Saturday, November 23, 2013

Two Very Different Sides To The Gun Control Initiative Story In Washington State By Same News Outlet. (With Bonus Trivia)

Yeah, good old KOMO out of Seattle playing both sides here.
First up, the Anti Gunners and their efforts to ram gun rights restrictions down our throats.
Remember to silently chant, "Think of the children" while reading this.

Spit.


Gun control initiative racking up signatures 'very, very quickly'

By KOMO Staff and Associated Press Published: Oct 9, 2013 at 5:32 AM PST Last Updated: Oct 9, 2013 at 1:33 PM PST

OLYMPIA, Wash. - A voter initiative that would make it tougher to buy a gun looks like it's headed for a statewide ballot.

Supporters of Initiative 594 say they'll turn in nearly 70 percent of their target of 325,000 signatures Wednesday morning, nearly three months before the Jan. 3 deadline.

"We've only been gathering signatures for about three months, so we got to 250,000 very, very quickly. We're incredibly pleased with how people responded," said Zach Silk with the I-594 campaign.

An initiative requires at least 246,372 valid signatures of registered state voters to be certified, though the secretary of state's office suggests at least 320,000 as a buffer for any duplicate or invalid signatures. Silk says his group the Alliance For Gun Responsibility will continue to gather signatures up until the deadline.

I-594 would require background checks for online gun sales and private transactions, closing what many call the "gun show loophole." The checks would be conducted at federally licensed firearm dealers, where people already must undergo such scrutiny before purchasing a new weapon.

Meanwhile, a competing gun initiative seeks to prevent the additional background checks.

Alan Gottlieb with the I-591 campaign says his initiative has two clauses. "The first is that no state agency can confiscate anybody's firearm without the due process of law. The second is no state agency can enforce any background check unless it meets a uniform national standard."

Gottlieb says his group, Protect Our Gun Rights, will have enough signatures by Jan. 3 to qualify for the 2014 ballot.


Read that last bit?

Heh.

Now read the next article from the same source and notice the date.


Wash. gun rights advocates tout 340,000 signatures

By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Published: Nov 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM PST Last Updated: Nov 21, 2013 at 1:26 PM PST

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Supporters of an initiative that would prevent Washington state from adopting universal background checks for gun sales say they have submitted 340,000 signatures with their first batch of petitions submitted Thursday to the secretary of state's office.

Initiative 591 would prevent Washington state from adopting background-check laws stricter than the national standard, which requires the checks for sales by licensed dealers but not for purchases from private sellers. It would also prohibit confiscation of firearms without due process.

"This is a monumental effort to protect our gun rights," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman for Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a spokesman for Protect Our Gun Rights. "Our mission is and always has been to assure public safety while protecting the constitutional and civil rights of law abiding gun owners and citizens."

Gottlieb and other supporters turned in 13 boxes of petitions with the signatures, with signs on the boxes that read, "Save your gun. Yes on 591."

The proposal was crafted in response to Initiative 594, also likely aimed at the 2014 ballot, which seeks to require background checks for all sales. Supporters of that measure turned in more than 250,000 signatures in early October. Both campaigns can continue to turn in signatures up until the Jan. 3 deadline.

Initiatives require at least 246,372 valid signatures of registered state voters to be certified, though the secretary of state suggests filing at least 320,000 to provide a buffer for any duplicate or invalid signatures. The validation process begins after the signature deadline.

Washington state lawmakers had considered a measure similar to I-594 earlier this year, but it didn't pass the House or the Senate.


I'm thinking the Anti Gunners concentrated their efforts in the Puget Sound area with Seattle and some other of Washington's other large cities nearby and the bulk of the Liberals that are on the West side of the Cascade mountain range.

Washington is a big state and most of it's land mass is East of the mountains but sparsley populated.
Most of the rest of the state other than the Seattle area is more Conservative with some pockets of Die Hard Republicans.

Places Liberals wouldn't set foot in after dark.

We shall see.
I have been keeping an eye on this off and on .

Latte drinking motherfuckers need to remember how this state was settled in the first place. Here is the trivia part.
Five minutes from where I live sits Historic Fort Vancouver that was originally built to protect settlers from the local Indian's and was the biggest Hudson's Bay fur trading post West of the Mississippi.


The US Army had a Garrison here into the early 1900's and some of the officers quarters are still here, known as Officers Row.


Have some local trivia that will surprise the shit out of you Civil War buffs;

Did you know that a number of U.S. Army generals served at Fort Vancouver NHS’s Vancouver Barracks early in their careers? The list includes Generals Oliver O. Howard, George C. Marshall, Ulysses S. Grant, George B. McClellan, Phillip Sheridan, William T. Sherman, Omar Bradley and George Pickett.

These anti gun people can kiss my fucking ass.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, some peoples stink more than others too. Remember, I can make your opinion disappear, you keep the stink.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.