is not going to be any different not unless all our bad guys and crazy people have a "come to Jesus" moment as soon as (if) this new law is passed.

I would contend that based on the national crime rates they have actually made things worse. Washington State is already well below the average. Most of the places with similar laws are well above it. If anything they need to look at our laws and adopt them instead.

 

[Kable]

John Carlson had a 594 spokesman on his KVI radio show again the other day and tried to pin him down on the issue of transfers. The gentleman mostly stuck to the standard talking points, but eventually Carlson got him to admit that loaning a rifle to a friend for a weekend hunting trip would in fact require a background check under 594. The spokesman went on to say that this is a good thing since, hey, you never know if your friend has a restraining order or has been involuntarily committed. The relevant audio starts around 12:00 in.

<broken link removed>

It's a small glimmer of truth from a campaign that has been less than forthcoming about the sneaky details in their initiative. The obvious followup question is, if you need a background check to make a loan for a weekend, then why not for one day, an afternoon, 10 minutes...

Carlson also said that he's been trying to get Dan Satterberg (KC Prosecutor) on the show to talk about 594, since the pro-594 crowd throws out his name whenever someone has questions about confusing legalese. He said that Satterberg won't come on unless the 594 campaign organizes it, and so far they have refused. The spokesman would not give a straight answer on that one either (starts around 8:00).

Wow, that guy really tries to dance around the issues.

 

[bnsaibum]

I don't use twitter much myself however when I do I use the following hashtags. #Stop594 and #GRC2A

If you are on facebook use it there as well.

 

[bnsaibum]

Is it possible that this initiative could run afoul of Article II Section 19 of the Washington State Constitution?

SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Do items

(20) "Sale" and "sell" mean the actual approval of the delivery of a firearm in consideration of payment or promise of payment.

and

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

differ enough to be considered two subjects?

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Is it possible that this initiative could run afoul of Article II Section 19 of the Washington State Constitution?

Do items
and differ enough to be considered two subjects?

I don't think so however it does cover a business tax that is not covered at all in the title. I had a lawyer that actually caught that part. In all likelihood at best if passed we can get that part stricken but chances are the main subject (background checks) would remain.

 

[IronMonster]

Saw this on facebook.

Not even sure what they are trying to say, it almost seems like it would be in support of a NO vote on 594 yet it says #yeson594 on the bottom

Maybe the blue part was the original post and the rest was added as a rebuttal

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Saw this on facebook.

Not even sure what they are trying to say, it almost seems like it would be in support of a NO vote on 594 yet it says #yeson594 on the bottom

Maybe the blue part was the original post and the rest was added as a rebuttal


View attachment 105097

Pretty sure that is a rebuttal to point out the lie being told. They are trying to make people believe that the NICS determines what the definition of transfer is when the truth is that it is defined in the initiative and that is what will be used if it ends up in court.

 

[Kable]

Pretty sure that is a rebuttal to point out the lie being told. They are trying to make people believe that the NICS determines what the definition of transfer is when the truth is that it is defined in the initiative and that is what will be used if it ends up in court.

Yes they've been posting that pic like crazy on Twitter, just the original blue part but when you read the FBI's response they say something like "The national firearms act off 1968 doesn't specifically define transfers but simply handing a firearm to someone does not constitute a transfer" so it's clear in their response they are talking about federal law, not the definition in I594

 

[Tbucket]

Got a phone caller last night trying to get me too vote 594, did not work to well for her. Has anyone else gotten phone calls?

 

[Kable]

Got a phone caller last night trying to get me too vote 594, did not work to well for her. Has anyone else gotten phone calls?

Oh man I'd love to get a phone call, I'd debate them all night and try and get them to slip and say temporary transfers would require a background check but I'd also keep then on the line as long as possible to prevent them from contacting other people lol

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Normally I just tell people not to call back and hang up. For this though I would keep them on the line as long as possible. Get them running in circles trying to explain away the problems. And I would actually be trying to pin them down saying they don't require them. I would rather expose their blatant lies for what they are.

 

[Kable]

Holy crap now their pushing this garbage
<broken link removed>

Soon as I get home I'm going to add comments at the bottom

 

[BoatRanch]

I'm really thinking that all that they will acknowledges is violence.
Am I out of line here?
I mean... Occupy Wall Street, Free Pass, and WTO, Free Pass, WTF????

 

[BoatRanch]

If we do not get $$$ HELP from some DEEP Pockets, i.e. the NRA, I think we are SCREWED!

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I have set up a deal through a local sign maker to make No to I-594 signs. The cost for them is $2.15 each for single side and $2.45 for both sides. Plus shipping. I'm also working with the NRA folks here in WA however we cannot count on them and we should not get discouraged about it. Colorado is proof that grassroots can be effective if everyone will get involved. I'm putting an order in Monday which should be ready to ship Tuesday. The more signs we get out the better. If anyone here would like to order some signs send me a message. If you can't order signs then print up some flyers and hand them out. http://gunrightscoalition.org/Downloads/TriFold-StopI594.pdf
If you still can't do that then get out and at least talk to people. Reality is that even if the NRA throws a lot of money at it the other side will still throw multitudes more. Therefore we win this on the streets. We can do it but we can't sit back and expect anyone else to come to our aid to do so.

 

[Kable]

I have set up a deal through a local sign maker to make No to I-594 signs. The cost for them is $2.15 each for single side and $2.45 for both sides. Plus shipping. I'm also working with the NRA folks here in WA however we cannot count on them and we should not get discouraged about it. Colorado is proof that grassroots can be effective if everyone will get involved. I'm putting an order in Monday which should be ready to ship Tuesday. The more signs we get out the better. If anyone here would like to order some signs send me a message. If you can't order signs then print up some flyers and hand them out. http://gunrightscoalition.org/Downloads/TriFold-StopI594.pdf
If you still can't do that then get out and at least talk to people. Reality is that even if the NRA throws a lot of money at it the other side will still throw multitudes more. Therefore we win this on the streets. We can do it but we can't sit back and expect anyone else to come to our aid to do so.

I'd be interested in a few signs. On my way to our data center today I drove through a neighborhood after getting coffee and saw a no on 594 sign, it made me smile.

I think the NRA will send a bit more money as it gets closer but I don't think they will drop enough to raise eyebrows. I think this is Bloombergs trophy fight and he Will drop whatever he has to to outspend the NRA but I almost think it's better flee the NRA to hang back a bit. Looking at comments of any story relating to 594 seem to be heavily against 594. I think if we keep up the grassroots efforts and make sure at the very least every gun owner votes no we will win. And if we do I think it could prettymuch kill Bloombergs evertown group

Do not let up!!!

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I have someone getting 40 of them in Redmond. If you want to buy a few we can probably add them to that bunch to save on shipping.

 

[Thebastidge]

I have a bunch of the Yes on 591 signs, and we're expecting another batch of the No on 594 signs from the NRA sometime soon. We also have bumper stickers for both and flyers explaining why 594 is a bad idea. Stop by and get some for free while they last.