I dropped a note to NRA.

Yeah, guys also drop notes to your state reps and Senator. Worth the hassle.

I dropped a note to NRA.

Yeah, guys also drop notes to your state reps and Senator. Worth the hassle.

Lets be real here. "Worked" means succeeded. The goal wasn't to put signs up, that was a tactic. The goal was to win.

The sad thing is that the NRA did NOT have a good strategy.

So It's now over half a year since 594 became law and the NRA hasn't filed a single lawsuit and is leaving this to the SAF.

Any of you thinking about renewing your NRA memberships should think twice. For an entire year they spammed our email boxes with "Help us fight 594 by donating to us" and they took that money and ran without actually fighting 594 in any meaningful way. Now they won't even sue despite 594 having myriad problems that would allow a judge to strike it down such as:

-new 60 day waiting period for non-resident, non-CPL holders.
-violating single subject rule for laws in WA
etc.

If any of you get calls or letters from the NRA, ask them why they have done nothing since it passed to get the law thrown out.

In all reality we failed by not getting enough voters out to the poles to vote no. It's our own damn fault not the nra not saf. It came down to less the half of the registered voter voting and more the half of them voted yes for the bill

Trouble viewing this email? Read it online?

1-800-392-8683 | http://www.nraila.com



Washington: Legislature Adjourns, No Time for Gun Owners to Rest in Defense of Rights

Last night, the Washington Legislature adjourned their 2014 session and while Initiative 594 stalled in the state Capitol, the fight is just beginning as the deeply flawed I-594 will now go to the November Ballot.

As previously reported, I-594 is a universal handgun registration scheme being promoted by a very wealthy group of anti-gun elitists who have already raised nearly $1.4 million to qualify this initiative. Although they describe it as a “universal background check” measure, it is not “universal” because criminals will never comply with the requirements. It is, however, universal handgun registration. Under I-594, every time a handgun is transferred, the person receiving the handgun will have their name added to the government database being maintained by the state Department of Licensing.

Further, virtually every firearm transfer - with very few and limited exceptions - would be required to go through a licensed firearms dealer under the provisions of I-594. I-594 will specifically regulate transfers, not sales. Under the language of I-594, in virtually all cases, a person merely handing his or her firearm to a family member or a friend cannot do so without brokering the transfer through a gun dealer with the accompanying paperwork, taxes and, in the case of handguns, state registration. I-594 also doubles the state waiting period on handgun sales from five to ten days and extends it to every private transfer of a handgun!

Awaiting approval by Governor Jay Inslee (D) is Senate Bill 5956, sponsored by state Senators Brian Hatfield (D-19), Tim Sheldon (D-35) and John Braun (R-20). SB 5956 would make legal the possession, acquisition or transfer of a legally registered short-barreled rifle in Washington. SB 5956 passed in the Washington House of Representatives by a 95 to 3 vote on March 7 after passing unanimously in the Senate earlier in February. Special thanks to state Representative Brian Blake (D-19) for his efforts in ushering SB 5956 through the House of Representatives.





Write your Reps Get Involved Register to Vote Contribute

Trouble viewing this email? Read it online?

1-800-392-8683 | http://www.nraila.com



Washington: Anti-Gun Group to Hold Panel and Take Public Questions

Tonight, a state anti-gun group called Washington Ceasefire will be holding a “gun reform” panel where the public is invited to engage panelists in a conversation about gun rights in Washington State. Currently, panelists consist of several anti-gun individuals, including President of the Brady Campaign, Dan Gross. This event will be held downstairs at Town Hall Seattle, 1119 Eighth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and there is an entry fee of $5, which goes to Town Hall Seattle for production costs.

Initiative 594 is likely to be brought up tonight. As previously reported, I-594 is a universal handgun registration scheme being promoted by a very wealthy group of anti-gun elitists who have already raised nearly $1.4 million to qualify this initiative. Although they describe it as a “universal background check” measure, it is not “universal” because criminals will never comply with its requirements. It is, however, universal handgun registration. Under I-594, every time a handgun is transferred, the person receiving the handgun will have their name added to the government database being maintained by the state Department of Licensing.

Further, virtually every firearm transfer - with very few and limited exceptions - would be required to go through a licensed firearms dealer under the provisions of I-594. I-594 will specifically regulate transfers, not sales. Under the language of I-594, in virtually all cases, a person merely handing his or her firearm to a family member or a friend cannot do so without brokering the transfer through a gun dealer with the accompanying paperwork, fees, taxes and in the case of handguns, state registration. I-594 also doubles the state waiting period on handgun sales from five to ten days and extends it to every private transfer of any handgun!

Initiative 594 stalled in the state Capitol as the Washington Legislature adjourned their 2014 session. However, the fight is just beginning as the deeply flawed I-594 will now go to the November Ballot. Members are urged to attend this event and make inquiries of the panelists. Example questions for members are provided below:

Example Questions for Washington Ceasefire Event
On Universal Checks Failing to Deter Criminals
When the vast majority of criminals who use guns to commit violent crimes defeat the background check system by acquiring their guns through theft, from the black market, or from straw purchasers and other family members and friends, and when only a small percentage of people who try to buy guns illegally through the background check system are dangerous enough to be prosecuted, what would be the benefit of expanding the background check system to apply to firearm transfers that are not already covered by the background check requirement?

(Surveys conducted in 1991, 1997 and 2004 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that most criminals put in state prison for gun crimes acquired their guns through theft, the black market, and family members or friends. The BATFE reported in its “Following the Gun” report that half of all illegally trafficked firearms were purchased by straw purchasers.)

On Universal Checks Leading to Registration
Mr. Gross, have you ever discussed with your colleagues at the Brady Campaign, the idea that if background checks were expanded to apply to all firearm transfers, your organization could then call for retention of background checks records permanently, and/or that such records could be required to include the make, model and serial number of the firearm or firearms transferred?

(In the 1970s, Gross’ organization openly supported banning handguns and said that in its view, any law prohibiting the possession of handguns would have to be preceded by a handgun registration law. If the NICS requirement were expanded as hypothesized above, it would inarguably create a registry of firearm purchases, which over time would morph into a registry of firearms possessed. Several years ago, the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., proposed retention of approved NICS check records for 180 days, which obviously would have been a step in that direction.)

On “More Guns, Less Crime”
Mr. Gross, some years before you were hired by the Brady Campaign, back when the American people owned between 40 and 50 million handguns, your organization predicted that the number of handguns would double to 100 million and that crime would rise. Since then, the number of handguns owned by the American people has indeed doubled to 100 million, but the nation’s violent crime rate has dropped to a 42-year low, and the murder rate is at a 49-year low. How do you explain your organization’s fundamental error?

(This prediction was made in propaganda brochures published by the National Council to Control Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc., the previous names of the Brady Campaign: “There are now 40 million handguns owned by private individuals in the United States—about one gun for every American family. At the present rate of proliferation, the number could build to 100 million by the year 2000 (which isn’t as far off as you think). The consequences can be terrible to imagine—unless something is done.” (NCCH, “There is now a nationwide, full-time, professional organization to battle the gun lobby!” pamphlet, no date, but circa 1975.) In 1979, when the Brady Campaign was known as Handgun Control, Inc., it updated its prediction, saying, “Right now over 50 million HANDGUNS flood the houses and streets of our nation. . . . HANDGUN production and sales are out of control. . . . If we continue at this pace, we will have equipped ourselves with more than 100 million HANDGUNS by the turn of the century. One hundred million HANDGUNS. Will we be safer then?” (HCI pamphlet, “By this time tomorrow, 24 Americans will be murdered,” circa 1979 or 1980.))

On Brady Campaign Exaggerations
Your group characterizes firearm-related deaths as an “epidemic,” but the definition of an “epidemic” is a “widespread occurrence of an infectious disease.” While suicide might be considered prima facie evidence of a mental health disease, half of all suicides are committed without firearms, and studies have shown that reduced access to firearms does not reduce suicides, but rather may only force suicide victims to end their lives by other means. Japan, for example, has virtually no privately owned firearms, but has a much higher suicide rate than the United States.

Murders and accidental deaths involving firearms obviously are not diseases. And neither they, nor firearm-related suicides, are widespread. Why do you and other gun control supporters feel that it is necessary for you to misuse words in order to exaggerate the negative things associated with firearm ownership?





Write your Reps Get Involved Register to Vote Contribute

The Many Harsh Realities of Initiative 594 Not Reported by Anti-Gun Organization



The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) talks a lot about how Initiative 594 will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What they don’t report is that Initiative 594 is not aimed at criminals who, by definition, do not obey the law.

I-594 would not be an effective crime deterrent and would only impose heavy burdens and legal hurdles for law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The reality is that criminals will still acquire firearms where they do now: the black market, straw purchasers, theft and illicit sources such as drug dealers.
Law enforcement resources, however, will be diverted by I-594 to doing background checks on law-abiding, responsible gun owners who simply want to gift, loan, share and borrow firearms.


The "Gifting" Rules Intended to Confuse Voters

WAGR says that if I-594 is enacted, you would still be able to “gift” a firearm to an immediate family member without going through a background check. That is, in fact, one of the few honest claims they make about I-594.

However, what WAGR doesn’t tell you is that, in virtually all other cases, you would be committing a gross misdemeanor if you were to simply hand a firearm to an immediate family member or close, personal friend unless you broker the transfer through a dealer, complete the government paperwork, pay the fees, subject the transfer to Washington State Use Tax and, in the case of handguns, have the transferee added to the state registration database of law-abiding handgun owners.

The Bureaucracy Burdens

WAGR is NOT honest about the extent to which law-abiding citizens will be impacted by their proposed 18-page monstrosity of bureaucracy, regulation taxation and state recordkeeping. They claim that I-594 regulates private firearm “sales” and contains “reasonable” exemptions.

In reality, I-594 regulates all firearm “transfers” and the exemptions are so narrow and limited that, in most cases, they will not apply.
Let's take a look at their proposed language: Again, I-594 regulates private firearm transfers and defines “transfer” as “the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” A few minutes spent with Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary will clarify that “intended” means “intentional,” and “deliver” means “to hand over.”

So, if you intentionally hand over a firearm to another person, you have just committed a gross misdemeanor under the provisions of I-594 (or a felony for a second occasion).
What might constitute an “unintentional” transfer? Well, someone stealing your firearm would certainly be a transfer you did not intend. But that would not be covered by I-594 (see paragraph 1 above).


A Lesson in Hunting Under Initiative 594

So, yes, as WAGR boasts about their exemptions, a father could “gift” a shotgun to his son. But if Dad wanted to borrow the shotgun back from his son to use for a weekend hunting trip, that transfer would be subject to the I-594 bureaucracy. And, for Dad to return the shotgun to his son, it is back to the dealer to go through the whole process again!

While WAGR claims there is an exemption for hunting, it is unworkably narrow.
If you are out hunting with your Dad or lifelong friend and his firearm malfunctions, you could loan them a spare as long as they only possess it where hunting is legal. But, as described before, you could not loan them a firearm to take on a trip without you.

Further, under the “while hunting” exemption, what happens when they cross a road from which hunting is illegal. They either have you carry the firearm across the road for them or you have just committed a gross misdemeanor.


The Wide-Ranging Criminalization of Firearm Transfers

There is an exemption for the temporary transfer of a firearm “at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located.”

While this exemption allows you to loan your firearm to a family member or friend to shoot at an authorized range, you would become a criminal if you make the same loan while target shooting on public land.
When this was pointed out to WAGR Spokesperson Cheryl Stumbo during debate, her response was that you shouldn’t be shooting on public land anyway because it is not safe and that, family shooting trips on public land are “one in a million…extreme hypothetical examples. If you want to go on public land to shoot guns, go hunting.” (Click Here to Watch the Full Debate)That should give you an idea where the proponents of I-594 are headed!


Age is Everything

One final example of the deeply flawed provisions of Initiative 594: There is another exemption for the temporary transfer of a firearm to a person who is under 18 years of age while under the direct supervision of a responsible adult. So, if you are out shooting on public land with your 17-year old daughter, you can hand over your firearm for her to shoot.

But next week in the same location, after celebrating her 18th birthday, you can no longer allow her to handle your firearm without brokering the transfer through a licensed firearms dealer.
But WAGR is apparently okay with that because they believe you shouldn't be shooting on public land anyway.

For more information about the harsh realities of Initiative 594 and why Washingtonians must Vote No on this November's ballot, please visit and share with your friends, family and fellow Second Amendment supporters our website http://www.VoteNo594.com.

Paid for by National Rifle Association of America Washingtonians Opposed to
I-594, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 | Top Five Contributors Are: National Rifle Association of America





Write your RepsGet Involved Register to Vote Contribute

ATTEND ONE OF OUR FREE NRA-ILA
GRASSROOTS WORKSHOPS IN WASHINGTON!



Help Defeat Initiative 594!
Earn Free NRA Items!

Please join NRA-ILA staff and your fellow NRA members for an informative Workshop on how we can protect our freedom.

As you are aware, there is an initiative on the ballot this November that seeks to create a universal handgun registry. Initiative 594 is a universal handgun registration scheme being bankrolled and promoted by a very wealthy group of anti-gun elitists who have already raised nearly $8 million. Although they describe it as a "universal background check" measure, it is not “universal” because criminals will never comply with the requirements. It is however, universal handgun registration.


Please RSVP to attend one of NRA-ILA's FREE Workshops to learn how you can actively assist with our mutual efforts to defeat Initiative 594 in Washington! We will also be providing light refreshments and those who volunteer will receive complimentary NRA items.

Saturday
September 27
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM
Elks Lodge
6313 75th St W.
Lakewood, WA 98499
(253) 473-4127



Monday
September 29
7:00 PM – 8:30 PM
Spokane VFW Post #51
300 W. Mission Ave
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 327-9847



Tuesday
September 30
7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Hal Holmes Center
209 N. Ruby St
Ellensburg, WA 98926
(509) 962-7240



If you are unable to attend one of these Workshops, but are willing to assist with our grassroots efforts to defeat Initiative 594, you can contact the NRA-ILA Campaign Field Representative nearest you:

Keely Hopkins
Keely@NRAILAFrontlines.com
(541) 910-3395
Mill Creek, WA

Adina Hicks
Adina@NRAILAFrontlines.com
(425) 351-4088
Lakewood, WA

To RSVP, CLICK HERE or call 800-392-VOTE (8683). Space is limited, so please be sure to RSVP as soon as possible.

We look forward to seeing you at one of these Workshops as we work together to defeat Initiative 594!

- NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

Paid for by National Rifle Association of America Washingtonians Opposed to I-594. 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030. Top Five Contributors Are: National Rifle Association of America.



Write your RepsGet InvolvedRegister to Vote Contribute

Trouble viewing this email? Read it online?

1-800-392-8683 | http://www.nraila.com




Washington: Majority of Washington State Sheriffs Oppose I-594

Say it is Unenforceable, Won’t Make Anyone Safer
Fairfax, Va. – A majority of Washington State’s 39 sheriffs have come out in opposition to anti-gun Washington State Ballot Initiative 594. The sheriffs oppose I-594 because it will not make anyone safer, will strain scarce law enforcement resources, will criminalize the lawful behavior of millions of law-abiding gun owners in Washington and will be unenforceable. Instead, I-594 would vastly expand the state’s handgun registry and force law-abiding gun owners to pay fees and get the government’s permission to sell or even loan a firearm to a friend or family member.

To date, 22 of the 39 sheriffs have publicly opposed I-594.

Here is what some Washington State Sheriffs who oppose I-594 have to say about this ill-conceived initiative:

Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, Spokane County: “I-594 is just another attempt to erode the Second Amendment.”

Sheriff Alan Botzheim, Pend Orielle County: “[I-594] is focused on honest hardworking citizens and making them criminals when they are not criminals.”

Sheriff Steve Mansfield, Lewis County: “I-594 does little to nothing in addressing the high profile shooting sprees and massacres that have pushed the gun control advocates’ agenda: registering, restricting and controlling the law abiding citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The very fact that this legislation further expands the government’s massive database on law abiding citizens is even more disturbing. Government cannot address the serious mental health issues at the root of this violence through gun control. It won’t work.”

Sheriff Scott Johnson, Pacific County: “While I am sure the initiative was well-intended, it would not solve the problems we in the law enforcement community face. “

Sheriff Brian Burnett, Chelan County: “My biggest concern is that this initiative is a fast track in turning many law abiding citizens into potential criminals.”

Sheriff Frank Rogers, Okanogan County: “I-594 will do nothing to stop the bad guys….it just puts more of a burden on the folks that follow the law.”

Sheriff Ben Keller, Garfield County: “This initiative is a violation of the Second Amendment. I come from a gun owning family and it would be a crime every time someone wanted to use my trap gun at a trap shoot. Being in law enforcement for 24 years, this initiative is not going to keep guns off the street. What keeps guns off the street is keeping the felons that are using the guns illegally in jail.”

Sheriff John Hunt, Adams County: “I believe that the current proposal would put an unnecessary strain on law enforcement agencies without any additional funding, and will not affect in any way the ability for criminals intent on getting a firearm to do so.”

Sheriff Pete Warner, Ferry County: “I wholeheartedly oppose I-594. It’s just stupid. It penalizes the honest and law abiding citizens, and does nothing to keep the criminals from having firearms.”

Sheriff Brett Myers, Whitman County: “I-594 is like requiring everyone to pay for a buffet dinner on the “honor system” while leaving the door open at the other end of the food line. In the end only the honest patrons will pay and those who don’t, still eat all they want.”



Other sheriffs opposing I-594 include:

Sheriff Steven Keane – Benton County

Sheriff Bill Benedict - Clallam County

Sheriff Harvey Gjesdal – Douglas County

Sheriff Richard Lathim – Franklin County

Sheriff Thomas Jones – Grant County

Sheriff Rick Scott - Grays Harbor County

Sheriff Wade Magers – Lincoln County

Sheriff Dave Brown, Skamania County

Sheriff Kendle Allen – Stevens County

Sheriff John Snaza – Thurston County

Sheriff Mark Howie – Wahkiakum County

Sheriff John Turner – Walla Walla County

Other law enforcement organizations including the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS) and the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) also oppose I-594. Here is what these organizations had to say about their opposition to this initiative:

Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs: “As law enforcement officers, we do not believe that I-594 will keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals or the dangerously mentally ill. They will continue to ignore the law and engage in black market transactions.” For more on WACOPS’ opposition, click here.

Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association: “There are a lot of politicians, including some mayors and chiefs, who will tell you that I-594 is a good law designed to close the gun show loophole. This is not the truth. I594 is a law so broadly written that it clearly is designed to make criminals of all recreational shooters and most law enforcement officers. When you understand what it will actually do, then you too will oppose it.” For more on WSLEFIA’s opposition, click here.



For more on why I-594 would be disastrous for Washington’s law-abiding gun owners, go to http://www.VoteNo594.com.



Paid for by National Rifle Association of America Washingtonians Opposed to I 594, 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030



Write your Reps Get Involved Register to Vote Contribute

The midterm elections are less than two weeks away, and the stakes have never been higher.

With our Second Amendment rights being placed in the cross-hairs of numerous anti-gun groups and politicians, it has never been more important for our membership and all pro-gun supporters to turn out to vote! It is our goal to keep our members informed about what they can do to defend their rights both in Federal elections and in their states.

This year in Washington, you have the chance to make a lasting difference.

As you know, Washingtonians will have the chance this year to vote on I-594, an extreme anti-gun measure that would, among other things, institute a universal handgun registration scheme. To learn more about this issue, please click here. To download a pocket guide to I-594, please click here.

In addition to protecting your rights by defeating i-594, it's crucial that you cast your ballot for reliable, pro-gun candidates who will stand and fight for your rights in Washington, D.C. and in your Washington state. To find a complete list of endorsements and candidate grades, please visit http://www.NRAPVF.org.

If you need to find out where you vote, when early voting starts in your state, or any other voting information, please click here.

Please share this important information with your friends and family and encourage them to get out and vote on Election Day! If you’d like to get even more involved, please join us on the FrontLines.

Sincerely,

NRA-ILA Grassroots Staff
Ila-contact@nrahq.org
703-267-1170

P.S. Are you curious to see what we’re up against this year? Meet Michael Bloomberg. Let us know what you think!

There were many more emails referencing Bloomberg and "rich, anti-gunners" begging for money, but I only included the ones specific to WA and 594.

Forget bait and switch, the NRA pulled a massive bait and RUN. They ginned up fear over 594 to get gun owners to shell out $$ then they took that money and ran back to DC with it. Disgusting.
In 1997 they put in MILLIONS of dollars to fight 676. So given the massive inflation between now and then, no one can tell me here they couldn't have easily put in a few million into WA especially given the hundred thousand + members they have here. No one was asking them to go dollar to dollar with Bloomberg, we didn't need that. We only needed to match 25% to 33% of the 594 money and we would have gotten 51% no votes on 594. Look how close the vote was with almost no money! Then imagine some TV ads showing grandma going to jail because she didn't register her late husband's pistols within 60 days, or a commercial about a rape victim killed by her perp who bailed out before her 10 day waiting period to get her gun back from the cops ended. A little would have went a long way. 594 is 18 pages of insanity, and we could have easily won with 1/5 of the 594 side's funds.

You do realize the NRA sent tons of emails, letters and lots of phone calls to people before the election begging for money to fight 594, and then they put in a paltry token sum at the last minute? Here are some of them that specifically mention 594 or the fight against Bloomberg (who sponsored 594) as a reason to give the NRA money.

March 14th:



May 12:


Sep 15th:




Sep 22 AND Sep 26 (this email was sent TWICE)




Oct 21




Oct 22:


(this email was loaded with hyperlinks that led to donation pages)


There were many more emails referencing Bloomberg and "rich, anti-gunners" begging for money, but I only included the ones specific to WA and 594.

Forget bait and switch, the NRA pulled a massive bait and RUN. They ginned up fear over 594 to get gun owners to shell out $$ then they took that money and ran back to DC with it. Disgusting.
In 1997 they put in MILLIONS of dollars to fight 676. So given the massive inflation between now and then, no one can tell me here they couldn't have easily put in a few million into WA especially given the hundred thousand + members they have here. No one was asking them to go dollar to dollar with Bloomberg, we didn't need that. We only needed to match 25% to 33% of the 594 money and we would have gotten 51% no votes on 594. Look how close the vote was with almost no money! Then imagine some TV ads showing grandma going to jail because she didn't register her late husband's pistols within 60 days, or a commercial about a rape victim killed by her perp who bailed out before her 10 day waiting period to get her gun back from the cops ended. A little would have went a long way. 594 is 18 pages of insanity, and we could have easily won with 1/5 of the 594 side's funds.