King County Gun Safety Action Plan

Seattle, Washington (located in King County, Washington)  has floated an "Gun Safety Action Plan" which promises to undermine the ability of firearms owners to defend their family, themselves, and their property.    The "County Council" has also suggested that the State Legislature allow municipalities to over-ride state limitations on ban on confiscating firearms.  (See below)

What this means is ... yes, they DO want to "take your guns away from you"; it's an open door to confiscation of private property and an imposition on the right to sell or transfer private property.

This isn't a "Safety Action Plan".  It's a blatant attempt to deprive the citizens of King County of their Second Amendment rights.

King County Gun Safety Action Plan: King County Council Chair Joe McDermott introduced the Gun Safety Action Plan, a King County initiative to protect our residents from gun violence. He also called on the Washington State Legislature to lead or lift the ban imposed on local jurisdictions prohibiting local governments from enacting laws that might limit the sale or possession of firearms in Washington State.

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today - The Washington Post

WAPO has an in-depth analysis of the rise of the NRA in the turbulent 1960's.

I urge you to read it, and pay attention to the key events which turned this nation inside out.

Also .. WAPO allows a limited number of 'reads' before they begin to charge you for access.  It may be worth it to you , to keep track of what "they" have to say about the issues of gun control and Constitutional Freedoms.

It may be worth it; they don't charge much, and they always have an interesting point of view, whether or not you agree with them.  See below.

How the assassinations of 1968 led the NRA to become the lobbying force it is today - The Washington Post:

The day after an assassin’s bullet crashed through Robert Kennedy’s skull, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote a letter to Congress. “Let us now spell out our grief in constructive action,” the president urged in a message on June 6, 1968. Johnson decried the availability of arms to the mentally ill. And he lamented “mail-order murder,” which had allowed Lee Harvey Oswald five years earlier to purchase a $19.95 rifle from a Chicago store and train its sights on Robert Kennedy’s brother John as he rode through Dallas in his presidential motorcade:

for more ... follow the link.

Dear Washington State: You're screwed!

David Codrea details the sad state of Washington under Democrat Leadership:

Anti-gun laws are expected.  Sorry, but if it wasn't y'all, your neighbors voted for those idiots.

Proposed Washington Law Shows Gun-Grabbers Intend to Have It Both Ways | Oath Keepers: “November’s special election will give Democrats control of both the state House and Senate for the first time since 2012 during the next legislative session,” Seattle’s My Northwest reported Tuesday. “November’s special election will give Democrats control of both the state House and Senate for the first time since 2012 during the next legislative session.”

Expect your 2nd Amendment Rights to be thoroughly and painfully "Rogered".

Washington State Background Check Failure

New Washington State Background Check Failure Reporting Law Raises Questions:

So much for Michael Bloomberg’s I-594 living up to its promises. Not that anyone expected it to have any effect whatsoever on predators. What it did do, aside from forcing “law-abiding” gun owners to give up private transfers, was create and put a new class of “criminal” at risk for life-destroying consequences —the previously “law-abiding” who chose “I will not comply” civil disobedience over submission to new Intolerable Acts.

- David Codrea

Yep.   Look for the same results here in Oregon.   We always tread on Washington's coat tails.

Einstein's Definition of Insanity:  Trying the same thing over again, expecting different results

NOTE:   Also posted by IRONS

Washington: "Unsecured Firearm Law" proposed

What IS it with Washington State this week?

Unsecured firearm law would hold gun owners accountable:

...  Washington state doesn’t have a law to punish gun owners whose weapons get in the hands of the wrong people. Democratic state Senator Guy Palumbo is trying to change that. Palumbo introduced a bill that would make unsafe storage of a gun a crime. “It’s basically to keep the guns we do have out of the hands of dangerous people,” he said.

Anyone with a firearm can be described as "dangerous people".  That's the whole point of a firearm.

 As the bill is currently written, a gun owner would either get a misdemeanor or felony — depending on how the gun was used — if their unsecured firearm was used illegally by someone. “

Which is to say, YOU can be penalized on a 'sliding scale' depending on what some OTHER person does ... and does without either your consent or your knowledge, never mind your active participation.

This is going to be a great year to be a Lawyer in Washington State!

You can never guarantee those wouldn’t happen — those tragedies — but certainly in those cases, this all would have had ramifications for the people’s whose guns were used in those tragedies.” Palumbo, a gun owner himself, says it is just “common sense” to lock up firearms. “I’m a gun owner, but it’s unfair to keep them unlocked,” he said. 

What's unfair is to require people to make their personal defense firearms inaccessible to the owners.
Which is another way of saying: "that's the whole point of a firearm".

 He admits he is not sure how well the bill will do.

In a sane society, it would be laughed out of the house.  On The Left Coast, we never know what the idiots in office will do.

Washington State: What part of "Will Not Comply" is still unclear to you?

FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law - The Truth About Guns:

 The FBI has just released a report showing that private party transfers in Washington following the new law accounted for only 2% of the total background checks.

Duh!
Nobody wants to comply, because (a) it's expensive and inconvenient, (b) since firearms serial numbers are necessarily included, it is tantamount to Registration [the first step to confiscation], and (c) only law-abiding citizens will obey the law ... which is supposedly framed to prevent sale of firearms to criminals.

Criminals will ignore it, rendering the law moot and ineffective as a means to its stated goal.
 Do you not recognize the dichotomy of the situation?

In America, private individuals have been loaning, exchanging and selling firearms to each other for hundreds of years,  To begin penalizing (imprisoning them?) now for exercising their constitutional rights would be the same as penalizing (imprisoning them?) for going to the church of their choice or speaking their mind in a public forum.

If the law would accomplish its goal, it might be acceptable by the citizenry ... if it were better written!
But this POS law will not really be effective in Washington.  Or Oregon.  Or Nevada or Connecticut ... etc.


For a detailed explanations of just why "Universal Background Checks" are A Bad Idea, read Dr. John Lott's recent explanation.

Custer (Washington) Club Matches: Challenging!

If it need be said, these are NOT 'my' videos; I cannot shoot to this level of expertise, but I admire the experiences of those who can.  It's fortunate that 'Gunbot' posts these match videos for the rest of us to enjoy.

Shooting USPSA in the Sand @ Custer | Gunbot!:

Custer’s range is one of the best run with very interesting bays which allows them to design fun and challenging stages. This month’s match had lots of low ports which makes it hard for aging knees to deal with, at least the bays had soft sand. I felt slow in some stages because I was waiting for a perfect sight picture instead of shooting early, calling my shots and correcting them if needed.

I competed at the Area 1 match at this range in 2001 ("The Space Oddity" match) and the range had not been anything like as well developed, nor as sophisticated in range design, as we see today.

You have got to watch this exciting run!
It's not on YouTube ... so please go to the underlined link above to see the embedded video.

You Can't Fix "Evil"

In our nation's misguided (read: failed) attempt to "Fix" the problem of Violence in America, our leadership has invariably resorted to the only measure available to them:   they impose more and increasingly draconian "laws" which only affect honest, law-abiding gun owners.

Why?

Because it's cheaper than doing "The Hard Thing", which is to address the societal ills which lead to acts of violence  by the most resource-poor citizens in the country.

People who take an "assault weapon" into a shopping mall with the intent to kill strangers are ... a phenomenon which can be predicted.  And they are a problem.

But we have other problems which are more important, and more wide-reaching in terms of the effect they have on our country.

Tip of the Ice Berg

Open letter to the City of Seattle, Washington:

Dear Seattle;

(Image courtesy of CNS NEWS)

It’s common sense for Seattle to tax gun sales to study violence | The Seattle Times:

Washington’s law prohibits the regulation of firearms by local governments, but Seattle is within its authority to impose fees to pay for a public-health crisis caused by gun violence. A $25 tax on each firearm sold within the city is reasonable, as is a 2-cent- or 5-cent-per-round tax for various types of ammunition. The city is so serious about tackling this problem, it plans to pay for research and prevention even if the court sides with the gun-rights coalition. But the city shouldn’t have to. If Seattle gets this right, other cities should also pitch in to solve this public-health crisis.

(All emphasis added by me)

Reasonable.  By your standards, perhaps.
Unconstitutional, by the Second Amendment.


When your article inserts the word "but ...", it's a tacit acknowledgement that you're advocating a measure which undermines the civil rights of your readership.  And you know it.  You just think that your readers are so stupid, or so already-in-your-court, that you can say ANYTHING and your readers will accept it.   Because they trust you.

You are trading in the trust of your customers, undermining their rights, and you have such disdain for them that you assume they won't notice your goal ... which is to serve them up for the dinner which is your political masters.

There is nothing new in your plan to impose "reasonable, common sense measures"
(BZZZT! Bullshit Alert!) for benign administrative purposes.

New York Senator  Daniel Patrick Moynihan had the same idea in 1993 when he proposed a 10,000% tax on ammunition.

November 04, 1993|By John Fairhall | John Fairhall,Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- Demanding action to stop the country's epidemic of violence, a powerful Senate chairman declared yesterday that his panel would make handgun control an integral part of health care reform by drastically increasing the tax on bullets.
Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan said the panel would build into health reform legislation such a huge increase in ammunition taxes that the most destructive types of bullets would effectively be taxed "out of existence."
The New York Democrat introduced a measure yesterday -- which he would incorporate into a health care reform bill later on -- that would impose a 100-fold increase in the tax on certain bullets and a 50 percent tax on all other handgun ammunition, with the exception of .22 caliber rimfire bullets used in target shooting. The current tax is 11 percent of the manufacturers' ammunition price.


His legislation also would slap a $10,000 "occupational tax" on manufacturers and importers of handgun ammunition.

But Moynihan, then, was more honest than Seattle is now:

• Mr. Moynihan said he believed the new taxes could raise as much as $1 billion. The current federal tax on ammunition, combined with federal taxes on handguns, shotguns and rifles, generated $143 million in 1992, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

• But the senator said his major goal was not to raise revenue but to tax "out of existence" ammunition "which has the sole purpose destroying bodies."

... while you, Seattle, dodge the issue by suggesting that "... it's common sense to tax gun sales ..." for whatever transparent excuse you choose to employ.

In truth, Seattle Times, and Seattle Washington, you just want to tax ammunition (and firearms .. both of which are legal products) "out of existence".

This proposition for a tax on the Second Amendment is like putting a frog in a crock-pot; if the water is initially only 'warm', the frog won't notice that sooner or later it's being boiled.

Why do you advocate this?
Because you can!

Is it any wonder that Americans have increasingly demonstrated that they no longer trust their government, but fear it?  This happens when the Government which they have elected has turned against the best interests of their constituents ... or should we say "Subjects"? ... to further a Political Goal?

Seattle The Big Target isn't the people who cause the problem

It’s common sense for Seattle to tax gun sales to study violence | The Seattle Times:

 In the absence of federal action to limit firearms-related violence, Seattle is one of a few local governments looking at creative solutions to do so. 

Oh!  So .. everything that follows this introductory phrase in the Seattle Times in intended to reinforce the original thesis?  Follow along and see how well that works our.

 But its latest effort to curb a public-health crisis that costs lives and money is threatened by a gun-rights coalition that includes the National Rifle Association. 

Wow!
Faster than a Speeding bullet, the emphasis shifts from "limit firearms-related violence" to MONEY!
Maybe the emphasis should be pointed toward the people who keep getting shot?

 On Friday, a King County Superior Court judge will consider that group’s request for an injunction against the city’s gun-and-ammunition sales tax, which is set to take effect in January. 

Yes, the entire reason for taxing ammunition is NOT to "limit firearms-related violence". but to impose a new (arbitrary) sales tax in a state which already has 10% of it's consumer goods prices going to the State instead of the Producer of said goods.

The judge ought to see that this revenue serves a crucial purpose and does not stop gun enthusiasts from legally obtaining firearms. 

No .. "The Judge" ought to see that this is a punitive tax which is specifically directed at the small percent of the populace who have chosen to take the Constitution at it word .. and will hereby be punished for their audacity:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"Infringed".  Curious word.  Does that include "Shall Not Be Taxed"?  (As in, for instance, a Poll Tax which has been ruled unconstitutional.)

 The revenue collected on sales of guns and ammunition would fund research through the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, in addition to prevention and education programs. A groundbreaking 2014 study funded by the city showed that patients admitted to hospitals statewide for gunshot wounds are 30 times more likely to return with another firearm injury compared to people hospitalized for other reasons. 

Oh, you get a lot of repeat business in the hospitals?  Doesn't that make you wonder why the same people keep getting shot?  And by the way ...

How about this?
the same folks keep getting shot?  Maybe hospitals should quit treating return gang-bangers on the grounds that they're just asking for it!

"..we will fix your owiee this time, but don't come back; change your life style, Dude, because you're obviously asking for it!"

All of the above has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment; however, it does fill wasted space when the originators of this dumb-shit regulation are asked "why would you do this, and who would it benefit"? Nobody has a lot of sympathy for the gang-bangers who are responsible for the "gun violence", so why not direct your punitive actions toward them?

Oh, and by the way .. Gang Bangers don't frequent the same markets as do law-abiding citizens; your precious tax won't do a damn thing to the price they pay for stolen firearms.

Actually, one would think that a tax on firearms and/or ammunition would at least be directed toward a benefit for law-abiding firearms owners and ammunition buyers.   But NO!  There is no benefit here .. it's just another sleazy Poll Tax!

 Absurdly, the NRA has fought since 1996 to ban federal funding for gun-violence research — as if arming ourselves with factual information is a bad thing. The court should reject the arguments of parties asking for the injunction, including gun sellers, the NRA, the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

No, the court should direct their punitive actions toward the repeat felons who are driving the "shot while being a bad boy" statistics up ... not the honest citizens who don't engage in this kind of nefarious activity.   The NRA doesn't represent gang-bangers; it represents law-abiding citizens.

You folks just don't seem to understand the difference between the two markets; one legal, the other based on activities which are already illegal.

I don't know about you, but I'm completely fed up with trying to balance gang activity with legal firearms ownership, and the state knows where the problem lies .. but won't "fix it".

Two percent of the population is responsible for 99 percent of the firearms violence, and what does the state do?

They penalize the  law-abiding 98 percent of the population.

That's because the state knows that if they impose laws on the law-abiding, there's going to be some feedback .. but they can ignore that because legal gun-owners aren't going to shoot everybody in Tacoma.  So it's safe for the legislators to be stupid.

No, this new legislative action won't reduce the amount of firearms violence, but if there's a law .. well, nobody expects the criminals to obey the law ... but it looks good on their resume.  And besides, it won't really change anything, will it?  So it's easy to pass a law; it's just not going to make a difference except to penalize law-abiding citizens.  And you don't give a damn about them.

Why SHOULDN'T the NRA be opposed to gun violence research?  You folks have the numbers, but you are ignoring them.  The problem isn't with NRA members, but with career criminals, and you know it.

Any statistics you evolve will ignore the problem and focus on the people who have nothing to hide.

The PROBLEM isn't with the NRA folks, and it isn't even the fault of the gang-bangers.

The PROBLEM is that the state of Washington can't manage the law-ignoring people who generate all the gun-violence statistics, so they point the finger at the people who have guns .. but don't break the law.

Because they are the Big Target, and easy to hit.

And they don't shoot back.

You people make me sick.
No wonder I don't trust politicians ... .they don't trust ME!