WDFW and I-594

[pianoman9701]

State agencies are unable to oppose or support bills, but that doesn't mean they can't make a statement on how a bill might negatively affect their operation. I sent this email to the Wildlife Commission this AM. I wish I'd thought to do it sooner. Please feel free to copy and paste or produce one of your own.

"Dear Members of the Wildlife Commission,

I-594 will make it impossible for us to teach safe gun handling and live fire to our adult students. If you're unable to oppose I-594, you should at least make a statement that under its restrictions, instructors will no longer be able to practice safe gun handling using functioning firearms or perform the live fire portion of safe gun handling with adult students. When we have the live fire here in Vancouver, we often have it on WDFW property down by Vancouver Lake because we're unable to procure an established firing range. Under the exceptions for I-594, only "those under eighteen" are given exceptions in educational situations. This creates a big safety concern and puts at risk hunters and non-hunters alike.

In addition, the bill would make it illegal for anyone under eighteen to hunt by themselves. We know that because of hunter education, licensed hunting is one of the safest sports in which youth can participate, safer than football, baseball, even golf for youth. A requirement that makes it illegal for youth under eighteen to hunt with a parent's gun without the parent present would certainly affect hunter retention. This is a huge issue for us.

Please make a timely public statement which reflects the negative impacts that I-594 will have on hunting in WA State. Thank you for your consideration of my comments."

commission@dfw.wa.gov
director@dfw.wa.gov

[bigtex]

State agencies are unable to oppose or support bills, but that doesn't mean they can't make a statement on how a bill might negatively affect their operation.

Agencies can, and do support/oppose bills. They cannot support/oppose initiatives. 594 is an initiative, not a bill.

[mfswallace]

State agencies are unable to oppose or support bills, but that doesn't mean they can't make a statement on how a bill might negatively affect their operation.

Agencies can, and do support/oppose bills. They cannot support/oppose initiatives. 594 is an initiative, not a bill.

So what Piano is saying is correct except for his use of bill and not initiative, thanks for the clarification on that important distinction in this most important instance! 

[pianoman9701]

I used the term bill by mistake but I was correct about their being able to oppose or support. My point to them is intact.

[Bofire]

  Thanks I posted this on Facebook.
Carl

[Elkaholic daWg]

Thanks I posted this on Facebook.
Carl

As did I

[Mrninninnin]

News release: 11/07/14. Washington State.

TO: All media organizations and groups.
FROM: Gavin Seim, lead organizer of the “I WILL NOT Comply Rally”.

Initiative 594 just passed in Washington State, bringing on residents mandatory gun background checks and making it a felony to privately purchase or even hand a gun to a friend without government permission. We the people of Washington State will not comply with this lawless legislation. The highest law is that of liberty and our Constitution. Our rights will be upheld.

On Dec 13th 2014, just after the law is legally in effect, we stand and disobey the illegal restrictions of i594. We must not wait for our rights to be decided but act swiftly to affirm them. In under 72 hours over 5000 have RSVP’d to this stand on Capital grounds in Olympia and assert their God given rights.

Learn more about this peaceful civil rebellion here: http://callmegav.com/ral/

View the event page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/788109621237033


Joining in the event will be speakers, patriots and families from across the State to remind our legislators that lawless legislation will not be obeyed and to teach others about their rights.
 Will you bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, or will you stand for the liberty of your children? We are not asking permission, we are not standing silent. Our birthright is not theirs to take. We stand peaceful, principled, firm and resolute for the liberty so many have perished for. We stand to uphold law and we will not comply with lawlessness from government.

We Stand! Stand with us.

In Liberty – Gavin Seim.
 gavinforliberty@gmail.com

[rim_runner]

If this isn't done right you will do more damage than good. The media will make this look like a big temper tantrum and just tarnish our image further.

[bigtex]

If this isn't done right you will do more damage than good. The media will make this look like a big temper tantrum and just tarnish our image further.

[Crunchy]

Maybe I am missing something but I don't see the big negative impact for most agencies.  At worst, or best, depending on how you look at it, it would be one additional charge if the crime presented itself. 

[csaaphill]

If this isn't done right you will do more damage than good. The media will make this look like a big temper tantrum and just tarnish our image further.

it wont matter we look bad no matter what. Our forefathers were extremists too, and had very bad press put on them too, but they persisted untill more people supported what they were doing rather than not.
Of cource they will see it as a bunch of spoiled brats, but better than doing nothing.