GOAL Post 2015-8

Joe has sent out this week's GOAL Post.  Most of the bills have died; all of the "good" ones in the House, mostly because Tacoma Representative Jinkins never met a gun control she didn't love, or a firearms right she didn't hate. 

If you live in her district, take note.

One bill was forcibly removed form her purview, moved to a different committee, and significantly; re-written. Thanks in no small part to our lobbyists and activists.

***

FROM: GOAL <goalwa@cox.net>

TO: undisclosed-recipients:

SUBJECT: GOAL Post 2015-8

SENT: Sat 2/28/2015 4:14 AM

Legislative Update from Olympia 27 February 2015

FISCAL COMMITTEE CUT-OFF

TWELVE SURVIVE

CHAMBER CUT-OFF 11 MARCH

FOCUS SHIFTS TO FLOOR ACTION

NO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BILLS

Today is the fiscal committee cut-off for those bills that required the legislature to identify a funding source if the bill was to proceed.  As with the policy committee cut-off, bills that did not pass out of committee are considered dead for the session -- probably.

Eleven bills remain under consideration.  Most are in their respective Rules Committees awaiting a floor vote.  Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 5381 (return of firearms held by law enforcement) passed out of the Senate on a 49-0 vote.  The substitute bill cleared away our objections to the bill, although the House counterpart, HB 1731 is still unacceptable in its current form.   

Wednesday, 11 March is the chamber cut-off for the 2015 Regular Session.  By 5 p.m. on the 11th, all House Bills must pass the House, Senate bills pass the Senate, for the bills to remain in play for the session.  This will result in another major culling of bills as the legislators simply run out of time to vote on more bills

The focus for the next 12 days will be on activity (voting) on the House and Senate floors -- the entire chamber voting to pass bills.  There will be a few committee hearings but you can expect the full House and Senate to be on their respective chamber floors for most of the day (and some evenings) until 5 p.m. on the 11th.  If you can find the time, this is a great opportunity to see the entire House or Senate debating and voting on bills on the floor.  (They typically run bills in batches -- maybe a dozen or more bill votes, then they recess and go into their caucus (Republican and Democrat) rooms to discuss the party position on the next batch of bills. 

There are no more public hearings on bills of interest until after the 11 March chamber cut-off.  The process then starts all over again, with House bills being heard in the Senate and Senate bills in the House.  We're five days short of being half-way through the 105-day session!

BILL STATUS:

GOAL Post 2015-5

Another week, another GOAL Post. 

Looks like I wasn't the only one who liked the format Joe used a few times last year, with the GOAL position on bills in line with the bill info. 

Again, I made minor corrections of spelling and formatting, and added links to the bills when they are first discussed in the narrative text.

Drang

***

 FROM: wa-ccw@yahoogroups.com

TO: undisclosed-recipients:

SENT: Fri 2/6/2015 6:16 PM

SUBJECT: GOAL Post 2015-5

Legislative Update from Olympia 6 February 2015

• NEW BILLS FILED
• MISSED A COUPLE LAST WEEK!
• TOY GUN CONTROL
• "SAFE STORAGE" BILLS BACK
• BILLS MOVE
• PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED
• TWO WEEKS UNTIL FIRST POLICY CHAMBER CUT-OFF
• FORMAT CHANGE:  MERGING "BILL STATUS" WITH "GOAL POSITION" 

Only two new gun bills have been filed this week.  SB 5789, by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36) is the Senate counterpart to HB 1747, the "this does not mandate how a firearm is stored" bill.  SB 5831, by Sen. Jim Honeyford (R-15) makes minor changes to the procedure to have firearm rights restored after certain misdemeanor convictions. 

While on the road earlier, I missed a few bills that should have been listed last week:  HB 1442 by Rep. Graham Hunt (R-2) promotes expansion of firearms/accessories and ammunition manufacturing in Washington;  HBs 1594 and 1692 by Rep. Sharon Wylie (D-49) would ban the manufacture, sale or possession of realistic-looking toy guns unless they are made of or coated with some bright color to indicate their non-gun status; HB 1731 by Rep. Timm Ormsby (D-3) is the House counterpart to SB 5381, mandates a waiting period before a firearm held by law enforcement may be returned to the legal owner and that any complainant be informed that the firearm is being returned.

Toy guns in the crosshairs!  Not content to go after real guns, Rep. Sharon Wylie (D-49) has set her sights on toy guns as well.  She has filed HBs 1594 and 1692, both of which require all imitation (toy) guns sold or possessed in Washington to be made of some bright material or coloring to distinguish them from "real" firearms.  I guess Rep. Wylie isn't familiar with the real pastel pistols offered these days by some manufacturers.

For the 11th time in the past 18 years, bills penalizing gun owners if they fail to lock up their gun(s) and it/they are accessed by a juvenile have been filed.  HB 1747 (Kagi, D-32) and SB 5789 (Kohl-Welles, D-36) are the bills in question.  There are two significant differences in these versions of the bill from previous versions:  they raise the age limit of unauthorized access from sixteen to eighteen, and they cover ALL firearms where previous versions only addressed LOADED firearms.  The previous versions failed in several Democrat-controlled legislatures... these should die as well, but you can expect they will receive wide media attention. 

The bills contain a clear statement that "Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored."  True statement, as far as it goes, but misleading.  If you DON'T lock up your gun(s), and a minor accesses it/them, YOU can be charged with a crime.  That's the bottom line.  And while many legislators don't believe or choose not to understand it, one size of gun security does not fit all.  Everyone's circumstances vary, family configuration, maturity of children, security situation, etc.  It's not up to someone sitting in the comfort of the legislative chamber to decide for you what works for you.

The existing reckless endangerment statute (RCW 9a.36.050) already criminalizes a person who unnecessarily endangers another person with ANYTHING.  A charge of reckless endangerment was deferred in the 2012 Kitsap school shooting.  Maybe they should run a bill requiring prosecutors to do their jobs.  But what the bill's proponents want is a GUN BILL, that demonizes GUNS, ignoring the fact that unintentional gunshot injuries are far down the list of dangers to children (and others).  This isn't about safety, it's about politics.

(The next time a gun control proponents talks about "reasonable, common sense gun SAFETY" legislation, ask to see his or her firearms safety instructor certification, or even a gun safety course completion certificate.  They won't have one.)

Several hearings have been held on bills in the past two weeks.  Executive action (a vote) has been taken on a few, others await a vote.  Hint: a committee chair can sit on a bill and not hold a vote... ever, if he or she doesn't want to move the bill. HB 1131 (ivory sale/transfer) was passed in amended form and sent to the House General Government committee for further review.  SB5036 (use of body armor in a crime) passed out of Senate Law & Justice and now sits in Senate Rules, awaiting a pull to the Senate floor for a full Senate vote.

At this point seven bills are scheduled for public hearing this coming week.  Senate Law & Justice will take public testimony on five bills on Monday, 9 February, at 1:30 p.m.  The bills are SBs 5831 (return of firearms held by law enforcement), 5476  and 5539 (both exempt active law enforcement officers from the three-day waiting period on handgun delivery -- just like that enjoyed by CPL holders today), 5579 (exempts security guards from the I-594 background check requirement) and 5615 (exempts active military personnel from I-594).  HB 1731 (House version of SB 5831 -- return of guns held by law enforcement) will be heard in House Judiciary on 10 February at 10:00 a.m. and HB 1857 (allows confiscation of firearms) in House Judiciary on 11 February 8 a.m.

(If you can't make it to a public hearing but want to submit comments on a given bill, you can do so via the legislative web site, on the specific page for each bill.  Go to http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/ place the bill number in the box and click on "search."  When the page appears for that specific bill, click on the green box labeled "Comment on this bill."  Keep it polite, make a point or two, and cut it off.  This isn't the place to vent -- you do that on Election Day!)

The first major cut-off comes in two weeks.  There are two weeks remaining before bills that have not received a public hearing and committee vote will die.  Given the number of bills yet to receive hearings and the limited time left, it's clear that the majority of bill will die -- technically, at least -- on 20 February.  You may see a few evening hearings scheduled as committee chairs try to cram bills in, but historically half or more of bills filed fail to clear to clear the first hurdle.

At the request of several subscribers, I have changed the GOAL Post format slightly.  Basically, I have merged the "Bill Status" and "GOAL Position" elements into a single section.  You can read the basics about the bill (number, subject, sponsor, status" and on the next line, the GOAL position on the bill.  I've tried putting all of it on the same line, but I run out of space. 

I've also been asked to prioritize bills, in support of or opposition to.  I can't do that for several thousand subscribers.  Each of you has differing priorities, differing interests.  You have to choose what's important to you.  If a particular bill needs special attention, I'll do that in the narrative above.

BILL STATUS:

WA -- House Bill 1886 UPDATED

Washington State Representative Graham Hunt just announced on Facebook that he has introduced HB 1886, repealing I594.

HOUSE BILL 1886

State of Washington                 64th Legislature                   2015 Regular Session

By Representatives G. Hunt, Shea, Taylor, Young, Klippert, Dent, Haler, Wilcox, Short, Wilson, Scott, Condotta, Harris, and Schmick

AN ACT Relating to criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales and transfers; repealing RCW 9.41.092, 9.41.113,29.41.115, 9.41.137, and 82.08.833; repealing 2015 c ss 2, 5, 6, 7, and 11; repealing 2015 c 1 s 1 (uncodified); and providing for submission of this act to a vote of the people.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:
(1) RCW 9.41.092 (Licensed dealer deliveries—Background checks)9and 2015 c 1 s 4 (Initiative Measure No. 594);10
(2) RCW 9.41.113 (Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—11Requirements—Exceptions) and 2015 c 1 s 3 (Initiative Measure No.12594);
(3) RCW 9.41.115 (Penalties—Violations of RCW 9.41.113) and 201514c 1 s 9 (Initiative Measure No. 594);
(4) RCW 9.41.137 (Department of licensing, authority to adopt16rules—Reporting of violations—Authority to revoke licenses) and 201517c 1 s 8 (Initiative Measure No. 594);
(5) RCW 82.08.833 (Exemptions—Sales or transfers of firearms—1Unlicensed persons—Background check requirements) and 2015 c 1 s 102(Initiative Measure No. 594);
(6) 2015 c 1 s 2 (Initiative Measure No. 594);
(7) 2015 c 1 s 5 (Initiative Measure No. 594);
(8) 2015 c 1 s 6 (Initiative Measure No. 594);
(9) 2015 c 1 s 7 (Initiative Measure No. 594);
(10) 2015 c 1 s 11 (Initiative Measure No. 594); and
(11) 2015 c 1 s 1 (uncodified) (Initiative Measure No. 594).

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The secretary of state shall submit this act to the people for their adoption and ratification, or rejection,11at the next general election to be held in this state, in accordance with Article II, section 1 of the state Constitution and the laws13adopted to facilitate its operation.
--- END ---
UPDATE: Congressman Hunt points out that HB1245, the previous bill to repeal I594,requires a two-thirds majority for passage, but HB1886 only requires a simple majority.

GOAL Post 2015-2 PLUS Addenda

FROM: GOAL <goalwa@cox.net>

TO: undisclosed-recipients:

SENT: Fri 1/16/2015 8:38 PM

SUBJECT: GOAL Post 2015-2

Legislative Update from Olympia 16 January 2015

•         RALLY A SUCCESS
•          FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST I-594
•          WHY GOAL POST DOES NOT ADDRESS PURELY HUNTING ISSUES
•          NO CUT-OFF CALENDAR YET
•          GUN BILLS FILED
•          PUBLIC HEARING(S) SCHEDULED
•          PUBLIC HEARINGS 101
•          LEGISLATOR CONTACT INFORMATION POSTED

 A "Rally for your rights" was held on the Legislative Building steps on Thursday.  Turnout was "several hundred," significantly fewer than the "I will not comply" rally conducted last month -- but that rally was held on the weekend, with no legislators present, while this one was on a work day, with all legislators present and available to hear from their constituents.  As reported by SAF's Dave Workman, one attendee noted, “Most of our people are at work, so they can pay taxes and support other people who come down here to restrict our rights.”  About two dozen individuals from the "I will not comply" group were present, and reportedly some heckled lawmakers.  That does not help.  And why did they even bother?  At last month's rally they claimed they had already nullified I-594 by their civil disobedience, so why did they bother to come?  (There's nothing wrong with civil disobedience... in its place, as it was in December.).  (BTW, those who chose to open carry inside the legislature after the rally may have provoked a move to ban such carry.  There's a time and a place for everything.)

A lawsuit was filed last week in federal district court in Tacoma challenging many provisions of I-594, mostly dealing with various forms of "transfer."  Plaintiffs include several individual citizens, both Washingtonians and non-residents of Washington, firearms training facilities, private security/investigative services, and others.  Each category of plaintiff has been negatively impacted by I-594, in different ways.  We have been asked why I-594 was not simply challenged as a whole on constitutional grounds.  The simple answer is, the suit would be dismissed almost immediately.  Both the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions by the Supreme Court upholding the right of the individual citizens to keep and bear arms allowed for various restrictions to remain in place.  At this point, a piecemeal, provision by provision, challenge to 594 offers the greatest likelihood of success.  Additional information may be found at http://www.saf.org/?p=4877

The focus of the GOAL Post is on firearms-related legislation (90% of which is contained in RCW 9.41).  We do not address Title 77 (hunting code) unless it impacts firearms directly.  We will address bills having an impact on self defense and/or the use of lethal force (typically in RCW 9A.16 or 9A.36).  The Hunters Heritage Council DOES track most Title 77 issues. 

The session cut-off calendar has yet to be published.  The cut-off calendar contains all the dates by which bills must clear their policy committee or their chamber (House or Senate).  Bills that fail to clear these hurdles are nominally dead for the remainder of the session, although exceptions can be made.

Several firearm-related bills have already been filed.  House Bill 1119 (HB 1119), by Rep. Brian Blake (D-19), clarifies and streamlines various provisions of the existing Washington state Hunter Education Program.  HB 1191, by Rep. David Taylor (R-15) would mandate a renewal notice be mailed to CPL holders 90 days prior to license expiration.  HB 1193, also by Rep. Taylor, would eliminates the state pistol registry and prohibit the state from maintaining any data base of handgun purchasers.  HB 1245, by Rep. Matt Shea (R-4) would repeal all provisions of I-594.  (Recognize that for a two year period following adoption, it takes a 2/3 vote of the legislature to amend in any way an initiative passed by the people.  HB 1245 is unlikely to gain that level of support, but Rep. Shea is making an important statement by filing the bill.  Other action is current under way -- both legislative and through litigation -- to limit the impact of I-594.)

Public hearings have been scheduled for next week for SB 5036 and HB 1119.  The purpose of a public hearing is to gather information from the bill's sponsor(s), other stakeholders (individuals or organizations with a direct interest in the bill), and members of the public.  See the commentary below on how to participate in a public hearing.  Most public hearings are two hours in length, with the time divided among several bills under consideration and other committee business to be addressed.  Thus the time spent on each bill is limited.  Keep in mind, too, that the committee chair has full discretion as to who is called to testify and who is not.  SB 5036 will be heard in Senate Law & Justice on Monday, 19 January (the legislature does NOT close for holidays; both MLK Day and Presidents' Birthday are legislative work days.).  HB 1113 will be heard in the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee on 20 January.  The hearing schedule appears below. 

As the name implies, public hearings on bills are open to the public.  A sign-in sheet will typically be found on a table just inside or outside the hearing room.  Attendees are not required to sign in, but may do so.  If you wish to speak on a bill, or take a position on the bill ("pro" or "con"), you must sign in.  If called upon to testify, there is usually a three minute limit on comments.  You should keep it short and sweet, preferably no more than one or two points.  If someone before you already made that point, do not repeat it.  No personal attacks or attacks on the motives of other speakers is allowed.  Just make a positive or negative statement about the content of the bill in question.  You do not have to wear a coat and tie or business attire to attend or speak at a hearing, but you should dress neatly.  Your appearance says a lot about YOU.

 {Legislative and information on bills submitted this week, plus an addendum to this GOAL Post, after the break. DWD}

GOAL Alert 4-2014

(Sorry if the thing showed up in your feed with crap as the title, I forgot and left it blank, that always has a weird effect.)

FROM: GOAL (goalwa@cox.net) {Joe Waldron}

TO: undisclosed-recipients:

Subject: GOAL Alert 4-2014

Election update 9 November 2014       

• HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MARINES
• SILVER LINING
• MOMENTUM FOR GUN CONTROL? 
• I-594: WHAT NEXT?
• WARNING!!!
• THE OTHER WASHINGTON

Tomorrow, 10 November 2014, is the 239th birthday of the U.S. Marine Corps.  Happy birthday to all of my Marine brethren and to our "FMF Corpsman," the highest calling in the Navy.  Right after "Semper fidelis" comes "Corpsman up!"    (The devil made me put that in GOAL Post.)

47% of the registered voters in Washington took the trouble to return their mail-in ballots this time around.  Shame on any gun owners who failed to vote.

For gun owners, the passage of I-594 will no doubt dominate the discussion, and I'll get to that next.  But there is a silver lining in the election.  My biggest fear the day before the election was that I-594 supporters would use their $9 MILLION bank account to conduct a massive get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaign.  Without question that would have had a spillover effect on the legislative elections.  But apparently they didn't -- and it didn't.

The overall result of the legislative elections was a net plus for Republicans.  Former Democrat Representative and now Republican Senator-elect Mark Miloscia (R-30-Federal Way) won his bid to replace retiring Democrat Tracy Eide, giving Republicans clear majority control of the state Senate, 25R-24D.  Add to that the fact that nominally-Democrat Senator Tim Sheldon beat off an attempt by Party loyalists to run a Democrat challenger, Irene Bowling, against him.  No doubt with a lot of help from Republican voters in the 35th, Tim won his election, and will no doubt continue to work with Republicans in the Majority Coalition.  (And congratulations to WAC Honorary Life Member Pam Roach (R-31) for her victory over a Republican challenger.)

On the House side, the GOP picked up four seats, and a fifth seat awaits a recount vote.  Welcome Representatives-elect Lynda Wilson (R-17) (also an NRA-certified firearms safety instructor), Melanie Stambaugh (R-25), Michelle Caldier (R-26) and Dan Griffey (R-35).  All four defeated incumbent Democrats.  That gives us a House make-up of 51Ds-47Rs, not a Republican majority, but a lot closer.  All but one of the pro-gun Democrats also won reelection, so from a purely gun rights perspective, we should be in good shape.

Immediately following the election, in press conferences crowing about their initiative victory, I-594 supporters promised an aggressive gun control campaign in the next legislative session, looking at things like "assault weapon" bans, magazine capacity limits, mandatory safe storage, etc.  At least theoretically, a Republican-controlled Senate and a pro-gun majority in the House should bring all such designs to a rapid halt.  But politics doesn't always work that way, especially in the House where control still rests with Democrats, and leadership decides which bills move and which bills die.  There is no doubt gun control advocates believe momentum is on their side, and they'll attempt to exploit it.

As for I-594, at this point there are more questions than answers.  Given the ambiguity of many provisions in the initiative, it's going to boil down to a question of interpretation, followed by a decision of what will be enforced, in which way.  Without doubt you can expect full enforcement of background checks at gun shows and for any other permanent transfer (sale) of a firearm.  While a strict reading of the provisions for loans, etc, would call for background checks here, too, that's going to be difficult to enforce, and it remains to be seen what guidance will be given to police.  This should all be hashed out before the initiative takes effect on 4 December, a day before the WAC gun show in Monroe, coincidentally!

 {More after the break}

594 seems to be passing. What now?

So, at the time I type this (0150-ish, the morning of Wednesday 11/05) it would appear that Washington State Ballot Initiative 594 is passing.  There are still ballots to be counted, it's possible that it might be defeated, but it's not looking good.

So, what now?

Well, based on a variety of things, including conversations I had with people prior to election day and observations about How These Things Work, I expect that by the end of the week an injunction will be filed to prevent this pile of excrement to be implemented, pending court hearings.

Suit will be filed to get it tossed out based on, among other things, unconstitutionally vague language, lacking definitions, unfunded mandates, ad regulatory overreach. It's not like no one in this state knows a lawyer or two who have an established track record when it comes to court challenges of gun rights.

Notwithstanding, the 1%'ers behind this piece of crap will move forward with similar schemes in other states.  "I-594, coming soon to a state near you!"

It would not surprise me if the state legislature refuses to implement this; there is precedence for them to ignore the results of initiatives.

The left, led by their 1%'er Sugar Daddies will be crowing about the defeat of the NRA. Never mind that the NRA has elections in 50 states plus territories to deal with, and resources that are far from infinite. Any victory for gun control is a defeat for the NRA.

And, of course, all the whiners will come out of the woodwork blaming the NRA for this. Because the only people who are more certain of the NRA's power to influence the vote than the left-wing lunatic fringe is a bunch of gun nuts who are looking for a scapegoat. I swear sometimes if "Threepers" put half the energy into getting the vote out, or trying to influence their congresscritters that they do into masturbating to their rebellion fantasies while chanting "Shall Not Be Infringed!", we'd be debating whether sales taxes on guns and ammo are unconstitutional.

Yes, I'm disappointed that the NRA was late to the party. I certainly don't believe that NRA's strategies are bound to be 100% effective.  And I haven't heard anything from Gun Owners of America (GOA) on this, or the National Association to Raise Money from Gun Owners for Gun rights, and little from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Who, by the way, were pretty much silent when the left attacked NRA Rep Brian Judy for pointing out how Weimar and Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust.)

 I also know that Adina Hicks and Keely Hopkins, NRA WA Grassroots coordinators, were working themselves to death travelling and organizing.  Plus, there have been other issues in the past where no one knew the NRA was doing anything until after the dust settled and it became obvious that "strategery" had been in play.

So, yeah, not happy here.  But, being an INTJ, I am fully capable of the apparently contradictory cynical optimism (or optimistic cynicism, if you prefer) that is characteristic of that "type", and fully believe that we will win this.

Eventually. 

But we must stay the course, not get discouraged, and not engage in internal bickering about who did (or didn't) do what.

Earworm, 2014 Election Edition (Dedicated to the I594 Campaign)

"Little White Lies" doesn't begin to cover the whoppers these dirtbags are telling, of course...

More I-594 lies

Barron sent me this:

So, the entire "Yes on I-594" crowd's collective pants spontaneously combusted.

Let's take these latest flat-out lies in order, shall we?

1. "No mandatory waiting periods"
WHAT I-594 SAYS:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer may not deliver any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until the earlier of:

(1) The results of all required background checks are known and the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal or state law; or

(2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days.

Since under current Washington state and  Federal law the sale goes forward after five days, they lie. They will probably deny it, since you can still make the transfer immediately if you have a WA Concealed Pistol License and/or the "instant" check goes through instantaneously, but still, they have moved the end point.

2. "No registry of gun owners"
Not explicitly addressed.
However.
Sales forms are filled out in triplicate, and sent to the local CLEO. ("Chief Law Enforcement Officer.")
Plus...

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended.

And we don't know what rules the bureaucrats will adopt, do we?

But wait!  While Section 10 of the thing exempts non-dealers from state sales tax, background checks are subject to state use tax! And since they will know who the "transferor" was...

3. "No change to hunting laws or firearms safety training."
We've covered this one over and over again.
If the law says that a background check has to be made every time a firearms changes hands, with narrow exemptions,  then that impacts how forearms safety training can be conducted.

Since Section 3 (f) (ii) says

...if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located ...

I suppose that means that my Friendly Local Gun Shop & Range will be able to continue to conduct training, with their guns. But we'll have to cease conducting Home Firearms Safety classes at Gun Shows, I won't be able to conduct a Basic or First Steps Pistol class, since even if this is done at a range, it usually involves handing the student's or instructor's pistol back and forth, demonstrating and adjusting grips, etc.

I'm not sure if this would also impact the Washington State Hunters Safety Field Skills Certification, I haven't taken it (exempt, military) so I don't know if the circumstances fall under this pile of crap law or not.

Speaking of hunting... Section 3 (f) (v) says

...while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm...

which means that I can borrow a rifle but I have to hand it back before I get within (IIRC) 150 feet of a road or creek or "No Hunting" posted fence line...

So, again, Ballot Initiative 594 is a poorly written, ill-defined, vague and contradictory pile of excrement. The more I read this garbage the harder it is to believe that it was so poorly done out of incompetence. Hanlon's razor (Wikipedia link) applies, I suppose, but then again, as constantly bombarded as we are with assaults on our gun rights, it is getting harder and harder not recite  

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

GOAL Alert 3-2014

From: GOAL goalwa@cox.net (Joe Waldron)
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: GOAL Alert 3-2014
Election update 22 October 2014

     TACOMA NEWS TRIBUNE GUEST COLUMNIST OPPOSES I-594
     MAJORITY OF WASHINGTON SHERIFFS NOW OPPOSE 594
     MAJORITY OF RANK AND FILE WASHINGTON COPS OPPOSE 594
     WHY ARE YOU RECEIVING THIS ALERT?

The following article was published in the Tacoma News Tribune on Sunday, 19 October.  The author, Phil Shave, is the retired Chief of Law Enforcement for Washington State Parks and a long-time instructor with the Criminal Justice Training Commission.  He is currently the Executive Director of the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC).
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/10/19/3437947/no-on-i-594-dont-turn-neighbors.html

NO ON 594:  DON'T TURN NEIGHBORS INTO ACCIDENTAL CRIMINALS
Would you vote for a law that would make criminals of half your neighbors? Initiative 594 would do exactly that.

In their zeal to impose "universal background checks," the creators of I-594 have written a law that would require nearly all “transfers” of firearms to be conducted at the premises of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer.

I-594 defines transfers as a change of possession, no matter how temporary, including gifts and loans. There are exceptions for family gifts, organized competitions and youth activities, but they are so narrow that most recreational, non-sale transfers would be crimes.

The father who loans a hunting rifle to an adult son during hunting season would commit a misdemeanor (upon the first violation). When the rifle is returned, both father and son would be two-time offenders, and thus felons under I-594.

Shooting buddies who met on public land or their own property to target practice with shared firearms would violate I-594. Routine gun repairs would also be criminalized. The initiative would effectively forbid you from dropping your firearm off with a gunsmith friend unless he had a federal license. Most gunsmiths in this state, often the most skilled, lack federal licenses.

Women are targeted by several provisions. Instructors could no longer provide loaner firearms during introductory women's self-defense classes. And if your sister were being stalked and in fear of her life, and you loaned her a firearm, you would both be criminals. I-594 has an exception to "prevent imminent death," but the legal definition of imminent means "about to happen."

Widows and heirs beware: If your spouse died and you found a couple of handguns in your husband's sock drawer 61 days after death, then you’d be an accidental felon.

I-594 only allows you 60 days to register those guns; after that, they’d become contraband. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and intent to commit a crime is not an element written into 594. Why write a law that makes inheritance of grandpa's old guns a crime?

Colorado passed a law in 2013 requiring universal background checks, but the Colorado law includes exceptions for temporary transfers without change of ownership, transfers while hunting or target shooting, transfers for gun repairs and loans for 72 hours. The transfer fee is capped at a reasonable $10 (fees are unlimited in I-594).
If only I-594 were that reasonable. Failure to complete the Colorado paperwork is a misdemeanor, whereas I-594 makes the first offense a gross misdemeanor and the second a Class C felony.

I urge you to follow the lead of our state's law enforcement officers, those who deal with crime and criminals on a daily basis; they oppose I-594 and support passage of Initiative 591. Vote yes on I-591 because it leaves intact our current background check laws while allowing our state to implement future enhancements adopted at the federal level for all 50 states.

I-594’s penalty provisions are one huge reason that law enforcement officers oppose this flawed initiative. Its promoters cleverly revised the law to define an I-594 felony as a "serious" offense, placing it in the same category as child molestation, third-degree rape, leading organized crime and drive-by shootings.

You could loan your gun to a friend for the weekend, and the judge hearing your paperwork crime would have to follow "serious" crime-sentencing guidelines, including consecutive sentences for these newly defined "serious" crimes.

No law enforcement organization supports Initiative 594.

The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs represents the majority of law enforcement line-level officers in our state; it opposes the initiative. The Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association opposes it. These are the firearm professionals who would be tasked with enforcing this unreasonable law.

Nineteen elected sheriffs oppose I-594. They understand that the initiative will consume scarce resources in the prosecution and imprisonment of its accidental violators.

(When Phil's column was submitted to the T-N-T, nineteen sheriffs had joined us in opposing I-594.  In the past few days, six more sheriffs have climbed aboard, bringing the total to 25 of the state's 39 county sheriffs.)

As noted above, 25 county sheriffs have added their names to the list of those opposing I-594.  In addition to their law enforcement expertise in addressing this issue, there is one more important thing you should understand:  all of these sheriffs are ELECTED OFFICIALS, and answerable to their constituents.   

At this time, the 25 sheriffs who are opposing I-594 are (in county alphabetical order): 
Sheriff John Hunt -- Adams County
Sheriff Steven Keane – Benton County
Sheriff Brian Burnett -- Chelan County
Sheriff Bill Benedict - Clallam County
Sheriff Rocky MIller -- Columbia County
Sheriff Mark Nelson -- Cowlitz County
Sheriff Harvey Gjesdal – Douglas County
Sheriff Pete Warner -- Ferry County
Sheriff Richard Lathim – Franklin County
Sheriff Ben Keller -- Garfield County
Sheriff Thomas Jones – Grant County
Sheriff Rick Scott - Grays Harbor County
Sheriff Rick McComas -- Klickitat County
Sheriff Steve Mansfield -- Lewis County
Sheriff Wade Magers – Lincoln County
Sheriff Frank Rogers -- Okanogan County
Sheriff Scott Johnson -- Pacific County
Sheriff Alan Botzheim -- Pend Orielle County
Sheriff Dave Brown, Skamania County
Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich -- Spokane County
Sheriff Kendle Allen – Stevens County
Sheriff John Snaza – Thurston County
Sheriff Mark Howie – Wahkiakum County
Sheriff John Turner – Walla Walla County
Sheriff Brett Myers -- Whitman County

If YOUR sheriff isn't on this list, you might ask him why? 

Note that sheriffs AND rank and file police officers -- the officers that actually patrol the streets, oppose 594 and support 591.  The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS), the largest police union in Washington representing a majority of sworn officers, has formally adopted a position opposing I-594 and supporting I-591.  The same is true of the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearm Instructors Association (WSLEFIA).  Who would know better the negative impact of I-594 than these dedicated officers.

What about police chiefs?  As noted above, sheriffs are elected by residents of their county.  They pay attention to their constituents.  Rank and file officers that daily patrol our streets have minds of their own, and opinions of their own  Neither support 594.

So how about chiefs?  One thing to keep in mind:  police chiefs work for City Hall, and hold their positions at the pleasure of the mayor or city council.  Their opinions tend to match those of their bosses.  Having said that, police chiefs statewide are represented by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs -- WASPC.  WASPC does not have a dog in this fight, they're neutral. 

Why are you receiving this e-mail?  Theoretically no one on this list should need this e-mail.  I would hope all of you are going to vote the right way on both initiatives:  YES on 591, NO on 594.  So why am I preaching to the choir, as it were?

Because we need YOUR HELP in getting the word out -- to fellow gun owners who are not as politically-attuned as are you, and more importantly to the non-gun owning voters out there who are NOT getting the full story, especially on I-594.  Our budget is extremely limited.  The other side has nearly $9 MILLION to throw into television, radio and print media advertising. 

As Joseph Goebbels observed more than 70 years ago, if you repeat a big lie often enough, people WILL believe it. And that is what billionaires Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and Chip Hanauer are counting on (all with private security details).  They don't need to fool all of the people all of the time, they only need to fool 51% of the people through election day. 

I'm sending this information out in the hope that YOU will pick up pen, or sit at keyboard, and help get the word out to others.  A simple and cheap way to do this is letters to the editor of your local newspaper.  Newspapers DO print letters whose position they do not agree with.  Over the years I have been reasonably successful in getting several letters published in the Seattle Times and P-I, no friends of gun owners.

Letters should be brief -- ideally 150 words or less, and limited to one or two points.  Taking your cue from this alert, you might bring out the fact that law enforcement statewide is opposed to I-594 and supports I-591.  That message is NOT being conveyed by the mainstream media.  This is your opportunity to do that, using their print space!

E-mail and snail mail addresses for your paper's Letters to the Editor may be found on the letters page, usually in a box at the side or on the bottom.  Policy on word limits are usually there, too, but 150 is a good number.  Enough to get your point across.

I haven't said much about I-591 here.  I'm saving that for another alert.  But it's there on the ballot, too, and it needs and deserves your YES vote.  That's another way of fighting 594. 

--
VOTE YES ON 591 VOTE NO ON 594