everyone have a firm grasp on the negatives of I-594
10-17-2014, 08:03 PM
#11
JK Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW washington
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The beast I do hope your right, its the guise of public safety that 594 uses that im afraid may push uninformed citizens in the wrong direction. Gun owners and non gun owners both could fall for that song and dance.
10-18-2014, 11:06 AM
#12
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm actually glad you brought this up.
So, let's see:
1) the i-594 is backed by bloomberg and other billionaires who are self-declared anti-guns (more like anti people's right to defemd themselves, except of course them, who have many armed bodguards). They have been pouring millions of Dollars in support for i-594. These people do not "invest" without a return. What is it?
2) the liberals' cynicism is blatant once more. Liberals are against the "1 percenters" because they "want to oppress" the people. Yet, they do not seem to question the "1%rs" intentions trying to disarm people.
3) i-594 is not funded and cannot work without guns' registration. So, what's the next step? More taxes and guns registration?
4) the pro- i594 have been in a consistent deceitful campaign that casted more doubts in the real intentions than anything else. Case and point. FBI and CDC, and even recent federal government data have been showing that crime has been declining everywhere but places with heavy gun control. Crime in WA is negligible, mostly firearms crime, compared to other reagions. Conversely, DUI accidents due to people high in marijuana seems to be increasing. So, what are their real intentions? Cannot be that "if it saved one life" old and tired meme.
5) we already have plenty gun control laws that are not well enforced. Why another one, unfunded, that leads towards registration (and, who knows, confiscation)?
6) the ballot's description is very misleading. Why? If it's that good why misleading?
7) the statistics they present is bogus. Repeat question above.
8) the debate on KIRO TV was very enlightening in it showed that the i-594 supoorters actually could not come-up with any good reason to get it passed. Quite the contrary.
9) after watching the debate and reading both proposals (i-594 and i-591) it's clear to me that i-594 is no good at all. Too many pages of unclear blurb that only leads to the conclusion that bloomberg and his minions have obscure intentions.
So. definitively NO on i-594.
YES in i-591.
Last edited by Sahara_Maverick; 10-18-2014 at 11:12 AM.
10-18-2014, 02:41 PM
#13
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good info about our representatives who actually think about us.
GOAL Alert 2-2014
Election update 17 October 2014
IT'S CRUNCH TIME
BALLOTS WENT IN THE MAIL TODAY
THE FUTURE OF GUN RIGHTS IN WASHINGTON IS IN YOUR HANDS
VOTE NO ON 594 VOTE YES ON 591
VOTE NOW
While the campaigning will go on for another 18 days, ballots went in the mail today. You'll receive yours with a day or three. Washington is one of four 100% vote-by-mail states; no lining up at a polling place to cast your ballot. The one in your mail box is the only one you'll get. A disadvantage of vote-by-mail is no ID is required to get the ballot -- whoever has access to your mail box has access to your ballot. Look for it, open it, fill it out, and get it back in the mail.
GOAL just funded a special mailing of 100,000+ postcards to 11 selected districts we believe are critical to the election. You may or may not receive one. The NRA has done the same thing with its nearly 100,000 members in Washington. GOAL postcards started arriving on Friday, 17 October.
Those of you who read my monthly legislative news column in the Washington Arms Collector's Gun-News have already read most of this. But for the many GOAL Post subscribers who are not WAC members, here's some background on the endorsement process.
I used two guiding principles in preparing the list, which was provided to the Washington Arms Collectors for their approval, and to the GOAL trustees for the same. The first was to identify and start the list with those "righteous Democrats" who have been supporting Washington's gun owners for the past decade or more. (More on those selections later.) We owe them.
Next up was pro-gun Republicans, followed by "any Republican." We have endorsed a few Libertarian candidates when Washington's "high two" system left no more suitable candidate. (For the record, I'm a conservative "small-l Libertarian; but we live in a two party system, and your chances of winning election if you do not have an (R) or a (D) after your name are almost impossible. I know many libertarian elected officials, but all ran as Republicans.) Finally, there are several "No recommendation" listings. In these cases, neither of the candidates would do anything to enhance gun rights in Washington.
Why support Republicans who are weak on the gun issue? Because it solidifies Republican control of a chamber (House or Senate), if that can be achieved. And with strong pro-gun leadership in both chambers, we don't have to worry how they might vote because bad bills will never make it to the floor for a vote.
There are a couple (literally, two) of dual endorsements on the list, the "xxx OR yyy" candidates. I don't like dual endorsements. It tends to confuse voters. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
I've received half a dozen calls already today regarding the candidates listed on our postcards, or listed in the WAC Gun-News. Most disagreement focused on the Democrats we endorsed. The big questions was "WHY?" I'll use the following two examples to answer;
The Democrats had solid control of the legislature from 2001 to 2013. In 2013, two Democrats sided with the (then) 23 Republicans in the state Senate to revolt and seize control, calling themselves the "Majority Coalition Caucus". So for two years, control of the legislature has been split, but the Democrats retained solid control of the House.
In the past 13 years, more than 50 anti-gun bills have been filed -- "assault weapon" bans, "gun show loophole," universal background checks, expanded public place bans, etc, etc. You name it, it was filed. But none passed. Why?
Because a handful of Democrats in the legislature, House and Senate both, stood WITH their constituents and AGAINST their leadership and their more liberal Democrat colleagues, at great political risk to themselves. Several were threatened with primary challenges, and in Senator Tim Sheldon's case that's where we are today. This handful of Democrats, with the Republican minority, were able to block all of the anti-gun legislation proposed.
We owe those Democrats. Big time. I/we don't agree with them on every issue, but we all agree on the gun issue. And that's what this is all about. Preserving our gun rights.
Specifically regarding Representative Pat Sullivan, Pat is the House Majority leader, the Speaker's principal adviser on which bills to bring to the floor for a vote and which bills to let die. Pat is the man who convinced House Speaker Frank Chopp to NOT bring House Bill (HB) 1588 up for a vote almost two years ago. You recall HB 1588 don't you? It's the universal background check bill they tried to slip through after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting. Pat, and six or seven of his fellow Democrats stood up to the Speaker and refused to vote for the bill, thus guaranteeing it's defeat. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Speaker Chopp wisely decided to let the bill die. We owe several Democrat Representatives for their support for gun owners, but Pat Sullivan leads the pack.
Senator Tim Sheldon, the majority Coalition's Senate President Pro Tem, has been standing with gun owners for more than 20 years. It was his deciding vote in 1994 that killed the amendment that would have required training to obtain a concealed pistol license. (Don't get me wrong, I've been a certified firearms safety instructor for 40 years. I firmly believe that anyone who chooses to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights has a moral obligation to do so safely, to the extent they can afford training. But I don't believe the state has any business interfering in a fundamental Constitutional right. Just as the Supreme Court ruled poll tests were unconstitutional decades ago, so should state-mandated training.) Tim flew around the state with us in 1997, opposing I-676, the so-called trigger lock initiative" that was actually a handgun possessor (that's right, possessor, not just an owner) licensing bait-and-switch initiative (much as today's I-594 is a bait-and-switch background check initiative). Sheldon now faces a liberal Democrat, Irene Bowling. We need to keep Sheldon in place to keep the Senate in Republican hands AND protect YOUR gun rights.
Those two, and a handful of other brave DEMOCRATS who stand between you and just about every imaginable gun control law.
If you compare the lists, you will see that the NRA and GOAL are in about 99% agreement. We run our endorsement process somewhat differently, however. The NRA assigns grades based on known voting records for incumbents. They then send out questionnaires to new candidates, and based on the response to those questionnaires, assigns grades. They endorse specific candidates, but give you the grade rating for both candidates in the race. You choose. That's probably a more "fair" way to do it. The problem with questionnaires is, candidates can lie.
GOAL takes a different tack. GOAL only lists a single candidate for each position, in effect a push-poll to direct you to the candidate we believe best suits the interests of Washington gun owners. If you want "fair," visit Puyallup in September. Different approach, hopefully the same result. I've provided a link to the NRA's list below, as well as the entire GOAL endorsement list.
And we have the two initiatives on the ballot. I'm not going to go into any real detail on either of them. I-594, the universal background check initiative is a wolf in sheep's clothing, full of hidden traps and penalties. That's why they needed 18 pages to accomplish what the legislature tried to do in HB 1588 in two pages. I-591 simply restates existing law: no confiscation of firearms without due process of law (as happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina) and no background checks beyond those mandated by federal law. Some of my 10th Amendment friends are unhappy with that. They feel we shouldn't support federal law, period. I live in a real world. And I'm not about to risk five years in Club Fed by violating that law, 10th Amendment or not. For all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment died about a century ago.
The outcome of the initiative votes will have a major impact on how the gun business is conducted in Washington, and how gun shows are conducted. If 594 passes and becomes law, expect to pay a $25-50 FFL fee EVERY TIME you "transfer" a firearm -- this includes loans as well as sales. And when a loan is transferred back. Plus a use tax nearly equal to the state sales tax. Yes, I-594 waives sales tax for private transfers, but if you read the fiscal note from the Office of Financial Management, you'll see that when the sales tax is waived on the transfer of property, a "use tax" in imposed.
VOTE NO ON 594. VOTE YES ON 591. It's a no-brainer.
It's up to you now. GOAL's endorsements, and the NRA's, are simply suggestions: our best judgment of who will best represent your gun rights in D.C. and Olympia. But the choice is yours. And please, please, mark your ballot and get it back in the mail ASAP. Don't take a chance on misplacing it, or forgetting to get it in on time. MAIL IT NOW.
NRA endorsements can be found at https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/washington/
GOAL ENDORSEMENTS:
CONGRESSIONAL RACES
1st Pedro Celis (R)
2nd B. J. Guillot (R)
3rd Jaime Herrera Beutler (R)
4th Dan Newhouse (R) or
Clint Didier (R)
5th Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R)
6th Marty McClendon (R)
7th Craig Keller (R)
8th Dave Reichert (R)
9th Doug Basler (R)
10th Joyce McDonald (R)
Supreme Court 1 No recommendation
3 No recommendation
4 Charles Johnson
7 No recommendation
LEGISLATIVE RACES
Dist. Position Name
1 House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Edward Barton (R)
2 House 1 Graham Hunt (R)
House 2 J. T. Wilcox (R)
3 House 1 Tim Benn (R)
House 2 Paul Delaney (L)
4 House 1 Bob McCaslin (R)
House 2 Matt Shea (R)
5 House 1 Jay Rodne (R)
House 2 Chad Magendanz (R)
6 Senate Michael Baumgartner (R)
House 1 Kevin Parker (R)
House 2 Jeff Holy (R)
7 Senate Brian Dansel (R)
House 1 Shelly Short (R)
House 2 Joel Kretz (R)
8 Senate Sharon Brown (R)
House 1 Brad Klippert (R)
House 2 Larry Haler (R)
9 House 1 Susan Fagan (R)
House 2 Joe Schmick (R)
10 House 1 Norma Smith (R)
House 2 Dave Hayes (R)
11 House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Sarah Sanoy-Wright (R)
12 House 1 Cary Condotta (R)
House 2 Brad Hawkins (R)
13 Senate Judith Warnick (R)
House 1 Tom Dent (R)
House 2 Matt Manweller (R)
14 House 1 Norm Johnson (R)
House 2 Gina McCabe (R)
15 Senate Jim Honeyford (R)
House 1 Bruce Chandler (R)
House 2 David Taylor (R)
16 House 1 Maureen Walsh (R)
House 2 Terry Nealey (R)
17 House 1 Lynda Wilson (R)
House 2 Paul Harris (R)
18 House 1 Brandon Vick (R)
House 2 Liz Pike (R)
19 House 1 Dean Takko (D)
House 2 Brian Blake (D)
20 House 1 Richard DeBolt (R)
House 2 Ed Orcutt (R)
21 Senate Dan Matthews (R)
House 1 Allen McPheeters (R)
House 2 Jeff Scherrer (R)
22 House 1 Steve Owens (R)
House 2 No recommendation
23 House 1 Scott Henden (R)
House 2 James Olsen (R)
24 House 1 Kevin Van De Wege (D)
House 2 Thomas Greisamer (R)
25 House 1 Melanie Stambough (R)
House 2 Hans Zeiger (R)
26 Senate Jan Angel (R)
House 1 Jesse Young (R)
House 2 Michelle Caldier (R)
27 House 1 Rodger Deskins (R)
House 2 Steven Cook (R)
28 Senate Steve O'Ban (R)
House 1 Dick Muri (R)
House 2 Paul Wagemann (R)
29 Senate Steve Conway (D)
House 1 Jason Bergstrom (R)
House 2 Steve Kirby (D)
30 Senate Mark Miloscia (R)
House 1 Linda Kochmar (R)
House 2 Jack Dovey (R)
31 Senate Pam Roach (R)
House 1 Drew Stokesbury (R)
House 2 Chris Hurst (D) or
Phil Fortunato (R)
32 Senate Robert Reedy (R)
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Alvin Rutledge (R)
33 Senate Martin Metz (R)
House 1 Michael Siefkes (R)
House 2 Jeannette Burrage (R)
34 Senate No recommendation
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 No recommendation
35 Senate Tim Sheldon (D)
House 1 Kathy Haigh (D)
House 2 Drew MacEwen (R)
36 Senate Sarina Forbes (R)
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Paul Addis (L)
37 Senate No recommendation
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 No recommendation
38 Senate Craig French (R)
House 1 Jesse Anderson (R)
House 2 Elijah Olson (L)
39 House 1 Dan Kristiansen (R)
House 2 Elizabeth Scott (R)
40 House 1 Daniel Miller (R)
House 2 No recommendation
41 House 1 Bill Stinson (R)
House 2 No recommendation
42 Senate Doug Ericksen (R)
House 1 Luann VanWerven (R)
House 2 Vincent Buys (R)
43 Senate No recommendation
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 No recommendation
44 Senate Steve Hobbs (D)
House 1 Rob Toyer (R)
House 2 Mark Harmsworth (R)
45 Senate Andy Hill (R)
House 1 Joel Hussey (R)
House 2 Brendan Woodward (R)
46 Senate Van Sperry (R)
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Branden Curtis (R)
47 Senate Joe Fain (R)
House 1 Mark Hargrove (R)
House 2 Pat Sullivan (D)
48 Senate Michelle Darnell (R)
House 1 Bill Hirt (R)
House 2 Tim Turner (L)
49 House 1 Anson Service (R)
House 2 Lisa Ross (R)
--
I-594 background checks: another gun control panacea that in reality is nothing more than a feel-good placebo.
GOAL Alert 2-2014
Election update 17 October 2014
IT'S CRUNCH TIME
BALLOTS WENT IN THE MAIL TODAY
THE FUTURE OF GUN RIGHTS IN WASHINGTON IS IN YOUR HANDS
VOTE NO ON 594 VOTE YES ON 591
VOTE NOW
While the campaigning will go on for another 18 days, ballots went in the mail today. You'll receive yours with a day or three. Washington is one of four 100% vote-by-mail states; no lining up at a polling place to cast your ballot. The one in your mail box is the only one you'll get. A disadvantage of vote-by-mail is no ID is required to get the ballot -- whoever has access to your mail box has access to your ballot. Look for it, open it, fill it out, and get it back in the mail.
GOAL just funded a special mailing of 100,000+ postcards to 11 selected districts we believe are critical to the election. You may or may not receive one. The NRA has done the same thing with its nearly 100,000 members in Washington. GOAL postcards started arriving on Friday, 17 October.
Those of you who read my monthly legislative news column in the Washington Arms Collector's Gun-News have already read most of this. But for the many GOAL Post subscribers who are not WAC members, here's some background on the endorsement process.
I used two guiding principles in preparing the list, which was provided to the Washington Arms Collectors for their approval, and to the GOAL trustees for the same. The first was to identify and start the list with those "righteous Democrats" who have been supporting Washington's gun owners for the past decade or more. (More on those selections later.) We owe them.
Next up was pro-gun Republicans, followed by "any Republican." We have endorsed a few Libertarian candidates when Washington's "high two" system left no more suitable candidate. (For the record, I'm a conservative "small-l Libertarian; but we live in a two party system, and your chances of winning election if you do not have an (R) or a (D) after your name are almost impossible. I know many libertarian elected officials, but all ran as Republicans.) Finally, there are several "No recommendation" listings. In these cases, neither of the candidates would do anything to enhance gun rights in Washington.
Why support Republicans who are weak on the gun issue? Because it solidifies Republican control of a chamber (House or Senate), if that can be achieved. And with strong pro-gun leadership in both chambers, we don't have to worry how they might vote because bad bills will never make it to the floor for a vote.
There are a couple (literally, two) of dual endorsements on the list, the "xxx OR yyy" candidates. I don't like dual endorsements. It tends to confuse voters. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
I've received half a dozen calls already today regarding the candidates listed on our postcards, or listed in the WAC Gun-News. Most disagreement focused on the Democrats we endorsed. The big questions was "WHY?" I'll use the following two examples to answer;
The Democrats had solid control of the legislature from 2001 to 2013. In 2013, two Democrats sided with the (then) 23 Republicans in the state Senate to revolt and seize control, calling themselves the "Majority Coalition Caucus". So for two years, control of the legislature has been split, but the Democrats retained solid control of the House.
In the past 13 years, more than 50 anti-gun bills have been filed -- "assault weapon" bans, "gun show loophole," universal background checks, expanded public place bans, etc, etc. You name it, it was filed. But none passed. Why?
Because a handful of Democrats in the legislature, House and Senate both, stood WITH their constituents and AGAINST their leadership and their more liberal Democrat colleagues, at great political risk to themselves. Several were threatened with primary challenges, and in Senator Tim Sheldon's case that's where we are today. This handful of Democrats, with the Republican minority, were able to block all of the anti-gun legislation proposed.
We owe those Democrats. Big time. I/we don't agree with them on every issue, but we all agree on the gun issue. And that's what this is all about. Preserving our gun rights.
Specifically regarding Representative Pat Sullivan, Pat is the House Majority leader, the Speaker's principal adviser on which bills to bring to the floor for a vote and which bills to let die. Pat is the man who convinced House Speaker Frank Chopp to NOT bring House Bill (HB) 1588 up for a vote almost two years ago. You recall HB 1588 don't you? It's the universal background check bill they tried to slip through after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting. Pat, and six or seven of his fellow Democrats stood up to the Speaker and refused to vote for the bill, thus guaranteeing it's defeat. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Speaker Chopp wisely decided to let the bill die. We owe several Democrat Representatives for their support for gun owners, but Pat Sullivan leads the pack.
Senator Tim Sheldon, the majority Coalition's Senate President Pro Tem, has been standing with gun owners for more than 20 years. It was his deciding vote in 1994 that killed the amendment that would have required training to obtain a concealed pistol license. (Don't get me wrong, I've been a certified firearms safety instructor for 40 years. I firmly believe that anyone who chooses to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights has a moral obligation to do so safely, to the extent they can afford training. But I don't believe the state has any business interfering in a fundamental Constitutional right. Just as the Supreme Court ruled poll tests were unconstitutional decades ago, so should state-mandated training.) Tim flew around the state with us in 1997, opposing I-676, the so-called trigger lock initiative" that was actually a handgun possessor (that's right, possessor, not just an owner) licensing bait-and-switch initiative (much as today's I-594 is a bait-and-switch background check initiative). Sheldon now faces a liberal Democrat, Irene Bowling. We need to keep Sheldon in place to keep the Senate in Republican hands AND protect YOUR gun rights.
Those two, and a handful of other brave DEMOCRATS who stand between you and just about every imaginable gun control law.
If you compare the lists, you will see that the NRA and GOAL are in about 99% agreement. We run our endorsement process somewhat differently, however. The NRA assigns grades based on known voting records for incumbents. They then send out questionnaires to new candidates, and based on the response to those questionnaires, assigns grades. They endorse specific candidates, but give you the grade rating for both candidates in the race. You choose. That's probably a more "fair" way to do it. The problem with questionnaires is, candidates can lie.
GOAL takes a different tack. GOAL only lists a single candidate for each position, in effect a push-poll to direct you to the candidate we believe best suits the interests of Washington gun owners. If you want "fair," visit Puyallup in September. Different approach, hopefully the same result. I've provided a link to the NRA's list below, as well as the entire GOAL endorsement list.
And we have the two initiatives on the ballot. I'm not going to go into any real detail on either of them. I-594, the universal background check initiative is a wolf in sheep's clothing, full of hidden traps and penalties. That's why they needed 18 pages to accomplish what the legislature tried to do in HB 1588 in two pages. I-591 simply restates existing law: no confiscation of firearms without due process of law (as happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina) and no background checks beyond those mandated by federal law. Some of my 10th Amendment friends are unhappy with that. They feel we shouldn't support federal law, period. I live in a real world. And I'm not about to risk five years in Club Fed by violating that law, 10th Amendment or not. For all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment died about a century ago.
The outcome of the initiative votes will have a major impact on how the gun business is conducted in Washington, and how gun shows are conducted. If 594 passes and becomes law, expect to pay a $25-50 FFL fee EVERY TIME you "transfer" a firearm -- this includes loans as well as sales. And when a loan is transferred back. Plus a use tax nearly equal to the state sales tax. Yes, I-594 waives sales tax for private transfers, but if you read the fiscal note from the Office of Financial Management, you'll see that when the sales tax is waived on the transfer of property, a "use tax" in imposed.
VOTE NO ON 594. VOTE YES ON 591. It's a no-brainer.
It's up to you now. GOAL's endorsements, and the NRA's, are simply suggestions: our best judgment of who will best represent your gun rights in D.C. and Olympia. But the choice is yours. And please, please, mark your ballot and get it back in the mail ASAP. Don't take a chance on misplacing it, or forgetting to get it in on time. MAIL IT NOW.
NRA endorsements can be found at https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/washington/
GOAL ENDORSEMENTS:
CONGRESSIONAL RACES
1st Pedro Celis (R)
2nd B. J. Guillot (R)
3rd Jaime Herrera Beutler (R)
4th Dan Newhouse (R) or
Clint Didier (R)
5th Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R)
6th Marty McClendon (R)
7th Craig Keller (R)
8th Dave Reichert (R)
9th Doug Basler (R)
10th Joyce McDonald (R)
Supreme Court 1 No recommendation
3 No recommendation
4 Charles Johnson
7 No recommendation
LEGISLATIVE RACES
Dist. Position Name
1 House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Edward Barton (R)
2 House 1 Graham Hunt (R)
House 2 J. T. Wilcox (R)
3 House 1 Tim Benn (R)
House 2 Paul Delaney (L)
4 House 1 Bob McCaslin (R)
House 2 Matt Shea (R)
5 House 1 Jay Rodne (R)
House 2 Chad Magendanz (R)
6 Senate Michael Baumgartner (R)
House 1 Kevin Parker (R)
House 2 Jeff Holy (R)
7 Senate Brian Dansel (R)
House 1 Shelly Short (R)
House 2 Joel Kretz (R)
8 Senate Sharon Brown (R)
House 1 Brad Klippert (R)
House 2 Larry Haler (R)
9 House 1 Susan Fagan (R)
House 2 Joe Schmick (R)
10 House 1 Norma Smith (R)
House 2 Dave Hayes (R)
11 House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Sarah Sanoy-Wright (R)
12 House 1 Cary Condotta (R)
House 2 Brad Hawkins (R)
13 Senate Judith Warnick (R)
House 1 Tom Dent (R)
House 2 Matt Manweller (R)
14 House 1 Norm Johnson (R)
House 2 Gina McCabe (R)
15 Senate Jim Honeyford (R)
House 1 Bruce Chandler (R)
House 2 David Taylor (R)
16 House 1 Maureen Walsh (R)
House 2 Terry Nealey (R)
17 House 1 Lynda Wilson (R)
House 2 Paul Harris (R)
18 House 1 Brandon Vick (R)
House 2 Liz Pike (R)
19 House 1 Dean Takko (D)
House 2 Brian Blake (D)
20 House 1 Richard DeBolt (R)
House 2 Ed Orcutt (R)
21 Senate Dan Matthews (R)
House 1 Allen McPheeters (R)
House 2 Jeff Scherrer (R)
22 House 1 Steve Owens (R)
House 2 No recommendation
23 House 1 Scott Henden (R)
House 2 James Olsen (R)
24 House 1 Kevin Van De Wege (D)
House 2 Thomas Greisamer (R)
25 House 1 Melanie Stambough (R)
House 2 Hans Zeiger (R)
26 Senate Jan Angel (R)
House 1 Jesse Young (R)
House 2 Michelle Caldier (R)
27 House 1 Rodger Deskins (R)
House 2 Steven Cook (R)
28 Senate Steve O'Ban (R)
House 1 Dick Muri (R)
House 2 Paul Wagemann (R)
29 Senate Steve Conway (D)
House 1 Jason Bergstrom (R)
House 2 Steve Kirby (D)
30 Senate Mark Miloscia (R)
House 1 Linda Kochmar (R)
House 2 Jack Dovey (R)
31 Senate Pam Roach (R)
House 1 Drew Stokesbury (R)
House 2 Chris Hurst (D) or
Phil Fortunato (R)
32 Senate Robert Reedy (R)
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Alvin Rutledge (R)
33 Senate Martin Metz (R)
House 1 Michael Siefkes (R)
House 2 Jeannette Burrage (R)
34 Senate No recommendation
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 No recommendation
35 Senate Tim Sheldon (D)
House 1 Kathy Haigh (D)
House 2 Drew MacEwen (R)
36 Senate Sarina Forbes (R)
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Paul Addis (L)
37 Senate No recommendation
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 No recommendation
38 Senate Craig French (R)
House 1 Jesse Anderson (R)
House 2 Elijah Olson (L)
39 House 1 Dan Kristiansen (R)
House 2 Elizabeth Scott (R)
40 House 1 Daniel Miller (R)
House 2 No recommendation
41 House 1 Bill Stinson (R)
House 2 No recommendation
42 Senate Doug Ericksen (R)
House 1 Luann VanWerven (R)
House 2 Vincent Buys (R)
43 Senate No recommendation
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 No recommendation
44 Senate Steve Hobbs (D)
House 1 Rob Toyer (R)
House 2 Mark Harmsworth (R)
45 Senate Andy Hill (R)
House 1 Joel Hussey (R)
House 2 Brendan Woodward (R)
46 Senate Van Sperry (R)
House 1 No recommendation
House 2 Branden Curtis (R)
47 Senate Joe Fain (R)
House 1 Mark Hargrove (R)
House 2 Pat Sullivan (D)
48 Senate Michelle Darnell (R)
House 1 Bill Hirt (R)
House 2 Tim Turner (L)
49 House 1 Anson Service (R)
House 2 Lisa Ross (R)
--
I-594 background checks: another gun control panacea that in reality is nothing more than a feel-good placebo.
10-19-2014, 05:51 AM
#16
Thank You for explaining that, well done. Yes there is good Dem. and bad ones as well as Rep's. As you said I believe you have to look at everything in the whole picture.
Arkansas is a Pro-gun state as others are but we have to be on - guard for those who want to sneak in a anti-gun law.
North Dakota has it's share of guns also, another state for those people not to miss with.
10-19-2014, 10:03 PM
#17
JK Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kent, Wa
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this article today really good info for the public. I think it might be to late to spread the word to uneducated voters. http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014...ml?sp=/99/122/
10-20-2014, 05:19 AM
#18
Found this article today really good info for the public. I think it might be to late to spread the word to uneducated voters. No on I-594: Don’t turn neighbors into accidental criminals | Northwest Opinion Columns | The Bellingham Herald
10-20-2014, 10:29 PM
#19
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a crowd that believes in deception, lies and even breaking the law in order to achieve their shady goals.
https://washingtonarmscollectors.org...aters-thieves/
Let alone that they even managed to push their deceptions and lies in the voter's pamphlets. I-594 is completely misrepresented there and the usual oblivious voter who only reads that stuff will not get the truth about it. In a civilized lawful country that would be illegal.
https://washingtonarmscollectors.org...aters-thieves/
Former Bellevue City Council woman Margot Blacker admits to having made off with a pair of “Yes on I-591″ signs, as reported by the Bellevue Police and Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, Dave Workman.
Let alone that they even managed to push their deceptions and lies in the voter's pamphlets. I-594 is completely misrepresented there and the usual oblivious voter who only reads that stuff will not get the truth about it. In a civilized lawful country that would be illegal.
10-21-2014, 08:36 AM
#20
JK Super Freak
I have my ballot now; I will be voting emphatically NO on 594 and YES on 591.
Seattle and its surrounding area is great for some things. The Pionneer mentality of its people is vanishing, however. It's being run out by a society of people intent on erecting blanket forts with regards to the law.
Seattle and its surrounding area is great for some things. The Pionneer mentality of its people is vanishing, however. It's being run out by a society of people intent on erecting blanket forts with regards to the law.
