The Worst Gun Bill Ever
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 3 months ago
You’re at the range.
A longtime friend comes over and asks if he could try your handgun, as he’s contemplating buying one.
Of course you agree. That’s what gun owners do.
If this scenario occurs in Washington State after the passage of Initiative 594, both of you have broken the law.
Initiative 594 would classify this as a transfer — something that would require paperwork, fees, a waiting period and if it involves a handgun, government registration.
The proposed legislation doesn’t even recognize a loan among family members.
A dad couldn’t loan a shotgun to his son on opening day without the proper paperwork.
I am not kidding.
It’s a registration scheme disguised as “Universal background check” legislation.
I-594 is perhaps the most ill-conceived ballot initiative I’ve ever seen. Sure, there are gun laws that have been more harmful, such as those with “ban” in the title. Few, however, are so poorly thought out.
As you can imagine, there is a lot of money rolling in to support the ballot initiative. Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates have donated millions.
NRA and other gun groups are getting involved.
Washington gun owners are pushing back hard. They have created a must-read website, and are getting the word out via social media.
Their handy “pocket guide” explains the bill very clearly.
Well, there are many bad gun laws, and it’s hard to pick out the worst one. But it’s seems true that the recent surrender on the assault weapons ban by the anti-gunners is a misdirect. It isn’t what they’re really interested in. This is what they really want.
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it. The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
All gun control is wicked, but perhaps the most wicked is the government desire to catalog all gun owners and their weapons. Fight it, never surrender. Never give one inch. Never compromise. Never. Don’t even consider it. Ever.
On September 16, 2014 at 7:33 am, Frank Clarke said:
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. I wonder how much havoc might be created by rigid attention to the rule book, say as at a swap meet where one handgun is “transferred” 15 times as it moves around a circle of admirers. Okay, let’s all fill out our paperwork and submit it en masse. Department of Licensing, where can I park this truck full of paper?
On September 16, 2014 at 10:40 am, GomeznSA said:
And should this ill-conceived and poorly written (perhaps intentionally?) initiative actually pass, that tactic might very well spell its doom. As I recall, WA Dept. of Licensing is having a hard time keeping up with their paperwork now, burying them under a couple of mountains of paperwork might wake up enough folks to overturn it.
OTOH, knowing how the political bureaucracy there ‘works’ (one of the reasons I moved) they would probably just create yet another agency solely to process (VERY slowly of course) that mountain of paper……………….
On September 16, 2014 at 7:46 am, boogyoogyoogy said:
Please Frank, let’s not make light of TREASON.
OUR definition, not their’s.
On September 16, 2014 at 10:28 am, z--man said:
They may not have to wait for I-594. When Connecticut Governor Mike Malloy wins reelection in November, by December he’s going to start kicking in doors to enforce that State’s “Assault Weapons” ban. Cuomo in New York State will follow. The agents in those States will find themselves seriously outmatched, and they’ll ask for help from the feds, which they will get. That’s when it will really hit the fan and this thing will spread nation-wide..
On September 16, 2014 at 10:35 am, GomeznSA said:
I’ve been saying it for decades (literally) – if someone could invent a magic ray that would instantaneously vaporize every single gun (and that would include military hardware) – crime would NOT also disappear. It would result in essentially survival of the strongest as there would be nothing to stop them from asserting their will on anyone. Be very careful gun banners, if you get your wish, the consequences might very well NOT be to your liking.
On September 16, 2014 at 10:43 am, pjb1 said:
Look at the bright side of I-594. If it passes, there will be a lot of people learning to disobey the law. Obedience is an attribute of slaves, and this law would do an awful lot to mentally free the slaves.
It’s one thing to pass a law, another thing entirely to enforce it.
On September 16, 2014 at 5:39 pm, Heyoka said:
First off pardon me for this lengthy rant. It has to be said so that we do not become absorbed in
untangling the Gordon Knot; we become Alexander, draw our sword and cut through the damnable thing.
Firts rule reason is not the same as rationalize. Reason is using established scientific forms of the discipline to arrive at the conclusion; rationalize is using any premise available to arrive to support one’s agenda.
Here is the history on Guns:
I have uncovered a bit of information he may be interested in. First the information that is current with regard to the Heller Decision. Scalia mentioning regulation of fire arms was done in a vacuum. There was little reference to the issue at bar in the “opinion. The reference to the
militia statutes is misleading. The statutes define what a militia member must report to duty with as the bare minimum. That is why a fine is stipulated if the militia member does not show up with those bare essentials. The Court’s opinion attempts to limit the arms kept to the bare minimum and hence the “regulate they want so desperately to do. This is not the term as defined
in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to drill in movement and formation in order to be an effective military unit; their regulate wants to limit. Here is the reason why it does not.
Second, and maybe most importantly, there is the fact that cannon were held by the citizens of Boston prior to the Revolution. They were seized by the British under Gage acting as the Military Governor but were taken back by a band of merry intrepid patriots. At the end of the war in 1788 the Massachusetts Government petitioned Henry Knox to have the cannon returned. The statement is as follows and is inscribed upon the gun to this day:
“Sacred to Liberty: This is one of four cannons, which constituted the whole train of Field Artillery possessed by the British Colonies of North America, at the commencement of the war, on the 19th of April, 1775. This cannon and its fellow belonging to a number of citizens of Boston, were used in many engagements during the war. The other two, the property of
the Government of Massachusetts were taken by the enemy. By order of the United
States in Congress assembled May 19th, 1788. ”
“Belonging to a number of citizens of Boston…” and specifically separating the “Government of Massachusetts” showing ownership was intended to show the appreciation for the use of the guns in the war and the esteem in which the Congress held for the patriotic citizens of Boston. There is no mistake there is no sleight of hand here the proclamation and the words are exact and in plain un-adulterated English. The guns were honored for their part in the
struggle for Independence.
General Gage the installed British General was absolutely sure about the arms
he thought expedient to seize to prevent an outright resistance to the Crown’s
tyranny.
“You will march…with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all the Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions…Small Arms, and all Military Stores
whatever…” — General Gage’s orders to Lt. Col. Smith, April 18, 1775.
The privateer Navy was larger and better gunned than that of the fledgling United States Navy.
It seems that this hearty group of sea faring folk were in possession of armed ships and were Privateers during the Revolution and during the war of 1812. The US Maritime Marine
Museum has a sight which quotes their sources and gives very accurate numbers of ships and guns, carriage guns and swivel guns. The site quotes that while there were only 64 armed ships in the Navy there were 1,697 privately owned armed ships operated by privateers. The total guns aboard the naval ships numbers just 1,242 while the Privately Owned vessels had 14,872
carriage and swivel guns aboard. In short the combined privately owned cannon and swivel guns were nearly14 times that of the Continental Navy.
So let us have no more rationalization designed to support disarmament of the people for “dangerous and frightening” weapons based upon some disconnected “rationalization’ whose sole purpose is to provide some reaching rationale. There is no reason here it is a screeching demand for disarmament based upon un supported rationalization that merely attempts to show purpose behind the act. There is no logic, there is no “reason” within the meaning of the word there is only clamor for their agenda.
The basis for all precedents to be overturned is “unreasonable”. So in several short paragraphs we have shown that all gun control measures are not pursuant to the historical context, they
are not based upon reason and they are no supported by the plain language of the Second Amendment.
Did the meaning of the Amendment include field artillery; of course it did and does. There is no
limit the colonists had excess to the most destructive military implement invented in the day. There is no ruling on the limitation of the Second Amendment, thus far, that will show with reason that there was a limitation placed upon the arms that the people may possess.
Every rationalization no matter how close to form it is written to appear as a valid authority of any court can stand this light of day. The rulings are void of reason with the defined meaning of the term and therefore void and unconstitutional have been reach by fallacious and twisted attempt to make rationalization appear as reason.
On September 16, 2014 at 11:08 pm, Dubs said:
Capable arms in the hands of citizens are needed.
Draw a line. Divide into 8 parts. Far left is no arms, far right is all arms.
From the left, do you believe in self defense? What tools will be available? If SD ok, then one step to the right. From the right, access to NBC (nuclear, biological or chemical) weapons? OK to keep a NBC weapon in basement under private control? What restrictions are reasonable? If no, move to the left. We have now established that there are freedoms subject to limitations.
From self defense, what tools? Traditional weapons, black power weapons, modern weapons? Move to right. From limits on personal weapons, after NBC, are crew served weapons, machine guns, or modern weapons ok? Move to left. We are arguing about a small subset.
Please note, I support the removal of the Hughes amendment, the ease or elimination of class three and destructive devices, and question the constitutional legality of many gun laws. I cannot support private use of NBC weapons.
This from a Life member of NRA and GOA. What is reasonable? And what do we do when the phaser plasma rifle is constructed? Or other new technology.
Anything that the sheriffs office can have, citizens can have. Anything not conducive to personal defense, but generalized destruction and environmental destruction should be restricted. We can argue a lot about what this entails.
Thoughts?
On September 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm, Russell Smith said:
This is why I don’t own guns. I lost all mine in a boating accident. Even that beautiful wood furniture AK-47.
On September 17, 2014 at 1:26 am, Shinypartsup said:
There are more out there. Buy one or more, but keep them dry this time. I am sorry for your loss but don’t let it define you.
On September 17, 2014 at 6:51 pm, Russell Smith said:
(The running gag is “I may or may not have guns, but it’s not the business of the NSA that’s likely looking for code words in my posts.”)
On September 17, 2014 at 7:42 pm, Shinypartsup said:
I get the humor. Unless you live like the Unibomber (but peacefully) you have left lots of information laying around.
On September 17, 2014 at 7:55 pm, Russell Smith said:
I’ve considered getting myself a “Unicabin” and spend the rest of my life fishing quietly, but it’s getting harder and harder to just ‘vanish’ these days. That’s a sad commentary on the ‘right to be left alone’.