Oly rally: Smaller but energetic crowd at Capitol

[usagi]

they are criticizing the SAF because the lawsuit didn't go "far enough" and is making "deals", calling the SAF "bootlickers".

I guess he also considers randy bragge a "bootlicker" making "deals" because he got suppressors and SBR's legalized in washington, but didn't go "far enough" and repeal the NFA entirely.

 

[44Brent]

The "other" side likely has some problems with infighting but are smart enough to conceal it from public view. They probably have debates as to which of their goals should be long term vs. short term. They certainly have discussions along the lines of:

Gun prohibitionist #1: We need to pass a law immediately to send out the police to kick in the doors of those nasty gun owners RIGHT NOW, and shoot anyone that resists!

Gun prohibitionist #2: No, that's a bad strategy. That would wake up the FUDS and we first need to develop complete registration lists before the FUDS get a clue and start to resist. We need to take this in baby steps.

Gun prohibitionist #1: You are a TRAITOR to the cause! I'm going to shoot you with a gun right now before you have a chance to torpedo all that we have tried to achieve.

Gun prohibitionist #2: Patience grasshopper! The smart way is to take away their rights one slice at a time. We'll eventually achieve total prohibition, but first we have to win the information war, and paint our opponents as unreasonable and dangerous.

Gun prohibitionist #1: Maybe you are correct, after all those crazy gun owners did make fools out of themselves at the State Capitol by wearing gas masks and waiving rifles in the public gallery. I guess if we just give them more opportunities to make fools out of themselves, we can save a few million in advertising expenses and let the Seattle Times do our work for free.

___________________________________

An intelligent strategy of 2nd Amendment activists would be to engage in activities that would exacerbate these differences and cause the prohibitionist groups to devolve into infighting.

 

[Dogfish]

Saw these guys firsthand when they went to the upper left of the steps. Within a few minutes they were cycling their actions, did a little shouting, and basically were a disturbance to the event. Took a few photos because I recognized this as an issue and wanted to get the photo evidence in case something went sideways. Then I noticed 4 WSP officers on the back side of them, so I moved out of the line of fire.


I am very aware of my surroundings and this group got on my radar early.

 

[Slobray]

I messed up the last attempt at this, but not to derail the o/c debate, but I would like to go back to the origional post/story for a minute or two .........

Gottlieb tells rally: 'We are here in broad daylight for all to see!'
State Rep. Matt Shea (R-4th District), announced that he has filed legislation (HB 1245) to repeal I-594. The bill has five co-sponsors, all Republicans, including David Taylor, Jay Rodne, Graham Hunt, Elizabeth Scott and Dan Griffey. Quizzed about the bill's chances, Shea told Examiner that if it doesn't pass this year, "that's not the point." He vowed to reintroduce his bill "every year until it is repealed."
<broken link removed>

A little later in the story it talks about another member of the House........

State Rep. Brian Blake, a Grays Harbor Democrat and a legislative stalwart for gun owners, told protesters that "This is a culture war. They (anti-gunners) don't like what we do."


He urged the crowd to "stay involved; we're in this for the long haul." He then reminded people that Washington's state constitution has one of the strongest right-to-bear arms provisions in the country. Blake also noted that every sheriff in every county touched by his legislative district opposed I-594, and that the initiative was a loser in his district."


Blake later told Examiner that he doubts the votes are there to accomplish an outright repeal. However, there are bills "being developed" that will strike at several aspects of the measure. Both Blake and Gottlieb would be delighted at a complete repeal, but short of that goal, with legislation and the SAF lawsuit, it may be possible to make important erosions. (emphasis added is mine)

It seems to me that Rep. Blake may not really be 100% on our side.


There are 11 sponsors for HB 1245 (Shea, Taylor, G. Hunt, Scott, Griffey, Rodne, MacEwen, Young, Haler, Short, Buys) and he isn't one of them.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1245

HB 1191 (Concerning concealed pistol license renewal notices) shows that he's willing to work with Republicans on gun issues, Rep. Blake's name is amongst most of the same sponsors from HB 1245.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/mobile/BillSummary/Sponsors?Number=1191&Year=2015

Same thing with HB 1193 (Prohibiting a government database of law abiding owners of legal firearms (it actually only covers pistols)) Rep. Blake's name is amongst most of the same sponsors from HB 1245 and HB 1191.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/mobile/BillSummary/Sponsors?Number=1193&Year=2015

If he's really "a legislative stalwart for gun owners" shouldn't his name be on HB 1245 as one of the sponsors?


If he really "would be delighted at a complete repeal" shouldn't his name be on HB 1245 as one of the sponsors?


Why is he only trying to affect only "several aspects" of I594 and not the whole thing?


What are the "several aspects" of I594 that he is trying to "strike at"?


Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but being stationed in the PDRK for 3 years has kept me on guard.


Ray

 

[Dogfish]

Brian Blake is a friend of mine and without his help we would not have regained the ability to use suppressors and SBR's. He ran both of those bills based on my requests for him to do so.

Your assumptions are 100% baseless and without fact that he isn't behind stopping assaults on our firearms rights. Some people.

 

[John H]

HB 1191 (Concerning concealed pistol license renewal notices) shows that he's willing to work with Republicans on gun issues, Rep. Blake's name is amongst most of the same sponsors from HB 1245.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/mobile/BillSummary/Sponsors?Number=1191&Year=2015

This is a BS bill, all it does is cost money.

I thought as a adult YOU are suppose to take responsibility for yourself, not the government.

 

[Slobray]

Brian Blake is a friend of mine and without his help we would not have regained the ability to use suppressors and SBR's. He ran both of those bills based on my requests for him to do so.

Your assumptions are 100% baseless and without fact that he isn't behind stopping assaults on our firearms rights. Some people.

Dogfish,

I really hope I am wrong and that he does support the repeal. I don't personally know Rep. Blake like you do, but the reason I questioned his motives is because he's a politician and I trust few, if any politicians. We've all seen politicians say something one day, then turn around and do the opposite the next. My questioning of him was nothing personal, it's just the nature of the beast. As GW said "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."


Since you guys are friends, maybe you can ask him why he's not a sponsor of HB 1245. Is there is something wrong with it?



Ray

 

[Dogfish]

He hasn't decided to support it at this time. Quite honestly, it, 1245, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing right now. That is the problem with it. I would love to be wrong but our best bets are that portions of 594 get thrown out, and that during the review of the initiative it gets thrown out entirely.

In the mean time attack the most insidious portions of the law, like the transfer language, clear up the education piece to include those of over 18 (for hunter's ed and so on), clarify home shooting ranges of ranges on public and private property (shall remain on site at all times), and define specifically what the minimum duration of what constitutes a transfer.

There is so much BS out there right now from folks who espouse to be patriots, going the all or none route. "F' them if they don't support everything we believe," is the usual refrain. Unless those folks are willing to take up arms against the government, they'll get absolutely nothing done by shouting "let's take back the capital" like the D-bags above did. If they do take up arms they will either end up in prison or a grave.

Anybody who can work intelligently towards dismantling any part of this law is my friend. I don't care if you only want to go after one piece, because any rollback is better than no rollback at all. Would it be nice to have 594 gone completely? Yes. Is it realistic? Not at this time through a legislative challenge. Court, maybe 50%.

That is the reality of the situation.

 

[Gunguy45]

Dogfish,

I really hope I am wrong and that he does support the repeal. I don't personally know Rep. Blake like you do, but the reason I questioned his motives is because he's a politician and I trust few, if any politicians. We've all seen politicians say something one day, then turn around and do the opposite the next. My questioning of him was nothing personal, it's just the nature of the beast. As GW said "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."


Since you guys are friends, maybe you can ask him why he's not a sponsor of HB 1245. Is there is something wrong with it?
Ray

Something IS wrong with it. It's a waste of time since a supermajority is required to repeal all of 594. No way in Hell are you getting a supermajority for outright repeal. Even the bill's author thinks there is no chance to get it through.

There are other bills in the works that are going to work to remove the most ridiculous and odious portions of 594 while retaining BG checks on permanent sales ONLY. THOSE probably have a pretty good chance of passing with a supermajority. It's not what I WANT, but it's likely the best we're going to get out of the legislature.

If you want an outright repeal, as I do, we're going to have to either hope for the best as far as the suits go, file another initiative, or wait two years until a simple majority of the legislature has the authority to overturn 594.

Asking a Democrat who votes with us 99% of the time to stick his neck out on a bill that amounts to tilting at windmills and directly tells his own constituents "FU," is asking a bit much.

 

[44Brent]

THOSE probably have a pretty good chance of passing with a supermajority.

I am curious to known what other people who are familiar with the legislature, think the likelihood of each scenario coming to pass will be:

Scenario #1: Gun prohibitionists put sufficient amounts of pressure on the legislature that pro-gun forces are unable to reach a 2/3 majority to get result any changes made to the law. Result is legislative deadlock and the issue is decided in its entirety in District Court.

Scenario #2: Pro-gun forces repeal portions of I-594 with a 2/3 majority.

Scenario #3: Pro-gun forces and gun prohibitionists "compromise" by adding in 300 pages of "clarifications" that contain specific exemptions narrowly crafted to moot the case in District Court. Result is I-594 becomes the "Obamacare" of gun prohibition: "if you like your gun (and can figure out how to jump through 300 pages of hoops), you can keep your gun."

 

[Dave Workman]

Brian Blake is a friend of mine and without his help we would not have regained the ability to use suppressors and SBR's. He ran both of those bills based on my requests for him to do so.

Your assumptions are 100% baseless and without fact that he isn't behind stopping assaults on our firearms rights. Some people.

Ah, but Dogfish, remember this is how rumors get started that become gospel. Blake is a friend of mine, too. And he's as solid as they come on the 2A.
He's just not stupid.

 

[Gunguy45]

Ah, but Dogfish, remember this is how rumors get started that become gospel. Blake is a friend of mine, too. And he's as solid as they come on the 2A.
He's just not stupid.

And this is where we need to get our own house in order.

We have a very small, but vocal minority who seem to think that legislation happens or doesn't happen by digging in one's heels. It doesn't. EVER.

There is no politician ever, in the history of this country with whom I have agreed 100% of the time. Hell, there is no PERSON I have ever agreed with all the time on everything, including my best friends who are in almost total agreement with me on most stuff.

1. What is POSSIBLE given current environment?
2. What could I live with, given that what I want is impossible?
3. How am I going to justify my votes/actions with the people who sent me here?

Those are the first three questions any responsible legislator has to ask.

A democratic system is ugly, takes a long time to do ANYTHING worthwhile and generally sucks. -Until your in the minority and thank God for all of the above.

Some of our members frankly need to grow up. This isn't about "compromise." It's about doing the best we can given reality. You can ask for the impossible all day and nothing will happen. Or you can work towards the possible and get real progress.

Your choice: Progress or status quo and impotent rage. Personally, progress beats the Hell out of chest thumping.

 

[Gunguy45]

I am curious to known what other people who are familiar with the legislature, think the likelihood of each scenario coming to pass will be:

Scenario #1: Gun prohibitionists put sufficient amounts of pressure on the legislature that pro-gun forces are unable to reach a 2/3 majority to get result any changes made to the law. Result is legislative deadlock and the issue is decided in its entirety in District Court.

Scenario #2: Pro-gun forces repeal portions of I-594 with a 2/3 majority.

Scenario #3: Pro-gun forces and gun prohibitionists "compromise" by adding in 300 pages of "clarifications" that contain specific exemptions narrowly crafted to moot the case in District Court. Result is I-594 becomes the "Obamacare" of gun prohibition: "if you like your gun (and can figure out how to jump through 300 pages of hoops), you can keep your gun."

Scen 1: 30% unless something happens to change that.

Scen 2: 50%+ unless something happens to change that.

Scen 3: 0% no one has an appetite for that nonsense.

Look, I've had conversations with so many people who are ANTI-gun that think 594 needs fixing, I can't recall the numbers. ANYONE who is serious knows this is a mess. As long as proponents are not insisting on a total repeal, we have a pretty good shot in the legislature.

BG checks on permanent transfers? Absent we get lucky in court, those are going to stick.

 

[Dogfish]

You still owe me a tie for the SBR bill Dave.

 

[Dogfish]

Also Dave, I'm about 99.9% sure that if this makes it to the floor that Blake would vote for this.

Brian is anything but stupid. There are some very smart boys who have been raised in the Harbor.

 

[Dave Workman]

Earth shaking: Newspaper editorial lauds gun rights leader

That social earthquake felt in Southwest Washington this morning was the Vancouver Columbian editorializing in agreement with the Evergreen State's most prominent Second Amendment advocate, Alan Gottlieb.

<broken link removed>

 

[Hawaiian]

I know it is wishful thinking, but maybe with Gottlieb stating that the Rambo wanabe's are damaging our cause and helping the anti's, they would wise up. But I doubt it. If any of you know who these clowns are, please try to talk to them and get them to protest responsibly or stay home.
They are presenting the same image to the public that the looters in Ferguson did and are distracting from and damaging our cause.

 

[chariot13]

Earth shaking: Newspaper editorial lauds gun rights leader

That social earthquake felt in Southwest Washington this morning was the Vancouver Columbian editorializing in agreement with the Evergreen State's most prominent Second Amendment advocate, Alan Gottlieb.

<broken link removed>

A media outlet that endorsed I-594 also agrees with gottlieb.... That's a shocker

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/01/kissy-kissy-collectivist-rag-that.html

 

[Doc In UPlace]

More and more it appears to me that many of the OC people are ideologues to whom facts and logic make no difference.

Minds made up that the only solution to opposition to gun ownership is to effectively stick guns in the faces of their opponents.

Kind of like drowning someone to make them 'like' swimming.

 

[chariot13]

More and more it appears to me that many of the OC people are ideologues to whom facts and logic make no difference.

Minds made up that the only solution to opposition to gun ownership is to effectively stick guns in the faces of their opponents.

Kind of like drowning someone to make them 'like' swimming.

Facts & logic are two very different things. Logic will tell you that in order to protect a right, a right that was always present even before the 2nd amendment was written (right to self defense). The 2nd amendment is only an acknowledgement to that ever bearing fact. To safeguard this ever bearing truth, this right shall not (ever in even the slightest) be infringed. However your logic and many on here, believes an infringement is ok, for as long as it takes to have their own courts decide for themselves when they are wrong. We don't drink your cool aid. Bottoms up.