What to comment to WA Legislature on new email from POGR?

[cowboycraig]

I got this email from POGR today but I don't get a way to really take action on it.

http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=ead165722588b92654076b50a&id=a233475607&e=328458b9c8

For the most part I think the below email would be good:

Washington State’s DOL database of firearms owners is duplicitous and unnecessary. Added in with the endless possibilities for fraud, theft, abuse, and gun confiscation, approving more or any funding for this violation of privacy continues to be a wasteful and shameful plot to violate the rights of every gun owner in this state.

Please stop to this senseless taxpayer funding of gun control!

Please support the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment is an Unalienable Right, please support it 100%

Please do not promote or vote for new background checks, registration, or any restriction (including magazine capacity) on legal firearms owners.


But want to write something good. May do another "easy action links" page with mailto links, but want to make sure a good form letter is put together.

Craig

[kf7mjf]

The DOL database of handgun purchases and transfers is an obsolete system, born of the days before modern computers and rapid communication between law enforcement agencies. Further, it was born of a legal framework that considered the purchase of a pistol to be something requiring extra scrutiny by law enforcement. In this day and age with a national instant background check system in place, there is simply no reason to maintain such an obsolete system, and given the tight budget constraints faced this legislative session, I would encourage doing away with this pen and paper based relic of another time.

Your average legislator doesn't care about fears of firearms confiscation and likely considers such to be tinfoil hat nonsense. You raise good points, but use a lot of buzzwords and thoughts that are not universal, and therefore not always understandable/approachable to all people.

[cowboycraig]

The DOL database of handgun purchases and transfers is an obsolete system, born of the days before modern computers and rapid communication between law enforcement agencies. Further, it was born of a legal framework that considered the purchase of a pistol to be something requiring extra scrutiny by law enforcement. In this day and age with a national instant background check system in place, there is simply no reason to maintain such an obsolete system, and given the tight budget constraints faced this legislative session, I would encourage doing away with this pen and paper based relic of another time.

Your average legislator doesn't care about fears of firearms confiscation and likely considers such to be tinfoil hat nonsense. You raise good points, but use a lot of buzzwords and thoughts that are not universal, and therefore not always understandable/approachable to all people.

Thanks for the reply, guess I (using your words) make it much more to the point:

The DOL database of handgun purchases and transfers is an obsolete system, born of the days before modern computers and rapid communication between law enforcement agencies. Further, it was born of a legal framework that considered the purchase of a pistol to be something requiring extra scrutiny by law enforcement. In this day and age with a national instant background check system in place, there is simply no reason to maintain such an obsolete system, and given the tight budget constraints faced this legislative session, I would encourage doing away with this pen and paper based relic of another time.

Please stop to this senseless taxpayer funding of underhanded gun control!

The 2nd Amendment is an Unalienable Right, please support it 100%

[kf7mjf]

I would leave out the last two lines. The system has been in place for ages, you have an uphill battle trying to spin it as underhanded gun control, when even with 594, Washington has some pretty decent gun laws. The second line pretty much is what will determine the entire response you get (if any). You've ensured that the entire point of your message is now only about the sometimes vague and nebulous interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If you drop the last two lines, you force the reader to examine an obsolete system in the light of the budget and modern technology, instead of making it about gun politics, which is going to be something they've already decided one way or another.

[cowboycraig]

I would leave out the last two lines. The system has been in place for ages, you have an uphill battle trying to spin it as underhanded gun control, when even with 594, Washington has some pretty decent gun laws. The second line pretty much is what will determine the entire response you get (if any). You've ensured that the entire point of your message is now only about the sometimes vague and nebulous interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If you drop the last two lines, you force the reader to examine an obsolete system in the light of the budget and modern technology, instead of making it about gun politics, which is going to be something they've already decided one way or another.

Good points, thanks for the feedback. Good Stuff!

[cowboycraig]

Easy Action Mailto Link: http://www.whatisanoperator.com/please-defund-the-dol-database-of-handgun-purchases-and-transfers-is-obsolete/

Email the whole dang legislature!

[kf7mjf]

I would leave out the last two lines. The system has been in place for ages, you have an uphill battle trying to spin it as underhanded gun control, when even with 594, Washington has some pretty decent gun laws. The second line pretty much is what will determine the entire response you get (if any). You've ensured that the entire point of your message is now only about the sometimes vague and nebulous interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If you drop the last two lines, you force the reader to examine an obsolete system in the light of the budget and modern technology, instead of making it about gun politics, which is going to be something they've already decided one way or another.

Good points, thanks for the feedback. Good Stuff!

No problem. Glad to help. I suspect what I did suggest could be tweaked a little bit, but the main message is (1) Obsolete system. Who needs the DOL database when there is NICS? The DOL system was in place when you had to wait for the police to get back to you on if a person was a prohibited person or not. Fill out a form, send it in, wait for a response. I'm not sure how old it is, but it clearly predates any sort of computerized background check system. (2). It costs money, both for the police departments handling the paperwork, and for the state who handles their copy and maintains the database. Why spend the money running an obsolete system? (3) make mockery of it again, and suggest how stupidly out of date and pointless it is to use a pen and paper driven system that is a left over from the pre NICS days. It's 2015, time to ditch the old stuff, and let NICS do it's job.

[cowboycraig]

I would leave out the last two lines. The system has been in place for ages, you have an uphill battle trying to spin it as underhanded gun control, when even with 594, Washington has some pretty decent gun laws. The second line pretty much is what will determine the entire response you get (if any). You've ensured that the entire point of your message is now only about the sometimes vague and nebulous interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If you drop the last two lines, you force the reader to examine an obsolete system in the light of the budget and modern technology, instead of making it about gun politics, which is going to be something they've already decided one way or another.

Good points, thanks for the feedback. Good Stuff!

No problem. Glad to help. I suspect what I did suggest could be tweaked a little bit, but the main message is (1) Obsolete system. Who needs the DOL database when there is NICS? The DOL system was in place when you had to wait for the police to get back to you on if a person was a prohibited person or not. Fill out a form, send it in, wait for a response. I'm not sure how old it is, but it clearly predates any sort of computerized background check system. (2). It costs money, both for the police departments handling the paperwork, and for the state who handles their copy and maintains the database. Why spend the money running an obsolete system? (3) make mockery of it again, and suggest how stupidly out of date and pointless it is to use a pen and paper driven system that is a left over from the pre NICS days. It's 2015, time to ditch the old stuff, and let NICS do it's job.

Word, you are a "Operator" of words. I don't always get across what needs to be said in the language of legislature.

[kf7mjf]

I literally normally charge for this. WaGuns freeby though lol.

[kf7mjf]

I'd like to see the source for the claim that anyone can access the DOL database of handgun transfers. Also, the DOL database is JUST handguns. They don't keep a record of longarms.

[cowboycraig]

I'd like to see the source for the claim that anyone can access the DOL database of handgun transfers. Also, the DOL database is JUST handguns. They don't keep a record of longarms.

I get ya, the whole thing didn't seem that well written.

[kf7mjf]

I am trying to decide if that is by design or ignorance. It was long on hyperbole and fundraising, and short on facts. It's the kind of thing that makes "other people" see us as "scared white guys afraid of losing their guns." Sadly, while fearmongering is good to whip up some of the troops, it doesn't play well at all to the outside world, drives a cultural divide and reinforces negative stereotypes.

[cowboycraig]

I am trying to decide if that is by design or ignorance. It was long on hyperbole and fundraising, and short on facts. It's the kind of thing that makes "other people" see us as "scared white guys afraid of losing their guns." Sadly, while fearmongering is good to whip up some of the troops, it doesn't play well at all to the outside world, drives a cultural divide and reinforces negative stereotypes.

You might be on to something. It seemed like a "Donation through Fear" email. I was not sure why, but it urged me to donate. Also it says "take action" but was not really clear on what to email... I can make a mailto link (with help from WAGuns crew) and I see lots of people hitting it. No donation needed :)

Seems POGR could be a little more web savvy. Maybe someone sent a drunk email this evening? :)

[kf7mjf]

No, I think they were doing exactly what they wanted to do.

Scare people and ask for money from scared people to help combat the scary thing.

[joao01]

Thanks guys.