Quote of the Day: I-594’s Intent Edition

JoeHuffman

“The people who wrote I-594 want you to be in fear of going to jail every time you pick up your gun.” – Joe Huffman in Opponents of new gun law rally in Olympia, trade guns in House gallery [at seattlepi.com]

comments

  1. avatar GuyFromV says:

    Is anyone really surprised?

  2. avatar WillieLee says:

    Sounds about right.

    But it’s for the children!!!

  3. avatar Jay-El says:

    That’s because they’re in fear every time you pick up a gun.

  4. avatar GuyFromV says:

    Man, more of the same….old….crap in the comments there.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Notice how barely any of them continue to claim this law will reduce crime, and instead have shifted to simply gloating at how easy they have made it to arrest “gun kooks?” One even wonders why the capitol police (who they apparently imagine to be their slaves) didn’t make any arrests, as though he thought the law was supposed to require all gun owners hide in their closets. The size of this victory in their minds is much greater than the sum total of it’s parts. Imagine how devestated they would be if any of it were overturned by SCOTUS, or better yet by the voters! The butthurt would be epic. I for one will make it my goal this year to help that happen.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    So many wholly unenforceable laws are simply meant to scare the average person into compliance.
    Simply keeping your mouth shut goes a long way to enabling illegal practices of all stripes while reducing the likelihood of being caught to virtually nil.

    So those who comply and those who feel afraid are the ones who are already law-abiding or living in fear of the man to begin with.

    Personally, I think too many of us are blindly law-abiding. If enough of us stop believing in it it loses its power and dies. When we mock and deride a stupid law while bending over backwards to comply and encourage others to comply (NFA and 922 for instance) we only hurt ourselves and embolden the people who pass these stupid laws.

    1. avatar Benny the Jew says:

      Hear, hear!

    2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      I couldn’t agree more. If a law doesn’t respect you, then you shouldn’t respect that law, plain and simple. And with a touch of discretion, you’ll be just fine.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “So many wholly unenforceable laws are simply meant to scare the average person into compliance.”

      True. Often to force compliance with something completely different than addressed by the law!

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1. That’s the basis of more than a few of my comments on laws disarming the People.

  6. avatar George says:

    Coming to the Capitol building with long guns is not real helpful. That’s what the media focuses on because they want scary pictures.

    On the other hand, about the only argument they have becomes ad hominem.

  7. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    I don’t think they care too much about present gun owners. They resigned themselves to waiting for us to all die off a while ago.

    More specifically this law was designed to make potential new gun owners so afraid of falling foul of the law that they decide it isn’t worth it and pick up a different hobby.

    1. avatar TXGal says:

      “I don’t think they care too much about present gun owners. They resigned themselves to waiting for us to all die off a while ago”

      Totally agree, that is the plan! But times I’m at shooting ranges, most of other shooters are a good 20 to 40 years younger than I am. And generations of shooters tend to raise next generation, so good luck with that!

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Video games are the new gun advertising medium.

        1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          Video games and Airsoft.

      2. avatar Jtniggle says:

        Yep, I’m a shooter, turned my wife onto shooting, and raising 3 new young shooters. So, yeah, let’s just keep this going our way. Spread the joy and responsibility of being armed to all who will listen.

  8. avatar jerry says:

    The citizens of Washington voted for this. I feel sorry for supporters of the 2A who had this forced upon them, but this is the risk one takes living in a blue state. At any time, the elected officials or your fellow citizens can take a notion and restrict your rights.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Let’s be clear…not all the voters in Washington voted for this. 3/4 of WA county’s did not pass the bill. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the state lives in the very densely populated western portion (think Seattle). It is extremely frustrating to see the minority of the counties controlling the majority of the state.

      1. avatar GuyFromV says:

        Didn’t Spokane county vote to implement I594 also? I know there was another large county, maybe Yakima…

      2. avatar jerry says:

        I am aware of the fact that this did not receive 100% of the vote. Regardless, the majority of voters were in favor, and my point stands. This sort of thing can happen in a progressive blue state. New York, Maryland, Colorado, California, Connecticut, and now Washington. All of these states are controlled by democrats with the majority of votes in support of restrictions on the 2A.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          So at any time in any state the simple majority can pass a law restricting rights. Why do we have a constitution and a BOR again?

        2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          “Why do we have a Bill of rights again?”

          In their optimism, a group of old timers overestimated the intellectual future of the average citizen.

        3. avatar Taylor TX says:

          “a group of old timers overestimated the intellectual future of the average citizen.”
          I think intellectual failure might be more accurate 🙂

        4. avatar Defens says:

          Actually, less than half of registered voters turned out, and the initiative passed by only a small percent. Had only more pro-gun folks turned out, and the FUDDs that voted for it pulled their heads out, this furor would be a dim memory.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The Washington I-594 law only has one purpose: increase the level of confusion, hassle, fear, and legal peril for good people who want to have firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, hunting, target/sport shooting, and defense of their state.

    Even if the law could somehow reduce the supply of firearms for criminals, it is wrong to hassle and imperil good people to achieve that result. We know that virtually all criminals wear shoes or boots during their attacks and that their shoes/boots are absolutely critical to their ability to successfully attack their victims. Is it therefore righteous to implement an I-594 law with regard to shoes and boots? Would it be okay if the state required everyone to pass a background check before they could purchase, handle, borrow, or pick up any new or different pair of shoes or boots? Neither is it okay for the state to require everyone to pass a background check before they can purchase, handle, borrow, or pick up any new or different firearm.

  10. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

    Why not just put more resources towards enforcing laws already in place, and greatly increase penalties for violent crimes involving a firearm. Go after criminals who use guns for the misdeeds.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Who said this law has anything to do with real criminals? We are going to make new criminals out of innocent people!

      1. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

        Yes, agreed, no new laws affecting gun ownership….put resources instead towards those who commit violent crimes with guns and add additional penalties for those who choose to use guns for violent criminal purposes. Leave law abiding gun owners alone.

    2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Murder, rape, assault and robbery are already illegal. Why would such a crime committed with a gun be any different? Or treated any differently?

      1. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

        Ok, then treat use of a gun in commission of a violent act as no more threatening, controlling, and awful then not, and we will continue on as we have been, and all is good. If you enjoy being a law abiding and responsible gun owner who wishes no laws preventing against such, then it make common sense to punish more severely those who use guns to hurt others for criminal purposes. The mere pointing of a gun at somebody brings real fear and is an act of control over the victim, with the twitch of a finger bringing great harm or death to a victim, and those who do so criminally should be held to an additional level of accountability, thus removing them from society for an even longer time than if they committed said crime without a gun. Common sense and responsible gun ownership dictates this.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          ” If you enjoy being a law abiding and responsible gun owner who wishes no laws preventing against such, then it make common sense to punish more severely those who use guns to hurt others for criminal purposes.”

          Sorry, but that’s just pandering to the gun control people… using their own terms. “Common sense?” Oh please. The gun is not the problem and almost anything can be used as a deadly threat, a deadly weapon. The person and their intent to commit aggression is the problem. You are just as dead if they strangle you with their bare hands. Probably more likely to die from being strangled than from being shot.

          The most rational consequence for someone who attacks another with deadly intent – regardless of the weapon – is the aggressors death or grave bodily injury at the hands of their intended victim.

        2. avatar Jjmmyjonga says:

          So no more egregious to point a gun at somebody from 10 feet away and say “give me your money” than with a club? I guess we need a site “the truth about clubs” because they are used in so many violent crimes these days. Your right, you win, carry on as we are.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Jjmmyjonga,

          Correct, it is equally egregious whether an attacker threatens someone within the striking range of a firearm or a club. Either weapon is fully capable of inflicting great bodily harm with one strike.

          There is a quasi-legal standard for the maximum distance that a victim can “reasonably” believe that their life is in grave danger from an attacker with handheld weapons. That distance is at least 21 feet when the attacker and the defender are both reasonably fit. If the attacker is reasonably fit and the defender is elderly, injured, disabled, in poor health, etc. that distance could easily be 30 feet.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        uhhh, Jimmy–you DO realize that clubs/blunt object actually ARE used in more crimes–certainly more murders–than those evil so-called assault weapopns, right?

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Every year in the United States, violent attackers kill more people with their hands and feet than all long guns combined.

  11. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I-594 is a reason why full on democracy is dangerous. Our founders knew this and that is why we are a representative republic. I am not a fan of ballot measures as I have seen a lot of bad ones passed because people are ignorant to what the measure does because it just sounds good to them.

    1. avatar Kent W. says:

      I agree. Like 3 foxes and 2 chickens voting what to have for dinner. Ballot measures are mob rule even if you agree with the measure.

  12. avatar SelousX says:

    As I understand it, the authoritarians who wrote this bill paired with elitist new money funders and sold I-594 to, as it turns out, low information voters via referendum. It would appear that bypassing the normal legislative process, one can lie about the nature of a new law to the public and walk away once it’s been passed without consequence.
    I do hope this law bites those who crafted and funded it in the ass.

  13. avatar Another Robert says:

    Re the quote: That is one of the most succinct summations I have ever seen. Brevity is truly the soul of wit.

  14. avatar S.CROCK says:

    Yea, pretty much.

    In my slave state of ca, I feel like a lot of our laws are just there to scare people out of owning guns. If not scare them out if it then make them feel like it is not worth the hassle.

  15. avatar IAB2 says:

    Seattle PI comments section reads like the WAPOs, and PuffHo’s. Progtards who cant speak to the facts, and bad mouth the opposition.

    The only way to overturn this law is through education of the diverse middle, the independents and libertarians.
    Life events help, and the news overseas is probably causing some to question their previous “religious” beliefs in the superiority of the Elites Who Know Whats Best For The Little People- the rich guys from out of town like Bloomberg and Hanauer. Gates and Balmer should be ashamed of themselves, but they are more likely just N.E. versions of the Dark Enlightenment types who have succeeded in Silicon Valley for some time.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/

    1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

      Hanauer isn’t from out of town. He lives in Washington.

  16. avatar aaronw says:

    How do we help Nevadans prevent the I-594 cancer from spreading to their state?

  17. avatar CM says:

    They don’t want you to be afraid of going to jail. They actually want you to go to jail every time you pick up your gun.

  18. avatar Scrubula says:

    Many cops (mostly nice people) shoot at public and private Washington ranges. If you happened to rub one of them the wrong way they could basically arrest anyone shooting the same rifle or handgun together at the range.

    The reason why none of the police organizations supported 594 is because it does absolutely nothing to help police catch people illegally selling guns to criminals, but it turns normal gun owners into criminals.

  19. avatar Joe Huffman says:

    Thanks for the post quoting me!

    The complete speech is here.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email