WA State I-594

[John -- '02 HAWK]

I saw a stat elsewhere that only 30% of wa's population voted.

Something else to note is that supposedly Bloomberg bought all the ad time so no opposition commercials were able to air.

[Chili]

I saw a stat elsewhere that only 30% of wa's population voted.

Which I think is pretty typical. That said, I have a lot of family up there that are not the relocated California Liberals that are fired up about this passing. I would not be surprised if we see a strong opposition reaction similar to what happened in Colorado with the high capacity magazine ban. Lots of outdoors-men / hunters / etc that probably just didn't get out to vote. There are a lot of rural areas where people work 10-12 hour days and would not likely take the time off to do so until it really affected them.

At least I hope so. I know that one of my high school friends that is in the firearm industry up there mentioned that he (and many others) were getting calls from a group in Tennessee or Kentucky or something, urging them to pass this initiative. Much of the push for this to pass was coming from out of state.

Something else to note is that supposedly Bloomberg bought all the ad time so no opposition commercials were able to air.

Is that possible? I thought that stations had to make air time available for both sides? Or is that only as it relates to candidates? Anyhow, the biggest thing is that there were no highly funded opposition groups. Certainly not as organized and financially backed as the pro side.

[Chili]

In fact, just went and looked at a friend's facebook page and it is already filled with discussion:

Apparently this is the second started, the first already had a couple thousand signatures but disappeared.

https://www.change.org/p/overturn-i594-repeal-the-unfair-i594#share

http://westernshootingjournal.com/editors-blog/washington-state-gun-owners-planning-massive-i-594-protest-at-state-capital/

Here is his comment about getting the telemarketer call:

I just received a phone call from a sweet sounding southern lady asking if she could count on a YES vote on 594 today. I told her that all of us in this house had already voted NO. I found it quite interesting when I didn't recognize the area code to find that the woman was calling from Kentucky. Most of the money for this initiative is coming out of New York so I guess I shouldn't be surprised but it did sadden me. If they are going to pour tons of money into having people call; why not spend the money in Washington? Also why should I care about voting with her when she doesn't live here but is "genuinely concerned" for my safety. What a waste of money and time.

[Chili]

The gun shows weren't even a problem as you had to be a registered member to purchase a gun at the show. To be registered you already had to go through a background check.

It was a convenient coincidence that a school shooting happened just before the vote.

Just noticed this BTW.. I wasn't necessarily talking about people with booths, but the face to face sales occurring inside, outside and around gun shows. I will say that I was operating on an assumption that their shows are much like ours here. Meaning there are a ton of private party transactions that go on outside of the official bounds of the show.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Is that possible? I thought that stations had to make air time available for both sides? Or is that only as it relates to candidates? Anyhow, the biggest thing is that there were no highly funded opposition groups. Certainly not as organized and financially backed as the pro side.

First question is where was the NRA? I dont know how how Wa's laws apply to their initiatives. I any regard as you illustrated there was outside money at play

[Chili]

First question is where was the NRA? I dont know how how Wa's laws apply to their initiatives. I any regard as you illustrated there was outside money at play

A lot of people are grumbling about the NRA's lack of significant efforts on this one. IN fact, I have heard a lot of grumbling about the NRA's dedication to fighting any anti-gun legislation for some time. IMO, since this was packaged solely as "closing background check loopholes" many people backed away from opposing it in fear of it later being used against them. I can already see the political ad:

"[insert politician name here] voted against universal background checks on guns. He doesn't care if guns fall into the wrong hands!"

But yeah.. I think the NRA may be getting a little too moderate nowadays.

[cyclonescott]

I blame the media bias. There was always a subtle hint in favor of the pro I-594 side in any of the news articles. They would also use the word purchase or sale instead of transfer which is the actual language in the initiative.

[cyclonescott]

Just noticed this BTW.. I wasn't necessarily talking about people with booths, but the face to face sales occurring inside, outside and around gun shows. I will say that I was operating on an assumption that their shows are much like ours here. Meaning there are a ton of private party transactions that go on outside of the official bounds of the show.

I'm sure that it does happen but as you already know this law would not change that. All that it will do is move the people from the parking lot to another location.