time for the NRA to step up and sue with the SAF

[Alpine]

Throughout the campaign I called and wrote the NRA to figure out why they were virtually abandoning us considering their 5-6 MILLION DOLLAR commitment against I-676 in 1997.

Some of the people I spoke with on the phone told me it was because the NRA thought that 594 was a slam-drunk to get thrown out by the courts and they were saving their money to sue.

Well, now is the time to make good on that promise.

Everyone, call up the NRA and DEMAND they put everything they've got into this. The SAF will sue but they could use the NRA's help.

[mancat]

Frankly I fear that the NRA isn't going to do shit.

Compared to launching legal action, it would have cost them less in time and money to even run a few quality TV ads against the constant stream of 594 ads - about the only real thing that stood a good chance of swaying public opinion of the average voter. They did nothing.

What did the NRA do? Provide signs and robocall facilities? Jack shit. (no offense to those who made calls, I thank you a ton, but the NRA could have done so much more)

No I don't think the NRA will be back for Washington.

[hkw84]

This is my opinion...perhaps wishful thinking even...

I pray the NRA's response to Alpine is true

The general public, especially the ones not in the know have already been brain washed my media that the "NRA" is evil and crazy gun nuttery...

With that being said, the general public would effectively vote against the NRA and anything they touched.

Perhaps, their money would indeed be better spent in the courts and the millionaire backers would have to spend millions again.

Don't forget that the NRA overseas gun rights accross the entire country and not just our state. As much as I hate what has resulted...this would effectively force the gun grabbers to waste a lot more money to drive their agenda nation wide.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Massivedesign]

The NRA came out early and said spending millions here would only result in millions more being spent by Bloomberg. Everytown made it very clear that they would NOT be outspent.

So the NRA decided to do a grassroots thing, which in all reality worked very well (I saw/see more NO on 594 stickers vs. the 591 stickers).

That being said, I sure hope that the SAF and NRA team up and sue the shit out of this... It's sue worthy!

[deadshot2]

More than just a few "in the know" about the NRA concur that this law is so flawed it would be cheaper to fight it in court than in an election.

For a court case to happen though it takes a "harmed party". Let's see how soon one turns up after the law goes into effect in Dec.

[Alpine]

which in all reality worked very well (I saw/see more NO on 594 stickers vs. the 591 stickers).

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.

Even though 594 raised millions, this was a mid-term with many liberals feeling down because they knew they'd lose the national Senate. All of the big liberal counties have below a 30% turnout rate! This was our election to lose, and the NRA's strategy was to largely abandon us DESPITE the huge amount of members here and how populous this state is. Given what they did in 1997 against I-676 there is no excuse for not matching that commitment here.

I'll forgive them if they win in court, but even then this electoral win has emboldened the gun grabbers to keep abusing our initiative process. It is literally the camel's nose under the tent. That is what this will cost us at a minimum: years of initiative battles on:
-'assault weapons ban'
-magazine bans
-universal registration
-Firearms Owners ID cards
-permits for ammo
-body armor bans

etc.

[BadKarma]

It is my opinion that the NRA needs to be a silent partner in supporting the SAF for getting 594 thrown out. Their name leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[joao01]

stop pontificating over what the NRA should do and tell them. I already fired them off a note today. https://www.nraila.org/secure/contact-us.aspx

[Alpine]

I'll be writing them tonight. I urge everyone else to call and mail.

Demand action from them, and demand that they get into the fight on every subsequent initiative that this spawns, because you know it will.

Is there any way to see how much WAGR didn't spend and how much it bequeathed to a child organization to hold for subsequent elections? Or did they spend it all?

[mancat]

WA PDC data shows how much is both collected and spent.. they spent nearly all of it - on what, who knows.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Co ... initiative

[Alpine]

Is it possible that they "spent" a huge amount by sending it to an account to be used in a subsequent election? Would that count as an expenditure via some bizarre accounting trick?

[Guns4Liberty]

It disappoints me that so many are directing their frustration at the NRA over the outcome, when the reality is that it's low-information voters and clueless ideologues who enabled it to pass.

Regardless of how much money or time the NRA invested in this fight, the initiative was going to pass because VERY few voters actually took the time to READ the damn text in full, let alone digest and critically analyze it. THAT is why 594 passed - because a tiny fraction of voters actually read it and understand how deeply flawed it is.

The NRA can't force people to read it, and they can't force them to understand it. That means that it's our message against theirs. Our message was that the initiative is unenforceable, misguided, onerous, and technically flawed. Their message is that passing the initiative will save lives. Even though we're right, how in the hell are we supposed to defeat that message?

Since WAGR had no interest in telling voters the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the initiative - instead choosing to focus solely on the background check portion - we lost this fight before it began. Dishonest campaign + easily manipulated voters = not a fair fight. No amount of the NRA's money would have changed that.

[Sparky D]

It disappoints me that so many are directing their frustration at the NRA over the outcome, when the reality is that it's low-information voters and clueless ideologues who enabled it to pass.

Regardless of how much money or time the NRA invested in this fight, the initiative was going to pass because VERY few voters actually took the time to READ the damn text in full, let alone digest and critically analyze it. THAT is why 594 passed - because a tiny fraction of voters actually read it and understand how deeply flawed it is.

The NRA can't force people to read it, and they can't force them to understand it. That means that it's our message against theirs. Our message was that the initiative is unenforceable, misguided, onerous, and technically flawed. Their message is that passing the initiative will save lives. Even though we're right, that's a losing battle for us.

Since WAGR had no interest in telling voters the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the initiative - instead choosing to focus solely on the background check portion - we lost this fight before it began. Dishonest campaign + easily manipulated voters = not a fair fight. No amount of the NRA's money would have changed that.

I dissagree.

The pro side aired countless TV ads from September on. They had the funds available to do that.
There was plenty of opportunity for the NRA to buy TV spots to counter the half truths, misleading statistics, and down right lies the pro side was spewing.
If you tell a lie often enough and/or allow it to go unchallenged, people will believe it. Especially the "sound bite" and spoon fed masses.
We lost in the arena of public opinion because we didn't field an opponent to challenge them on their turf...

[Alpine]

It disappoints me that so many are directing their frustration at the NRA over the outcome, when the reality is that it's low-information voters and clueless ideologues who enabled it to pass.

Regardless of how much money or time the NRA invested in this fight, the initiative was going to pass because VERY few voters actually took the time to READ the damn text in full, let alone digest and critically analyze it. THAT is why 594 passed - because a tiny fraction of voters actually read it and understand how deeply flawed it is.

The NRA can't force people to read it, and they can't force them to understand it. That means that it's our message against theirs. Our message was that the initiative is unenforceable, misguided, onerous, and technically flawed. Their message is that passing the initiative will save lives. Even though we're right, how in the hell are we supposed to defeat that message?

Since WAGR had no interest in telling voters the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the initiative - instead choosing to focus solely on the background check portion - we lost this fight before it began. Dishonest campaign + easily manipulated voters = not a fair fight. No amount of the NRA's money would have changed that.

Give me a break.

The NRA could have done so many sensational commercials on 594's craziest points. Remember how SB5737 was pulled when the media found the home inspection provision?

The NRA could have run an ad with an old granny wearing a black mourning dress getting arrested and thrown in jail because she didn't called DOL within 60 days of her husband's death to register his old WW2 pistols.

They could have done an ad with a rape victim sitting on a couch in a dark house explaining how she used a gun to defend herself, but because of 594 she has to wait up to 10 days to get it back from police, meanwhile her rapist bails out in 2 days and knowing 594 has disarmed her, is coming to finish her off. Close the commercial with glass breaking and her screaming.

Easy, easy, easy. The NRA could have spent 1/4 of what Billionaires for Freedom Control spent and still won. But they didn't even try. And it's going to cost us an onslaught of initiative battles over the coming years when instead we could have built a firewall.

[Guns4Liberty]

I dissagree.

The pro side aired countless TV ads from September on. They had the funds available to do that.
There was plenty of opportunity for the NRA to buy TV spots to counter the half truths, misleading statistics, and down right lies the pro side was spewing.
If you tell a lie often enough and/or allow it to go unchallenged, people will believe it. Especially the "sound bite" and spoon fed masses.
We lost in the arena of public opinion because we didn't field an opponent to challenge them on their turf...

Give me a break.

The NRA could have done so many sensational commercials on 594's craziest points. Remember how SB5737 was pulled when the media found the home inspection provision?

The NRA could have run an ad with an old granny wearing a black mourning dress getting arrested and thrown in jail because she didn't called DOL within 60 days of her husband's death to register his old WW2 pistols.

They could have done an ad with a rape victim sitting on a couch in a dark house explaining how she used a gun to defend herself, but because of 594 she has to wait up to 10 days to get it back from police, meanwhile her rapist bails out in 2 days and knowing 594 has disarmed her, is coming to finish her off. Close the commercial with glass breaking and her screaming.

Easy, easy, easy. The NRA could have spent 1/4 of what Billionaires for Freedom Control spent and still won. But they didn't even try. And it's going to cost us an onslaught of initiative battles over the coming years when instead we could have built a firewall.

You both assume that the NRA's ads would have worked. I'm telling you that is unlikely given the fact that acceptance of the anti-594 message would require the ability to critically think and logically conclude that 594 is flawed. Western WA voters have proven to us time and time again that they possess neither the desire nor the ability to think critically or logically when choosing to support or oppose ballot initiatives. But that's just my viewpoint, and you are free to disagree.