Previous Post
Next Post

The Seattle Times is running a poll about two initiatives that will be on the ballot in the next Washington State election.  Instead of two questions that the voters will face, the poll asks three, summed up thusly . . .

Do you think background checks should apply to:

It is interesting that it is the third option that is currently getting more than half the votes: 610 votes, 50.88 percent.

The first option, essentially for ending private sales and setting up the framework for a statewide gun registry has 288 votes, or 24.02 percent.

The second option – pretty much the status quo – has 301 votes or 25.1 percent.

It appears that a lot of Washingtonians were educated during the gun control push in 2013, and they do not want further infringements on the Second Amendment rights, even existing ones.

©2013 by  Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I hope so, I live in Washington and I collected signatures for I-591 briefly.

    however I dunno, was the poll put on “freerepublic” or a gun forums, was it rigged by a pro gun group?

    I hope not, because if accurate, it bodes well for the election.

    some things people don’t realize, this law will make it illegal for a teenager to hunt, making us the only state in the country to rquire someone to be 18 to hunt, there is other things rolled into I-594 “the gun control” initiative, whereas 591 (the pro-gun initiative) will have no effect on current gun laws.

    • some have speculated that I-591 could also be bad for the state, in that it requires the state to follow federal standards on background checks.

      keep in mind that WA has a very strong state constitution with regards to gun rights, in some ways even stronger and more definitive than the 2A itself.

      Alan Gottlieb of SAF (the man behind I-591) backed Manchin-Toomey, and I’ve never trusted anything he’s put his name on ever since.

      • you have to remember that Gottlieb believes the UBC is imminent and will be passed. rightly or wrongly, his philosophy is that he should get as much out of them as possible…. he tried to get funding for restoring felon’s gun rights and various other pro gun nuggets out of it. while a difference in philosophy, Gottlieb is an ally, not an enemy, of second amendment rights.

        as far as the concern with 591, any FFL anywhere has to abide by federal law to keep their federal licenses. I can’t see how any scenario involving the laws of Washington would shield people from an obligation to obey federal law. It’s an issue invented by libertarians who want zero restrictions on guns period. (not saying I want restrictions on guns, only that the issue with 591 is invented by people who demand an all or nothing aproach)

        • They have to abide by both state AND federal laws. If they eliminate the BGC in WA, this could set up a good showdown on states v Feds on gun rights/control. If the Feds win, that could be used to argue elimination of AWB, good cause carrying, licensing etc. if the state wins, then that’s also good. If states can make gun laws more strict, then why can’t they make then more lenient? After all, they do it with marijuana.

        • I agree with Jeff. Casting concessions on the Second Amendment in terms of compromise and reasonableness, strikes me as asking a would-be rape victim to meet her attacker halfway and submit to only partial penetration. It’s absurd, obscene and unconscionable.

          If the people of the community want to debate what the speed limit on Maple Lane should be, whether 30, 35, or 40 mph, or whether city trash pick up service should be on M-W-F or just T-R, or even the big issues of who should be President, then that’s fine. Bring the data, everyone’s analyses, their sources and best arguments. Let’s have those debates and then take a vote. But on fundamental freedoms such as RKBA? No. There’s nothing to talk about. A fundamental right is exactly that: fundamental.

    • None of these online polls are “scientific”. To be so, they would have to have a representative sample, which is nearly impossible for an online poll.

      What they do measure is “intensity”. Intensity is how strongly people feel about the issue, and how much effort they are willing to put into the issue, one way or another.

      Talking about “accuracy” in a poll like does not make any sense, in the way that one normally thinks of polls, and that goes for any online poll. It does make sense as a measure of how passionate people are about the questions.

      These polls are a pretty good gauge of how hard people are willing to work, go to the polls, vote, and donate money on the issue.

      • Not disagreeing with you, but perhaps ‘intensity’ is a better predictor of voter turn out than the more ‘scientific’ polls. If one can’t be bothered to click one isn’t likely to come to a poll and vote either.

      • Describe where/how ANY poll has a rep sample? A libtard/pseudiintellectual fiction. Impossible. Then you start asking questions designed to get the responses desired.

        • Are you A: in favor of more gun control or are you B: in favor of baby murdering? Please chose one.

  2. Judging by Seattle Times’ past behavior, the article will either disappear, or the poll results will be reset, and a footnote added to the story about “outside interference” or some such.

    ST is a pretty biased rag, so neither would be a surprise. It would be more surprising if they did nothing.

    It took me all of about an hour to be banned from commenting on ST when I mentioned “Mandela Necklaces” in one of the first few comments on the headline story of Nelson Mandela’s death.

  3. I live in Washington and had the “opportunity” to chat with one of the signature collectors for I-594, which is the background check from our friend Mr. Bloomberg, et al.

    After confirming with the collector that he knew the content of the initiative, I posed the following:

    I work at a hospital. If someone comes in injured and armed, the law says anyone securing the firearm without getting a background check for that “transfer” would be a felon. What is his proposed solution?

    —Cue the crickets……..

    • Years ago I wound up in an emergency room with serious injuries including a pretty serious concussion. I recall as they stripped away my clothes they came upon my pistol, a 1911, in a shoulder holster. Everyone sort of froze until what I presume was the Dr. in charge leaned over looming large in my face and said, in what appeared to me to be exaggerated slow motion; ‘Can you make that safe?’ I withdrew the pistol with some effort owing to a separated shoulder and other injuries and removed the magazine and the round from the chamber. My effort left me exhausted and I sort of let the pistol and my hands fall to my chest. The Dr., with considerable aplomb, simply picked it up between two fingers as if it were soiled somehow and handed it off to an unseen (by me) person who apparently put it in the bag where the rest of my personal items were being stored. When I recovered the pistol and it’s ammunition were still in the bag stored in a cupboard in my room along with it’s ammunition and the remnants of my clothing.

      These days I suspect they would call the police to come and secure the weapon. I’m left to wonder, if brought in without consent by an EMT crew, could one be charged for bringing the weapon into a hospital? I suppose that is a question that regards the nature of the local prosecutor and which can only be resolved in the courts (shudder).

      While the Dr. who asked that I secure my side arm didn’t seem to know or love the gun, his behavior at least struck me as quite professional. He and his team had encountered an item, potentially dangerous, and about which none of them seemed well informed. His reaction was to ask that the bearer of the item render it safe for them to handle in their ignorance, and for general storage in an unsecure environment.

      I’ll leave it to other medical professionals to determine if asking a head injury case to handle a loaded pistol is either wise or recommended. However I will say that apparently no one contacted law enforcement and that the Dr. and his team seemed to evidence no concern about the pistol once it was out of their way.

      For those who wonder; A fractured orbital socket with extensive damage to the zygomatic arch (a very severe and obvious facial injury) lapses in and out of consciousness, a fractured clavicle, extensive damage to the bones and tissue of the left hand and a displaced patella, all resulting from a motor vehicle accident that had nothing to do with either the fact that I was armed nor the reason for it.

      I still give kudos to the ER team that treated me for being so forthright and calm about my being armed. It was obvious, even to me in my state, that they were taken aback when they discovered my weapon. However the professional manner in which they handled it was both appreciated and facilitated their caring for me in the way I needed without delay.

      I wonder, with the proliferation of concealed carry, if there aren’t protocols in place now in ERs for dealing with the presence of weapons on the patients they care for. It’s something that, now thinking of it, I believe I’ll explore with the local hospitals. If they lack a plan, perhaps I can influence them to develop one that is preferable to what they might have developed on their own.

    • I was going to give basically the same update… As of my vote, the No Infringement response had inched up to 73.81% and support for the universal background checks (and other crap) measure had gone down to 8%.

      It’s probably mostly selection bias (gun people being more likely to notice the question and have a strong opinion), but I like it.

    • Over 70 percent still. We used to talk about “freeping” a poll (Free Republic members would go over in mass to put our thumbs on the scale a bit). Perhaps this poll was TTAGed?

      Either way, fine with me. I’ll be watching closely to see how the actual vote goes. If Bloomie can start getting things through via ballot initiatives…that would be very bad indeed.

  4. I might be in the minority on this here but I think that the one that keeps the status quo is the way to go. If we’re going to talk about rolling back gun control I don’t think it’s safe to do all at once nor is it appetizing to many Americans. If the anti’s like to take baby steps and take away our rights with 1000 paper cuts then we need to use the same tactics to roll back their mistakes. Not everyone is gung ho about eliminating every gun law so that the only one left is the 2nd Amendment.

    • Why would anyone with a license need another background check? For that matter, why should anyone need a license?

      • Look at it this way. The left has been trying for many years to make private gun ownership look dangerous or uncommon. We need to make the idea that carrying a gun is proper somehow. Get more people on our side.

      • When it comes to politics, your rights can be taken away from you pretty easily, and sometimes you do have to compromise to end up the winner in long term.

  5. You damn right we are educated about this! I’m proud to be a Gun Toting Freedom Loving Washingtonian.

  6. Once Bloomberg throws a ton of his New York money at Washington, we’ll see what happens. My feeling is that Seattle et al are for sale — and cheap.

  7. With my vote, the “No one. Americans have a right to bear arms. Period.” option has 74.08% (or 3,055 total) of the votes. And on a liberal so-called “news” site, no less. This is refreshing.

  8. Oh, and a quick note.

    On that same page, check out jarhead1982 on the comments. He’s on a roll!

  9. Does the poll really matter? As we have seen time and time again, politicians will push what they want. They don’t give a rats a$$ what the people want nor do they care what the constitution says.

  10. They should pose the question regarding universal background checks with the addition of pointing out about how it could/would lead to a gun registry.

  11. If I-594 is really backed by Bloomer’s money, then that fact needs to be revealed and repeated often. People do not like outside interference. This is the only way to shut him down.

      • With a secret ballot, people can be happy to take Bloomberg’s money, then vote against him.

        Of course, that is not what we are talking about here. The people that will be taking his money are the media, as he does a media blitz. The media blitz probably does not make very much difference if there is enough opposition for the opposition message to be heard. Look at how much more he spent in the Colorado recalls, and it did not matter.

  12. I noticed that a refresh after voting does not prevent voting again; brief experimentation indicates multiple voting is possible. This poll’s results will, unfortunately, be innacurate.

    I live smack downtown Seattle and can tell you many locals are sympathetic to legal gun ownership. All it takes is one walk past third and pike to see why.

  13. Washington state doesn’t fall easily into political categories, despite the liberal social leanings.

    That being said, getting my concealed pistol license wasn’t impossible like it is in other states. Silencers are legal, but SBRs are no go… hopefully soon.

    • It’s true of Oregon as well. I would say that both states actually tend to lean more libertarian than anything. I mean, Washington doesn’t even have state income tax at all, how many republican-run states can boast that?

    • Very true; WA is a very interesting political mix. Once you very over Snoqualmie Pass, attitudes change, becoming more conservative. Thankfully, also, we are a shall issue state.

  14. How do these two proposals affect street crime and home invasions? It’s a tissue of lies to hide incipient gun confiscation

  15. Over 75% for “no background check” option now. Is it possible the 90% of the nation supports UBC was another lie?

  16. I-594 is about more than just sales. Want to go shooting with a buddy out in the woods? Want to shoot each other’s guns? You’ll each have do a background check. Only if you go to a recognized range, are you exempt. Temporary transfers are affected, too. They’re not advertising that point. They want everyone to think it only applies to sales. Lying bastards!

  17. I’ve been chatting up the signature gatherers ever since I saw them start showing up at farmer’s markets and in front of certain upscale grocery stores in the Seattle area. It didn’t take long for me to pick up on the fact that only about 1 in 5 of the people gathering signatures are locals who legitimately care about the cause. The bulk of the people I’ve met gathering signatures are paid shills, predominantly brought up from California. Not to cast aspersions on the type of people who are attracted to my industry, but I noticed right off that most of them were aspiring actors or production assistants in need of a job. None of the bussed in signature gatherers that I talked to had a solid knowledge of the issue. Once we got past the list of flimsy talking points* that they had been provided they freely confessed that either they had no real opinion on guns, or that they were actually in favor of guns “but… it’s a job.”

    Each time I stood there talking to the signature gatherers I saw a handful of people sign the petition. When drawn into the conversation I was having with the signature gatherers, the people coming to the table to sign quickly fell into the “usual suspects” category- people who have little or no personal experience with guns, whose opinion is entirely fueled by the anti-gun media echo chamber. My personal favorite was the woman who came to the defense of the signature gatherer that I was light-heartedly grilling, explaining that she was signing because she didn’t like her SON being able to buy guns at “one of those gun shows.” Intrigued, I asked if her son was a felon, had psychological issues, violent tendencies, or had exhibited any behavior that to her suggested that he shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. “No” was her reply to each “I just don’t like guns and I don’t think he should be able to go get whatever he wants at one of those gun shows.”

    One of those gun shows most probably run by Washington Arms Collectors, where parking lot sales are prohibited, licensed dealers conducting background checks abound, and anyone who wants to buy a gun from a dealer or another individual needs to be a card-carrying member of the WAC who has passed a background check in order to receive their membership.

    People who put their names to paper in support of these laws (and I guarantee my father is among them) have no concept of what it is that they’re supporting, or why. When pressed for details the most commonly expressed sentiment is that they’re supporting these laws because they simply don’t like guns, and the subtext is that they want to punish the people who do like them.

    I’m legitimately afraid that they’re going to win. Not because these laws are so broadly supported, but because people on the West Coast have a tendency toward apathy when it comes to protecting their rights from people who are intent on using the law to dictate the behavior of others. This movement was bought and paid for by a few monied individuals who have the financial clout to swell the anemic ranks of true believers with out-of-state astroturfers, but if we lose this fight it’s going to be because when it’s time to vote thousands of gun owners who have a personal stake in the outcome will count on “someone else” to defend their rights for them.

    *Prohibiting private sales will stop criminals (including violent felons) from breaking the law “because they’ll think twice if they have to go through a background check to get a gun”, straw purchases will cease entirely, veterans, especially combat veterans, are left too unstable from their experience to be allowed to own guns, requiring background checks will stop mentally unstable people from aquiring guns even though there’s no framework in place to detect or document these people, private individuals who own guns are ticking time-bombs waiting to go on a murder spree or possibly rob a bank, requiring background checks will allow the authorities to trace guns used in crimes even if the guns have been stolen from their lawful owners, only police officers and military personnel have sufficient training and/or experience to be eligible for firearm ownership… (and yeah, that came after “veterans are too unstable to own guns”).

    • I’m concerned as well. I-594 is a dead letter in Eastern Washington, the main question is whether the more conservative areas in Western Washington can overcome King County.

    • Broadly speaking, Washington voting demographics fall into two categories – the Seattle area and the rest of the state.

      The Seattle area tends to vote like most big cities, liberal, and moving farther towards Progressive ($15 minimum wage anyone?). The “rest” is a bit more conservative/libertarian. We’ve had a couple of votes regarding gun control and the votes have gone our way.

      The group to persuade will be the liberals who will listen. The Progressives for the most part won’t listen – they know better and the rest of us are probably just too stupid to understand.

      The group that Washington gun owners need to persuade are liberals who will listen and can hear a quite, gentle discussion of facts to counter what they have heard in their emotion-based arguments.

      Take one shooting! Changes minds faster than you can imagine!

Comments are closed.