Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 11, 2014, 11:14:09 AM
First, I-591 and I-594 were initiatives to the legislature. In WA,
- an initiative to the legislature can be adopted without a vote of the people;
- the legislature can reject or refuse to act on the initiative, which causes the vote to go to the people; or
- the legislature can propose an alternative measure, which makes both the initiative and the alternative subject to a vote of the people.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf (http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf)
P. 4.
In both cases of I-591 and I-594, the legislature chose option 2), to refuse to act on the initiatives.
Second, by punting on the I-591/I-594 issue, the legislature chose to roll the dice on making your innocuous behavior subject to felony prosecution. To be clear, at the minimum, the legislature could have proposed more sane alternatives to I-594 that expanded exemptions, added constitutional safeguards to I-594, added language regarding mental health screening or other agreeable steps to I-594 to prevent MPHS type of events, as well as a myriad of other possibilities addressing the objections of the opponents of I-594. In addition, the legislature could have adopted I-591 without a vote of the people, which, at a minimum, would have protected constitutional rights of the law abiding and forced the courts to decide the issue.
The legislature did nothing. The I-591/I-594 issue died in committees, for which a majority was held by the Republicans in the Senate (Law & Justice) and the Democrats in the House (Judiciary).
Here are their respective reports on:
I-591
House - http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20591%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20591%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf)
Senate - http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/INITIATIVE%20591%20SBA%20LAW%2014.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/INITIATIVE%20591%20SBA%20LAW%2014.pdf)
Note the NRA pro-testimony.
and I-594
**Note that the House report notes that neither sales or use tax would be collected on private transfers.
House - http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20594%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/INITIATIVE%20594%20HBA%20JUDI%2014.pdf)
Senate - http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/INITIATIVE%20594%20SBA%20LAW%2014.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/INITIATIVE%20594%20SBA%20LAW%2014.pdf)
Note the NRA con-testimony.
These are the committee members that failed to protect your rights and chose to take a chance that your innocuous activity would land you with a felony, which would permanently jeopardize your 2A rights.
We should be burning up these people's phone lines to let them know that they failed us, and that if they are not committed to amendment/repeal of I-594, that you will be committed financially and by volunteer work to elect his/her replacement.
House Judiciary Committee Members
http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/JUDI/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx)
Jinkins, Laurie (D) Chair (360) 786-7930
Hansen, Drew (D) Vice Chair (360) 786-7842
Rodne, Jay (R) * (360) 786-7852
Nealey, Terry (R) ** (360) 786-7828
Goodman, Roger (D) (360) 786-7878
Haler, Larry (R) (360) 786-7986
Kirby, Steve (D) (360) 786-7996
Klippert, Brad (R) (360) 786-7882
Muri, Dick (R) (360) 786-7890
Orwall, Tina (D) (360) 786-7834
Roberts, Mary Helen (D) (360) 786-7950
Shea, Matt (R) (360) 786-7984
Walkinshaw, Brady (D) (360) 786-7826
*Ranking Minority Member **Asst. Ranking Minority Member
Senate Committee Members
http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx)
Padden, Mike (R) Chair (360) 786-7606
O'Ban, Steve (R) Vice Chair (360) 786-7654
Kline, Adam (D) * (360) 786-7688
Darneille, Jeannie (D) (360) 786-7652
Pearson, Kirk (R) (360) 786-7676
Pedersen, Jamie (D) (360) 786-7628
Roach, Pam (R) (360) 786-7660
*Ranking Member
If you do not know who your elected Representatives and Senators are, Gun Owners of America provides an easy way to determine.
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/lookup?3&m=19187&lookupInput (http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/lookup?3&m=19187&lookupInput)
Note that your legislature could still act to amend or repeal I-594 with a "2/3 supermajority vote of both chambers. Any initiated law, so amended, is not subject to veto referendum. After two years, the law may be repealed or amended by a simple majority vote."
http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington#Legislative_tampering (http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington#Legislative_tampering)
Keep the pressure on the legislature to perform their legislative duties to protect the rights of all Washingtonians, against the attacks by wealthy elite misappropriating our initiative process by misleading the voters of the state.
Also of note:
The NRA was also financially present in the opposition to I-594 (largest contributor), while a majority of other than NRA donations went to support I-591.
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Gun_Rights_Measure,_Initiative_591_%282014%29#Campaign_contributions (http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Gun_Rights_Measure,_Initiative_591_%282014%29#Campaign_contributions)
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_%282014%29#Campaign_contributions (http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_%282014%29#Campaign_contributions)
Post by: SCRUBS on November 11, 2014, 11:18:40 AM
Post by: Curly on November 11, 2014, 12:44:54 PM
Thanks for the information FlOund3rz :tup:
:yeah:
Post by: huntrights on November 11, 2014, 07:37:07 PM
Great information Fl0und3rz. I-594 will obviously create a bad law if allowed to go forward unopposed. Writing and calling our representatives with very clear messages in addition to legal challenges that have been indicated should definitely be on our agenda. Representatives that retained their seats can be contacted immediately. When the new legislature is seated more communications need to happen.
Many people were misled by the lies and propaganda disseminated by the anti-gun billionaires. They thought I-594 would only expand background checks on private sales. Most people did not have a clue about the ominous consequences of temporary transfers and loans of firearms. I-594 won because of an overabundance of low-information voters that believed the propaganda garbage they were fed by the anti-gun media; $10 million will buy a lot.
People in our camp must realize that they need to get very engaged in the political process to keep these attacks on our rights and freedoms in check.
Post by: timberfaller on November 11, 2014, 09:10:51 PM
Sounds like the "American" thing to do!!!
Also I would add, telling your friends and family who were to lazy to vote, get off the couch, shut off the Xbox and TV and vote next time!! :bash:
Post by: mkcj on November 11, 2014, 09:31:45 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 11, 2014, 09:49:09 PM
Some of the legislators you listed are no longer in office. They've either retired or lost re-election....
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 11, 2014, 10:47:21 PM
Fl0und3rz,
Some of the legislators you listed are no longer in office. They've either retired or lost re-election....
Thanks. That's the current info from wa.gov. Recognizing that there will be changes, please post any updates to new committee members as you come across them.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on November 12, 2014, 08:20:11 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on November 12, 2014, 08:32:14 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 12, 2014, 09:53:15 AM
House Committee Members
Jinkins, Laurie (D) Chair (360) 786-7930 - reelected
Hansen, Drew (D) Vice Chair (360) 786-7842 - reelected
Rodne, Jay (R) * (360) 786-7852 - reelected
Nealey, Terry (R) ** (360) 786-7828 - reelected
Goodman, Roger (D) (360) 786-7878 - reelected
Haler, Larry (R) (360) 786-7986 - reelected
Kirby, Steve (D) (360) 786-7996 - reelected (ran unopposed)
Klippert, Brad (R) (360) 786-7882 - reelected (ran unopposed)
Muri, Dick (R) (360) 786-7890 - reelected
Orwall, Tina (D) (360) 786-7834 - reelected
Roberts, Mary Helen (D) (360) 786-7950 - Roberts did not seek re-election in 2014. (Legislative District 21 elected two Ds)
Shea, Matt (R) (360) 786-7984 - reelected
Walkinshaw, Brady (D) (360) 786-7826 - reelected (ran unopposed)
*Ranking Minority Member **Asst. Ranking Minority Member
Senate Committee Members
http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx (http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx)
Padden, Mike (R) Chair (360) 786-7606 (election 2016)
O'Ban, Steve (R) Vice Chair (360) 786-7654 - reelected
Kline, Adam (D) * (360) 786-7688 (did not seek reelection in 2014, Legislative District 37 elected Pramila Jayapal)
Darneille, Jeannie (D) (360) 786-7652 (election 2016)
Pearson, Kirk (R) (360) 786-7676 (election 2016)
Pedersen, Jamie (D) (360) 786-7628 - reelected (ran unopposed)
Roach, Pam (R) (360) 786-7660 - reelected
*Ranking Minority Member
Notes: House is two year terms. Senate is four year terms.
From the information gathered (http://ballotpedia.org (http://ballotpedia.org)), most of these races are small potatoes in terms of campaign contributions. For the example of Mike Padden (R), in 2012 he raised about $90K.
http://ballotpedia.org/Mike_Padden#Campaign_donors (http://ballotpedia.org/Mike_Padden#Campaign_donors)
The point being is that a little money can go a long way to unseat 2A unfriendly cock-roaches.
Perhaps bigtex can opine on the committee member selection process.
Post by: bigtex on November 12, 2014, 09:58:47 AM
The issue is while the majority of those members did get elected, that doesn't mean they will still be on the committees. As an example Chris Hurst (former Black Diamond PD Officer) was the Chair of the House Public Safety Committee from 2011-2012, but when the 2013-14 committee memberships came out he wasn't even a member of the committee.Fl0und3rz,
Some of the legislators you listed are no longer in office. They've either retired or lost re-election....
Thanks. That's the current info from wa.gov. Recognizing that there will be changes, please post any updates to new committee members as you come across them.
Some of these people may not be on the committees come January when the legislative session begins.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 12, 2014, 10:25:44 AM
The issue is while the majority of those members did get elected, that doesn't mean they will still be on the committees. As an example Chris Hurst (former Black Diamond PD Officer) was the Chair of the House Public Safety Committee from 2011-2012, but when the 2013-14 committee memberships came out he wasn't even a member of the committee.Fl0und3rz,
Some of the legislators you listed are no longer in office. They've either retired or lost re-election....
Thanks. That's the current info from wa.gov. Recognizing that there will be changes, please post any updates to new committee members as you come across them.
Some of these people may not be on the committees come January when the legislative session begins.
Yes, that is understandable. Thanks for the illustrative example. Do you know when/how these committees are assigned?
In addition, note that the 2014 committees were the ones responsible for punting on the I-591/I-594 issue, no? There are and will be some continuing long-standing members of these committees.
So a preliminary message to some would be, "we know you screwed up on the committee responsible for taking action, and we are watching."
A different message would be appropriate for members of the the new committees and for your current and/or new reps and senators.
Post by: blackdog on November 12, 2014, 03:01:57 PM
Post by: Special T on November 12, 2014, 03:11:43 PM
I do find it funny that when an initiveaffects state funding they sure pay attention, speak out, and do what they can to mitigate it after the fact... Dont count on that one here.
Post by: sakoshooter on November 12, 2014, 04:58:15 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 12, 2014, 06:14:13 PM
What alternatives would you have supported?
This is not the thread you are looking for. There are several other threads that discuss alternatives from will not comply to expanded exemptions to opening background systems to private individuals to personal liability for selling to felons/DVs.
Post by: hub on November 12, 2014, 11:06:42 PM
Post by: huntrights on November 17, 2014, 11:22:07 AM
We were warned that initiatives similar to I-594 would spread to other states if I-594 passed in Washington.
Here it comes:
"Gun background checks: Nevada is next target state"
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/11/13/gun-background-checks-nevada-is-next-target-state/
Post by: Curly on November 25, 2014, 01:03:33 PM
The legislature failed to act on these, so the initiatives went to a vote of the people. Now that they've passed, they go back to the legislature? Now the legislature has to decide what to do with them? The legislature can decide to throw them out or parts of them? Seems crazy to me............
Am I confused or what? :dunno:
Post by: blackdog on November 25, 2014, 01:09:30 PM
Post by: Windwalker on November 25, 2014, 06:31:56 PM
The steps up through the vote are laid out and pretty easy to find - after that things get fuzzy.
The Secretary of State is involved but as far as I know our only hope is waiting for the state Attorney General to issue an advisory opinion interpreting it.
I expect that to take some of the edges off the initiative...but not all.
It will be on the books and a thorn in the side of FFL dealers for two years.
Only up side is knowing most LEOs and some prosecutors will refuse to enforce the law.
Post by: huntrights on December 03, 2014, 10:22:39 PM
We were warned if I-594 passed in Washington, the pursuit of the same type of anti-gun initiatives and legislation would be pursued in other states. They continue to mislead people into thinking this is just about background checks on firearm sales. They fail to mention that simple and innocent temporary transfers/loans of firearms are the primary issues with their anti-gun initiatives. The devil is in the details so they don't want to discuss those anti-gun details.,
"Bloomberg gun-control group targets more than 12 states"
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/12/bloomberg-gun-control-group-targets-more-than-12-states.aspx
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/02/bloomberg-plans-gun-control-push-in-states/19785161/
Excerpts from the article:
"Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, a gun-control super PAC started by former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, spent $10.5 million on politics this year. Pia Carusone, a senior adviser to the group, said ballot initiatives are a "promising" way for gun-control proponents to take their case directly to voters."
""They have come up with a strategy that seems to be working so far," said Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at State University of New York-Cortland and an expert on gun politics. "For the first time in gun-politics history, the NRA is being outspent by the pro-gun control forces.""
What they don't say is that the NRA is made up of millions of regular, everyday people that believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. They don't focus on the fact that it is just a few anti-gun billionaires funding these anti-gun initiatives.
If you haven't already joined and contributed to the NRA, NOW is the time to do so.
National Rifle Association (NRA)
http://home.nra.org/
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
The battle has not ended. Please donate to Protect Our Gun Rights
http://wagunrights.org/
Post by: Little Dave on December 03, 2014, 11:35:00 PM
What I would like to see is an amendment which dishonorably discharges persons who have sworn this oath from their role or office and, permanently removes eligibility to enter into a role or office requiring this oath any individual that has rendered support of any kind to a petition, initiative, or bill which becomes law later determined to be unconstitutional.
The oath needs to mean something and the Constitution taken seriously.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 04, 2014, 07:29:37 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 04, 2014, 10:41:13 AM
It would behoove all of you to jump over there and start reading.
Remember, the I-594 crowd insisted that hunting or hunter education would not be affected. Looks like that's not accurate. But you guys be the judge and jury.
Post by: timberfaller on December 04, 2014, 10:55:56 AM
NOW there is a Initiative I could support!!!