After being humiliated in court SEVERAL times, and being unable to successfully lobby the Legislature it continues its anti-gun crusade by attempting citizen initiatives. This first one is about "universal" un-enforceable background checks but I know that City lawyers have been drafting one to repeal state firearms pre-emption - this is a sore spot for the City since its illegal banning of firearms in parks was (correctly) nullified by the Courts.

We have known this was coming as City officials have been alluding to it since their defeat.

As I have pointed out, previously, the universal background checks legislation is so poorly written that the requirement could have been simply bypassed by a person by saying that they:
1. didn't own the firearm
2. got the firearm prior to the law

Is that the kind of feel good law we want in our State? Completely unenforceable? WASTE OF TIME!

Also, noteworthy, is that WA State Citizen Initiative cannot be modified by the Legislature for *2* years. We cannot allow this to pass. Please spread the word!

LINK to article

TEXT OF ARTICLE:

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.

While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers. Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.

"It's more powerful if the voters do it — as opposed to our doing it," Pedersen said. "And it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more."

On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement. The advocates have scheduled a fundraiser in Seattle at the end of next month and hope to have a campaign budget in the millions of dollars.

Ballot measures may be an option elsewhere, too. Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said an initiative is one of the things the group will be considering as it reconsiders strategies. An organizer in Oregon was focused on the Legislature for now but wouldn't rule out a ballot measure in the future if lawmakers fail to pass a proposed bill there.

While advocates have had success on background checks in places like Connecticut and Colorado, they've been thwarted in some other states and in Congress. The U.S. Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks earlier this month, although lawmakers in the chamber are still working to gather additional votes.

Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren't undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.

Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider.

"At some point, certainly decisions need to be made about what the right time is to say we take it to the people," Malte said.

Brian Judy, a lobbyist who represents the NRA in Washington state, did not return calls seeking comment about the new initiative. He has previously said the NRA would likely oppose such an effort, arguing that the recently proposed laws on background checks would largely impact law-abiding citizens instead of the intended targets such as criminals and the mentally ill.

Gun measures have had mixed results at the ballot. More than 70 percent of Washington state voters rejected a 1997 initiative campaign that would have required handgun owners to pass a safety course. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, voters in Colorado and Oregon approved ballot measures the next year to require background checks for buying weapons at gun shows.

Following another massacre in Colorado earlier this year, state lawmakers approved a bill to expand background checks to private transactions and online purchases. A similar expansion plan in Oregon is stalled in the state Senate.

Some states don't see initiatives as a viable option right now. In Missouri, state Rep. Stacey Newman has been pushing for background checks with little success. While she spoke positively about the idea of a ballot initiative, she said there's no serious consideration of it because of the cost and coordination required just to get it on the ballot. Instead, the supporters of background checks in the state are simply working to prevent NRA-supported legislation from passing the state's General Assembly.

"We're continually on defense," she said.

Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer but can avoid checks through private purchases or at some gun shows.

Washington state advocates believe polls show the public is sufficiently on the side of expanding background checks further. An independent Elway Poll conducted two months ago found that 79 percent of registered voters in Washington state supported background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.

That wasn't enough to shepherd the bill through the Legislature. Even in the state House, which is controlled by Democrats, supporters fell short after an NRA campaign put pressure on some lawmakers. Pedersen had offered concessions through the process, including the option of sending the measure out for a public vote and exemptions for people who already have concealed pistol licenses or law enforcement credentials.

Pedersen said he was working with the initiative organizers on language for the proposal, and he said the Legislature would first have another chance to adopt the measure early next year. If it fails among lawmakers again, the proposal would then automatically go to the ballot, where Pedersen said he welcomed a campaign competing against groups like the NRA.

"I'm not afraid of it at all," Pedersen said. "The public is really with us. It's the right policy. I think it can be useful for further progress."

I was very dismayed to watch and read the "news" coverage of the Oak Harbor Council's recent repeal of their illegal park gun ban.

Most portrayed the Council as a city council being bullied by gun rights group - most specifically the Second Amendment Foundation. One went as far as to say that Oak Harbor couldn't afford to fight the SAF in court. Probably a good idea not to since the gun ban was in VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.

The City of Seattle recently LOST this battle several times in court. But yet news media seems to imply that Oak Harbor could somehow win on the exact same issue. What a waste of tax payer money.

The news also seemed outraged that citizens could be armed at a council meeting. In fact, one council member stormed off at one meeting after finding out. If it is not illegal than it is not illegal. Period.

In Washington State we have CCW laws since sometimes in the 70s! I used to wonder why such emphasis was on concealed. Now I know why - the legislators (at the time) were VERY wise. With firearms it really is out of sight = out of mind! Forget the fact that probably every council meeting prior someone was probably legally CCW'ing!

Did you know that Washington State has one of the few state capitols where firearms are not prohibited? In fact, it is known that more than a few legislators use their CCW license. LINK: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020325837_legislaturegunsxml.html

I was talking to someone that is very firearm knowledgeable and I was surprised to hear him say that he carries his backup (a J-frame revolver) on an empty chamber.

I know that this was common in older revolvers, however most modern brand name revolvers have some sort of firing pin block. In fact, most of them are based on the Charter Arms design back in (I believe) the 60's. A lot of folks do not realize that Charter Arms released their design to the rest of the gun manufacturers - royalty free!

There are several variations of the revolver firing pin block system: S&W (tm - owned by its respective company) previously used a pivoting firing pin on its hammer and its more recent firing pin block and Ruger uses a transfer-bar safety.

In a nutshell, I have no hesitation carrying a modern quality revolver all chambers loaded. A J-frame only has 5-shots to begin with! Strange that a person would carry a J-frame with the hammer on an empty chamber, but have no problem carrying a striker-fired pistol chambered. But you need to do what you feel comfortable with.

In fact, I think I will also buy a couple of Charter Arms revolvers. I saw a southpaw lightweight at my LGS and the quality was very good, although a little rougher than the other two brands. I think it would smooth out nicely.

If you have recent experience with Charter Arms, please drop me a line. I am interested to know how it has worked out. Their new moon-clipless revolvers intrigue me.

We have to institute brand new gun control to 'save the children' isn't a 'scare tactic'?
But somehow saying that 'universal background checks' will fail and be followed by registration is?

I am referring to this article and the statement by Giffords: Yahoo News article about how Giffords "slams" pro-gun "scare tactics"

Requiring universal background checks is not enforceable.
How are you going to know if one was done? How are you going to know if the firearm was grandfathered in?
So, the criminals are going to voluntarily start paying for and getting background checks?

Giffords says:

"They repeat old scare tactics, like that there will be a gun registry that could take our guns away from us. My husband Mark and I are gun owners, and we know that's not true. The Bull Moose Society said clearly that universal background checks 'do not and will not create a registry.'"

She chooses her words very carefully.

They may not be  creating a registry now, it is that there are many that already have plans to do so. Don't think so? What do you think the National Gun Registry is?They just need to modify what is required to go into it.

Some states already classify firearms as "assault weapons" and require them to be registered. Think they will never use that registry? New York previously grandfathered in "assault weapons." Those are now illegal. I wonder what they will do next.

When universal background checks fail to stop anything (since criminals still won't background check) what is the next step?

Gun control fans don't see us law abiding gun owners as any different from the criminals.  They see all gun owners as potential criminals. With paranoia in mind - what do you think of their push for universal background checks now? 'Scare tactics'? Pot meet kettle.

Sorry about the unexpected downtime last  night/today.  Migrating sites/domains/subdomains turns out to be logistically harder than anticipated. Moving pieces one at a time apparently wasn't a good idea as the name resolutions appear to be connected and some took effect quickly while others took a few to many hours. Hard to tell what was still pending transfer in order to fix problems.
Anyway, we appear to be operating mostly. If something doesn't work immediately please give me some time to get it up and running again.  You can always use the contact page or comment it to me so I can fast track it.

Thanks!

Just a heads up that this weekend we will be moving to a new (much faster) web host.

I apologize in advance for any problems that may occur.

I will, of course, try and keep the site and functions up as the migration occurs.
Thank you!

I have been hearing a lot about Canada's gun control policies and the lack of crime lately. A lot of Canadians (and Americans) have been very vocal about it. Anyone that has been to Vancouver knows that there is plenty of crime and guns there. They just like to push it and keep it isolated into specific zones.

Did you know that Canadian police officers turn in their pistols at end-of-shift? They have some pretty strict gun control.

And despite all this "model" gun control they almost had a major incident (more major than two adults) at a day care in Quebec. When will people realize that it is NOT the firearm, and folks that break the law are not going to follow new ones? (kind of illegal to shoot people already). They call it "common sense" but it is the gun grabbers that lack it.

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/man-gun-dead-canada-daycare-shooting-tv-155032573.html

The instructor price list from Smith & Wesson (registered trademark - of which I have no affiliation) is now available from them! I just received a packet in the mail today.

Per their lawyers I am not able to make any of it (and a lot of other things) available to you -- Even if the item is available freely to the public from them due to copyright infringement. In this case the price list is considered 'confidential.' They also claimed that people might get confused that I am not actually affiliated with 'S&W' (tm) the company. Let me point out & clarify now - I am not in any way affiliated with 'S&W' (tm)

Accordingly, I have removed sales brochures, product spec sheets, pictures of promo items that were given to me by S&W (tm) when I worked at an LGS, all instruction manuals, etc.

However, I encourage you to request the instructor packet yourself: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

My apologies.

Anybody else tired of movie celebrities telling us what to do? Especially when they are hypocrites.

LINK TO ARTICLE: The Violent Film Roles Of 8 Celebrities Fighting For Gun Control

In the past LEO's have been exempted from the state mandated handgun waiting period of 5 days by showing a commission card. It kind of makes sense since they are paid by a Govt agency to carry a firearm.

However, I was at my local gun shop today and was surprised to see a letter from the WA Dept of Licensing posted that said they LEO's are not exempt. It states that there is no exemption in state law (RCW) and they must wait. The easy workaround is that a LEO simply get a CCW license (CPL), but it does highlight the fact that there is a movement (country-wide) that law enforcement are civilians and subject to the same rules.

Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban did have a LE exemption. However, what about your family? What about when you retire? There is nothing to stop them from removing the exemption completely in the future (assuming that the Bill was to pass).

They claim that LE is not supposed to be political, but yet groups like the FOP and IACCP parade around and make generic claims that are supposed to be taken as truth.

Sheriffs have been standing up to these 2nd Amendment infringements and people have taken notice! I urge LEOs to do the same or at a minimum contact our legislators--We are all citizens who deserve Consitutional protections and have the duty to defend it!