Initiative to repeal 594?

[mkwerx]

Not a Washington resident, but I keep hearing people say that they would have to wait till 2016 to repeal 594 - do you folks only have elections every 2 years? Can you not put an initiative measure up in a spring primary? 2 years is an awful long time for people to adjust and "deal" with this nonsense. You got hosed through the initiative process, maybe, just maybe you can get "un-hosed" via same?

Good luck to you guys up north. You will need it. So will we, down here in Oregon.

Read More

 

[mjbskwim]

That will get voted down too

 

[usagi]

initiatives cost millions, and would likely be fought hardcore by bloomberg. not gonna work.

at this point 594 either gets overturned outright by legal challenge, or amended in the legislature to remove the most onerous parts.

 

[etrain16]

That will get voted down too

initiatives cost millions, and would likely be fought hardcore by bloomberg. not gonna work.

at this point 594 either gets overturned outright by legal challenge, or amended in the legislature to remove the most onerous parts.

Really? So because it could be defeated or might be hard, they should just give up and hope for a legal challenge? A well-timed initiative could potentially turn this around - so long as they can get it on the ballot outside of a big general election - you wouldn't want it on the ballot in the 2016 general election when tons of anti-gunners will turn out. I don't know if you can do that in WA, but in OR we have those little off-year spring elections that do have ballot measures from time to time. And voter turnout is historically very low. A coordinated effort to get pro-gun folks to the ballot in that instance may just turn it around. Of course it would be helpful if the NRA and SAF could be in the mix.

Now that Bloomie has a win under his belt, he's likely energized to move his effort to other states. He may just take his glare off of WA for now, which means it's probably the best time to get the process going.

I just hate to hear folks thinking it's all over. It wasn't all over when the 1994 gun ban was passed, it doesn't have to be all over now. We need to continue standing for our rights, even when these setbacks happen.

 

[usagi]

again -- initatives would require millions of dollars, and would be fought hardcore by bloomberg. your chances of winning are near zero. he can always outspend you 20:1 or more.

again -- only legal challenges in court or amending in legislature are realistic at all.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Two years is the legal limit on how long a law passed by initiative much go before it can be amended or overturned. It isn't because of general elections being every two years.

 

[etrain16]

again -- initatives would require millions of dollars, and would be fought hardcore by bloomberg. your chances of winning are near zero. he can always outspend you 20:1 or more.

again -- only legal challenges in court or amending in legislature are realistic at all.

Bloomberg has been defeated before - in areas where he also spent millions, and was defeated by people that got their sh!t together and voted.

I simply don't buy it that just because he has money that we have no hope of ever defeating him again. That's the wrong attitude and that's what will cost us more states. If that kind of negative attitude prevails, then pro-gun people don't bother turn out to vote, and we lose. I won't accept that his money is a guaranteed win. If you sit here and convince people that they can't win simply because he's pouring money into a campaign, then why bother having any hope at all? Not me. I don't care how much he spends, the people of this country have a habit of standing up against bozos like him, even if it takes a few tries to get it right.

 

[Morpheus]

Has anyone started the legal proceedings to try and block it in the courts yet? I don't know the WA legal system, is there something there that one of the various Pro 2nd amendment groups can go after?

 

[Riot]

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/overturn-initiative-594.fb49?source=s.icn.fb&r_by=11523560

Last I checked, I believe I was signature #11,142 out of 15,000 needed.

 

[Morpheus]

First, do you have to be WA resident?
Second, it says There are currently 11,779 signatures. NEW goal - We need 15,000 signatures!

Ouch.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

That petition is up to almost 12,000, but the moveon site has a note at the top saying that because the petition does not reflect their "progressive values" they won't be taking any action on it.

 

[Riot]

First, do you have to be WA resident?
Second, it says There are currently 11,779 signatures. NEW goal - We need 15,000 signatures!

Ouch.

I would assume you should be a WA resident to sign it...that's a lot of signatures for a day's worth of pissed off people.

I doubt that many people voted against it, yet they are willing to click a petition without question...

 

[Riot]

MoveOn volunteers reviewed this petition and determined that it either may not reflect MoveOn members' progressive values, or that MoveOn members may disagree about whether to support this petition. MoveOn will not promote the petition beyond hosting it on our site. <broken link removed> if you think MoveOn should support this petition.

Thanks for that....that didn't pop up on my phone when I originally signed the petition.

 

[ak56]

Two years is the legal limit on how long a law passed by initiative much go before it can be amended or overturned. It isn't because of general elections being every two years.

Actually, the legislature can overturn or amend it within that two year period, but it would require a supermajority (two-thirds) vote.

The people, through an initiative can repeal or amend at any time.

Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (c):

No act, law, or bill approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon shall be amended or repealed by the legislature within a period of two years following such enactment: Provided, That any such act, law, or bill may be amended within two years after such enactment at any regular or special session of the legislature by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house with full compliance with section 12, Article III, of the Washington Constitution, and no amendatory law adopted in accordance with this provision shall be subject to referendum. But such enactment may be amended or repealed at any general regular or special election by direct vote of the people thereon.

 

[mkwerx]

It sound like there's a few piece of Washington law that need correcting - 2 years before bad law can be voted out or amended by legislative action is complete BS - you guys might want to target that bit and eliminate it from your constitution or law books - wherever it resides.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Actually, the legislature can overturn or amend it within that two year period, but it would require a supermajority (two-thirds) vote.

The people, through an initiative can repeal or amend at any time.

Washington State Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (c):

Thanks, I was going by a WA gov faq that didn't have the constitution quoted and was not so accurate apparently.

 

[Kable]

Bloomberg has been defeated before - in areas where he also spent millions, and was defeated by people that got their sh!t together and voted.

I simply don't buy it that just because he has money that we have no hope of ever defeating him again. That's the wrong attitude and that's what will cost us more states. If that kind of negative attitude prevails, then pro-gun people don't bother turn out to vote, and we lose. I won't accept that his money is a guaranteed win. If you sit here and convince people that they can't win simply because he's pouring money into a campaign, then why bother having any hope at all? Not me. I don't care how much he spends, the people of this country have a habit of standing up against bozos like him, even if it takes a few tries to get it right.

I get what you're saying but we fought 594 HARD and had our rear ends handed to us. Sadly the only way a new initiative would work is when they try and make an example out of someone for simply letting someone else shoot their gun and it didn't meet one of their exemptions. A big part of our problem is background checks are supported by a majority of gun owners and those that voted for this piece of trash either A) wasn't paying attention and just read the short explanation on the ballot and thought it sounded fine and didn't think anything of the transfer part or B) didn't believe everyone who was trying to explain how bad 594 was, they probably chalked it up to hysteria from the stereotypical NRA member. Having someone be prosecuted for what we were trying to warn everyone about would be a giant wake-up call IF it got any media attention.

594 will have to first be fought in court. There are many aspects of 594 that do not meet the one subject rule and a chunk of that is from things 594 inadvertently does. I have ideas that I'm sure have probably been thought of but just in case they haven't I'm going to send an email to Alan Gotlieb but I need a bit of time to lay out my thoughts in a way that makes sense and to also research the specific RCW's that 594 is inadvertently changing. I don't want to lay out out on a public forum where the other side may see it and have more time to prepare a legal defense against it.

If fighting it on court fails we need to try and get the bad parts changed by the legislature. This will be hard since it takes 2/3rds majority. SAF or CCRKB is planning on hiring a lobbyist but we will ALL need to also send our reps an email and call them expressing our concerns and wishes for this to have any chance at working. We ALL also need to show up at the rally in Olympia so they know there are a lot of us upset. We NEED THOUSANDS, more than we had at the first rally after Sandy Hook. We ALL need to take the energy we had behind fighting 594 and multiply it ten fold. We need to show them that they have truly stirred a hornets nest and we are not going down without a fight and any future regulations are going to be met with far more resistance than we showed with 594.

So what do we want fixed with 594? Preferably the whole transfers part needs to be tossed but it's doubtful that will happen. Hopefully they would be ok with changing transfer to exchange for other valuables or barters since their claim is that is what they were trying to address but again I doubt that will happen so more realistically here are the parts I think we need to have changed

1. The exemptions for family should apply to all situations so they should simply strike out "that is a bona fide gift"

2. The range exemption should have the language about the firearms remaining at the range at all times struck out and instead add WHILE like the exemption for hunting to make it clear that while you're there you can do transfers as long as you keep your gun after you're done (trying to avoid a loophole where people just go to a range to sell guns). This exemption also needs to have language like other RCWs that says "or anywhere that is legal to discharge a firearm" then it would extend to shooting in the woods and private property

3. The exemptions for minors should have the part about being the presence of an adult only apply if you're under 14 to reflect current WA possession laws

4. They need to add an exemption for transfers if you remain in the other persons presence all times (if they do this they could actually just get rid of the range exemption all together)

5. They need to add an exemption for a period of time like 30 days if it's someone you know

6. They need to strike out the part in the law enforcement exemption that limits it to just when they are on duty. Seriously, you think a cop needs to go through a background check?

7. They absolutely need an exemption for CPLs

8. They really need to remove the reporting piece of the inheritance provision

9. They need to remove the part that gives the DOL authority to make their own rules and most preferably remove the illegal state registry of pistols

Anything I miss?

 

[usagi]

Bloomberg has been defeated before - in areas where he also spent millions, and was defeated by people that got their sh!t together and voted.

I simply don't buy it that just because he has money that we have no hope of ever defeating him again. That's the wrong attitude and that's what will cost us more states. If that kind of negative attitude prevails, then pro-gun people don't bother turn out to vote, and we lose. I won't accept that his money is a guaranteed win. If you sit here and convince people that they can't win simply because he's pouring money into a campaign, then why bother having any hope at all? Not me. I don't care how much he spends, the people of this country have a habit of standing up against bozos like him, even if it takes a few tries to get it right.

how many states will have to fall to draconian initiatives for you to change your mind?

pick and choose your battles. fight those you can win. throwing everything, burning all your money and resources on an unwinnable battle, what does that accomplish?

start thinking tactically. bloomberg is pushing this on a campaign of 'responsiblity' and 'saving lives'. gun owners need to hijack that message to our own ends.

also, he's targeting his message at women. PEW research tells us that most americans are unaware that violent crime and gun violence is dropping and is at all time historic low. the research also shows that women by far hold this view vs men. we need to get our message to that audience.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

10) add exemption for temp transfer by non-leo to leo (not needed if they do #4)

11) add exemption for C&R FFLs

12) definition of firearm should match fed definition, unless we want to keep the disassembled firearm loophole

13) Allow CPL to bypass the "social and mental health" check waiting period (if there ends up being one)

I'm sure I've missed something

 

[usagi]

assuming 594 doesn't get overturned outright on a fatal flaw, amendments are our only realistic option.

CPL exemption should be first. There was already broad support for that on HB1588, we have legislators who are already sympathetic to that kind of amendment. Get the NRA on board to pressure legislators.

they will more likely to be passed one at a time rather than as a large block. think suppressor and SBR approach. if they had been bundled together they would have been much less likely to pass.