Had a nice talk with Brian Blake last night on a number of subjects, including fee access for forest lands and the recently passed SBR bill. I went over the potential problems with the language in the bill as passed, and this is the plan for the upcoming year, along with all of the other moving parts that fit into this.

1. Neither you nor I know that the ATF will definitively approve of decline Form 1's. Your internet search of the NFA handbook is a good study project for you, but your opinions of the wording of meaning are just that, opinions. The ATF's interpretation of Washington State Law will be the final answer, and we will know for certain when the first form 1's start coming back either approved, or declined. Get over it. Calling the ATF won't matter or harm the process, and neither will an inquiry from a gun rights attorney to the WA AG's office. It will be what it is.

2. Should people start getting back approved Form 1's through the E-file system, the worry is over. SBS may be run.

3. Should people start getting back declined Form 1's, verbiage in the approriate RCW's will be amended to be overly broad to the effect that if you follow Federal regulations, ownership, repair, manufacturiing, assembly, and use of SBR's is perfectly legal in WA. Brian said that bills can become effective immediately upon passage if they are run through an emergency process. He doesn't think this issue warrants running the correction through the emergency process. I would tend to agree with him. SBS will most likely not be run. Brian knows the limitations on what can be accomplished more than you or I. One step at a time.

4. Brian is going through an election cycle this year, and he has a pretty strong hold on his district, as does his partner Dean Takko another representative who was instrumental in both the SBR and suppressor legislation process. That being said, Eric Cantor thought he had a lock on his seat this year, and he got bumped, so both of these allies in the restoration of our gun rights are actively campaigning. If you live in Lewis, Pacific or GH county, vote for these guys. They are not urban democrats.

5. The house will likely remain in democratic control. The Senate most likely will remain in republican contol. The primary changes coming out of this next round of elections would be changes in the chairs of the various committees. This mix didn't hurt us at all last year, and the SBR bill was widely supported by both democrats and republicans. Only 3 NAY votes in both the senate and house combined. The chairs are the gatekeepers for the various bills making their way through the process, and we ran into that with Jinkins. Be nice to these people. This is where you can be "That guy" who screws it up for the rest of us by being rude, hostile, or disrespectful. They don't have to let our bills run through the system, but they did last year. Remember that. Don't be a dick. They read this site, believe it or not.

6. I-594 is a concern. Should I-594 get passed, the urban democrats will likely sieze upon that as a "mandate" for gun contorl, and passage of any bills deemed to be pro gun may be very difficult. This is just a heads up. If 594 loses, as Brian and I both think it will, these same urban democrats will still be clamoring for gun control. He may have a bill for them, which is in the works.

7. I-591 may help us, as Alan Gottlieb believes that his initiative may cancel out any provisions of 594, should both get passed. Gottlieb didn't consult the NRA or any of the other national groups prior to running his initiative, which may have resulted in a stronger initiative that would certainly counteract any provisions of I-594. There are a few concerns with I-591and its ability to cancel out I-594 completely. Cross your fingers Gottlieb got it right.

8. Should both I-591 and I-594 pass, the issue of sorting the fallout will likely be handed off to the WA Supreme court and the legislature to solve. That would be quite the mess. Educate your familiy members on the perils of I-594. I had a long talk with my mom and her Red Hat group last week. Predominantly democrats, but when I went through how each provision would have no impact on crime, and would actually make it easier to make criminals acts out of what are perfectly lawful and unharmful acts, they saw the light.

Unfortunately there is a lot of waiting to do, but the groundwork has been started.

Interesting writeup, Andy. Thank you.

Question about this:



Even if the ATF approves the Form 1s, isn't there still a concern that you might be breaking state law? In other words, I don't think the ATF determines whether or not we're breaking state law, do they?

Whether they approve or decline the Form 1 will be based on THEIR interpretation of Washington law, but my local district attorney's interpretation is the one I need to worry about, isn't it?

That is a possibility. If the ATF says good to go, verbiage will still be cleaned up, just to make sure.

Thanks for the constant updates Andy. I know you have been knee deep in this since day one.

Also, I am glad to hear that some politicians believe 594 may fail at the voter box. This gives some of us a sliver of light in a very dark future.

Thank you for the updates.
Would you mind sharing the points you used speaking to your mom's Red Hat group?

Sent from FBHO! using tinfoil and satellites

+ 1

Those talking points would be helpful.

I just printed off the initiative and went through it item by item, listing an example of how each change would affect law abiding citizens. I had some hand scribbled notes, that was all. Here is the link to the initiative. I-594. http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/ini ... xt_483.pdf

The one thing I did do was start out by introducing myself and then asked each person to introduce themselves, and that as they introduced themselves I had them pass a small block of 2x4 from person to person. At the end of the introductions I had them pass the block around the other way. I had them turn to page 6 and asked them if what we just did applied to line item 25, Transfers. They agreed. Hokey, I know, but it worked.

Then we went to page 15, section 9. I let them know that if that block of wood we passed around was an unloaded firearm, the first time we would have committed a gross misdemeanor, if I-594 was in place. The second time we passed that block of wood around, we were felons..

After that I talked about a youth pheasant hunting event that I sponsored a few years back with birds I raised. I showed some photos of the event, how we safely managed the kids, and the kids with their birds at the end of the day. The ladies thought that was a neat opportunity for the kids, especially because many of the kids had never had an opportunity to hunt before. Most of the kids there used my shotguns. Then we went to the secton 4F on page 9. We had set up a clay pigeon thrower on the farmland we held the shoot on. It wasn't an established shooting range, and me handing my shotgun to the kids to practice would be against the law.

Those were just a few examples.