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

[Joao01]

I donated some $ to 591. Not a lot, but every bit helps. Spoke to a gun owner this AM who thought 594 didn't sound too bad based on the voters guide. We have to convince our own.

 

[Joao01]

Ironically, right after that, spoke to another owner, who is an avid hunter, has several shotguns, etc....thought 594 didn't sound so bad. Didn't realize we'd have to convince our own this much.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Good deal....I picked up a pile of 591 signs at the gunshow but they didn't have any 594's....

Kenny (CCRP) is going to order some signs as well. I'll still drop some by there when I have them. (Probably later today as the signs are ready, just finishing the banners)

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Ironically, right after that, spoke to another owner, who is an avid hunter, has several shotguns, etc....thought 594 didn't sound so bad. Didn't realize we'd have to convince our own this much.

For hunters especially I let them know that simple loaning a rifle to a friend for hunting would require a background check. That usually wakes them up.

 

[Belial]

Kenny (CCRP) is going to order some signs as well. I'll still drop some by there when I have them. (Probably later today as the signs are ready, just finishing the banners)

All over it.....thanks!!!

 

[TMJ76]

The NRA posted a new anti-594 video today. The whole thing is about 7 minutes long and breaks down the problems with 594 fairly well. Good to share with people who have only heard pro-594 propaganda so far.

The interviews with the county sheriffs, state reps, etc. would be pretty effective in some 30-second ads. Hopefully we will see some of that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcEWomwiwds

Also on the NRA homepage:
<broken link removed>

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

CCRP now has signs. If your near Orchards and want one send me message (not limited to CCRP hours). I'll also be getting some down to SW Washington Surplus tomorrow.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

The NRA posted a new anti-594 video today. The whole thing is about 7 minutes long and breaks down the problems with 594 fairly well. Good to share with people who have only heard pro-594 propaganda so far.

The interviews with the county sheriffs, state reps, etc. would be pretty effective in some 30-second ads. Hopefully we will see some of that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcEWomwiwds

Also on the NRA homepage:
<broken link removed>

I see Adina in the video there. She will be on the grassroots workshop we are doing tonight via Blog Talk at 8 PM.
http://tobtr.com/s/6967325

 

[Dave Workman]

A month to go and rhetoric heats over dueling Wash. initiatives

With a month to go before the Nov. 4 election that will decide the fate of two competing initiatives, the campaign heated up yesterday with the release of a blistering seven-minute video coincidentally at about the same time that the Department of Licensing provided Examiner with the latest update on the number of active Washington concealed pistol licenses.


<broken link removed>

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

SW Washington Surplus now has a bunch of signs and 311 Tactical Solutions has a handful as well. Both In Vancouver, WA
(as well as the CCRP)

 

[Belial]

Got 5 homes signed today....sending others in for more since I am out....

Thanks for the hookup...

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Were you there when I was picking up the rest of the signs I ordered? I was on my bike at the time.

 

[TMJ76]

A new 591/594 poll was released today by KATU TV in Portland.

<broken link removed>

From the article you can click through to the actual survey data. No idea how reliable it is, but for what it's worth they estimate 594 = 58%/26%/16% and 591 = 34%/43%/23% (Yes/No/Unsure).

There are a few interesting (and maybe encouraging) things in the results. 591 has a big chunk of undecideds, so at least there is room to grow the Yes vote. Their survey sample also had 52% of respondents from the metro Seattle area, but all of King County is typically < 1/3 of the statewide voter turnout. So the whole thing might be skewed by that.

The survey also has gun owners at 43% of the population (higher than I expected). But gun owners are voting Yes on 594 by 48%-35%. This supports what a lot of people have said around here: if we can just keep educating gun owners about what this actually does vs. what WAGR is saying, it could make a big difference.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

The intent of these articles with their skewed polls is to discourage us from fighting because we think it's a lost cause. It goes contrary to everything else I see when looking at the responses from actual voters. If we all engage now then we will defeat this.

 

[Belial]

Were you there when I was picking up the rest of the signs I ordered? I was on my bike at the time.

Rolled through about 12:45. Just a volunteer there manning the phones.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Rolled through about 12:45. Just a volunteer there manning the phones.

That was a couple of hours before I was there, someone else grabbed 5 more while I was there too. Good deal.

 

[IronMonster]

<broken link removed>

 

[GunnyG]

<broken link removed>

Yup... been working on that one, most of the evening...

 

[donaldc]

I just noticed this wording in I-594:

(17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint
stock company, or other legal entity.

Anyone with a legal background that can provide some insight on if I-594 would apply to gun trusts because of this language?

 

[GunnyG]

I just noticed this wording in I-594:



Anyone with a legal background that can provide some insight on if I-594 would apply to gun trusts because of this language?

Nice catch! That should induce an aneurysm or two for the pro- 594 crowd


IANAL, but I found this:

"26 U.S.C. § 7701 provides, "(1) Person.–The term 'person' shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation." (emphasis added). Therefore, trusts and other legal fictitious entities will remain to be valid entities for purposes of owning, possessing and holding NFA firearms." -- http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/09/0...corporate-entity-given-atfs-proposal-atf-41p/

Federally, it seems like you will still be good.

Do you want to assign non-NFA firearms as a trust or corporate asset, and then appoint different family members, friends, etc to be the officers of the that trust or corporation?