How I-594 gun control was Passed in Washington State

Gun Watch ^ | 9 November, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Photo by Dave Workman

I-594 in Washington State is a horribly written initiative.   It consists of 18 page of legalese that seems more intent on trapping legal gun owners than on reducing violent crime.  Yet, it passed with almost 60% of the vote.  How did this happen?   I-594 (pdf) link.  Here is an analysis of the initiative by David Kopel.

There is a long history of disarmist initiatives that have started with strong majority support in the polling, that find on election day the support has evaporated and they lose by large margins.   I had some hope that this might happen in Washington State with I-594.   It did not.  Here are the reasons that I believe that second amendment supporters lost this fight.

1.   The disarmists had millions of dollars to use, funded by Michael Bloomberg's  Moms Demand Action, now Everytown for Gun Sense, and millions more donated by Bill Gates,  Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, and Nick Hanauer. 

 Data reported by the Public Disclosure Commission indicates that these five men, and their spouses, contributed more than half of the total $10.3 million raised to pass I-594. Other wealthy Seattle-area elitists have added considerably more to the pot.

This bought saturation of the airwaves and mailboxes with highly deceptive ads.  It was a very well designed and effective campaign, aimed at the majority of people who do not understand the law well.

2.  The old media were all in for this campaign.  They were extremely one sided and partisan.   If a contrary message was to get out, it would have to be done outside the old media.   Here is a report a month before the election:

Today’s Daily Olympian carries a story asserting that controversial Initiative 594 “doesn’t create a gun registry,” while yesterday’s Everett Herald endorsed the 18-page gun control measure, and Saturday’s Seattle Times carries an op-ed piece touting I-594’s passage.

That doesn’t count the KCPQ true/false critique of television advertisements that labels an advertisement for Initiative 591 “mostly false” while saying a competing ad for I-594 is “mostly true.” Perhaps the negative reaction from readers to all of these is a strong indication that a growing number of Evergreen State voters are crying “foul” about what they believe is biased press coverage of the dueling initiatives campaign.

To reinforce this view, David Workman characterizes this report by the Seattle Times as an October Surprise:

The Seattle Times recommended a “No” vote on I-591 back on July 5, while endorsing rival Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure. Today’s story on the I-591 campaign claim that I-591 is supported by law enforcement in the form of two major organizations, the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS) and Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) is dubbed “half true” by the newspaper’s “Truth Needle.”

 The old media was careful to avoided mentioning law enforcement opposition:

The I-591 campaign has been running at a severe disadvantage, outspent nine or ten-to-one, overwhelmed by the I-594 $10.1 million war chest. But they have active-duty law enforcement overwhelmingly on their side, a fact that the gun control crowd has danced around, and most of the mainstream press has almost religiously avoided reporting.

After a year and a half of promoting I-594, once it had been approved by the electorate, the major media changed their terminology.     Gun control measure admitted after the election:

After 18 months of reporting and editorializing, and not until the day after the election, did the headlines acknowledge today what gun rights activists have been saying so long about Initiative 594: It’s a gun control measure, as affirmed by the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I.com.

3.  The strategy to defeat I-594 centered around offering a substitute initiative, I-591.   Most of the effort was spent on promoting I-591.   That did not correct the deception that was being promoted with I-594.   Only about $600,000 was spent on getting out information debunking the I-594 ads.  That was about 6% of what was spent promoting I-594, which does not count the millions in unpaid support it was given by the old media.  It was nowhere near enough.   Most voters never heard or read any opposition.  Here is a personal report from examiner.com commenter, Difranco:

Dave. After spending two weeks doorbelling in southern Thurston county then spending 22 days in eastern WA hunting for deer and elk. Almost every hunter / gun owner I spoke to didn't know it was a gun control initiative. This was especially true of the over 50 crowd who don't spend much if any time on the internet.

The NRA dropped the ball on this. They should have started back in early summer. Not focused solely on the Puget sound, and dropped at least $1 million on TV spots the last three weeks running up to the election.

 Here is another form a commenter on Freerepublic.com:

I live in Washington state. There was no effective advertising against 594. I saw no ad stating the facts about the law, or the restrictions or the way it can turn a normal citizen into a lawbreaker or even a felon. There were MANY ads showing peoples faces that were killed by a person that had domestic abuse history and should not have had a weapon. Of course they never said that an accusation of domestic abuse does not have to be proven in court. Nor did they say whether the gun was purchased or loaned. It is a typical liberal law. It makes people feel good, but does not correct the problem (like laws make evil unable to to be perpetrated).

The amount of confusion created by the dueling initiatives and the lack of any effective messaging to confront the deceptive I-594 ads can be shown from the fact that  10% of the voters who voted for I-591 also voted for I-594.  

4.  The disarmists that ran the I-594 campaign ran a very effective get out the vote and targeted campaign.  They used sophisticated internet tools to identify voters who could be swayed and to shape their message to them.  I did not see anything like it on the opposition side.   This sort of effort takes considerable money and expertise.  It works best with voters who are relatively ignorant of the issues.  If, through information gathered from sources such as Google, you can determine who is a single mother living in an urban center,  and can then send targeted, emotional messages based on that information, it is a powerful electoral tool.

5.  18 months of priming the population to support "Universal Background Checks" in the national media did not hurt.  UBCs were always touted as having support of 90% of the voters.   If so, with the tremendously one sided media campaign, I-594 should have won with at least 85% of the vote.   Clearly the 90% figure was simply the result of a push poll, or an ambiguous question that could be taken many ways.   In this election, with much in their favor, I-594 received a little less than 60% of the vote.

6.   There was an apparent "domestic" school shooting just days before the election.  While I-594 would have done nothing to prevent the shooting, the shooting played directly into the deceptive ad campaign run in favor of I-594.   We cannot know how much the shooting added to the I-594 victory.  One of the campaign supporters, Nick Hanauer, briefly put on his facebook page "we need more school shootings!!!" before retracting the statement.

The victory of the disarmists in Washington State has emboldened them.  They see that they can buy an election with enough money and the support of the old media.   They expect to export this technique to other states.   An effort to get on the ballot for 2016 is well on the way in Nevada.   Oregon, Maine, and Arizona are are also facing planned initiatives.   

If second amendment supporters are to succeed in fighting these efforts, a different strategy needs to be employed.   A lot more money will be needed than was used in Washington State.  Plans will have to be made to counter the ad barrage and the old media bias.   A significant and sophisticated get out the vote campaign will be needed to counter the one used by Bloomberg's paid experts.   The time to consider how to fight these efforts is now.   It would have been best if a strong, coordinated effort had been mounted in Washington State.   It was not, and now we have to deal with the results.   The next fight is likely in Nevada.    Who will lead the fight?   We will find out if the initiative has enough signatures to be turned in on Tuesday; it may take a few weeks to verify the signatures.

Can Billionaires buy elections?   If there is little opposition, and the old media is on your side, the answer, apparently, is yes.

Definition of disarmist

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[llevrok]

I understand the I-594 law requires back ground checks on private sales, ie. selling to a relative, a friend.

Even worse. Scenario - we go hunting.. I have a brand new 12g. We swap guns for a few ducks so you can try it out.

Nothing wrong, huh? We are now BOTH in violation of the law. There was no transfer permit issued allowing that "transfer" between us.

Totally unenforcable other than to muck up the life of legal gun owners. Which is the real intent of this.

[21twelve]

Oddly - you CAN loan it to someone if they are going hunting and have a hunting license. I’m not even sure you have to be with them on the hunt.

Just don’t loan it to them at the shooting range to get some practice. The first time is a misdemeanor $10,000 fine and a year in jail). The second time is a felony and they’ll take away all your guns.

[jsanders2001]

It’s pretty bad when you have to lie or deceive to get a bill passed. Repeal it after its shown what’s in it. Sounds sort of familiar....

[Don W]

I’m still looking for the “loopholes” you mentioned. Perhaps you might deign to show them to us?

I even posted a chart so we slow learners can follow your diagramming of these gaps you claim.

[21twelve]

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

Here is a pdf of the whole ugly 18 pages.

[america-rules]

For the record I voted NO in 594 but many posters are posting inaccurate info on this thread.

You can loan a gun for hunting, at the range and to someone who is in danger from a stalker or ex-wife etc..

See this is the problem - too much confusion on the law and what it allows or doesn't. Most hunters and quite a few conservatives voted YES because of the confusion!

I really hope someone stops this in the courts but I'm not counting on the NRA because they were AWOL on this. The GOA didn't run any ads either but they did squeal on FB quite a bit!

[21twelve]

The only loopholes I can think of is with a close family member that you can gift to.

“Here brother, I gift grandad’s old shotgun to you.”

After brother’s shoulder is sore after four rounds of trap, “Here brother, I gift grandad’s old shotgun to you.”

Although I imagine a good lawyer has some fancy Latin term for that, and that it wasn’t REALLY a gift.

[marktwain]

“However, if you want to go shooting with your son or grandson, you can’t loan them your gun at the shooting range! Gifts are okay, transfers (not just sales) are illegal.”

As I read it, transfers at a shooting range are only legal if the range is one approved by the local government; and the transfers consist of transfers of firearms that are permanently kept at the range.

Much of this will likely be settled in the courts...

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

[21twelve]

Post 25 has the entire law.

You can loan it to anyone going hunting if they have a legal hunting license.

You can loan it to your spouse at a shooting range, or to someone under the age of 18.

I would NOT be able to let my 20-year old son shoot my gun at the range, or anyone else that is above 18 and not my spouse.

You can loan your gun to someone that is in “imminent” danger. I’m not sure how long that is, but letting your daughter have your old shotgun in her apartment after her breakup with an angry and threatening boyfriend would not be considered “imminent”.

[Billthedrill]

Is there any particular reason you addressed that to me? I don’t recall mentioning any “loopholes”.

[21twelve]

Interesting on the “kept at all times, at an established shooting range...”

I read that as I can loan my gun to my spouse as long as she only has it at the range. But I see what you are saying.

[21twelve]

The lieing is okay. On one of the pro-gun websites they were saying that had been clarified for some tax bill years ago. The promoters of the bill lied, the bill passed, it went to court, the court said “yes they lied, but the bill passed, so it stays”.

No different than most politicians getting elected.

[Buffalo Head]

There was only one single reason that I-594 passed. That was the absurd scheme of fighting an unconstitutional proposal with an equally unconstitutional proposal.

Those attempting to fight fire with fire got us burned very badly.

I-594 should have been opposed simply because it violated "....shall not be infringed". Period.

[Axenolith]

They won’t know, but if a firearm was purchased in the last few years and then sold or given to another and someone, for some reason or another (owner acquiescing to an otherwise illegal search during a traffic stop etc...) run the serial it will show up as illegally transferred and then both players in the transaction are in for grief.

It will be a LOT more effective once Washington gets a registration system in place, and you can bet your butt that will be on the agenda down the line. CA started off with pistols, and in the last few years included long guns and most recently the specific type of long gun.

I.e. if you bought an AR in CA more than a year ago, you’re only registered as owning a long gun, if you buy one now, you’re registered as owning an AR...

[marktwain]

“It will be a LOT more effective once Washington gets a registration system in place, and you can bet your butt that will be on the agenda down the line.”

Yes, that is the pattern. Pass a law based on false premises, then, when it is ineffective, say it wasn’t enough, we need more! That has been the pattern for 50 years or more.

[21twelve]

“I.e. if you bought an AR in CA more than a year ago, you’re only registered as owning a long gun, if you buy one now, you’re registered as owning an AR...”

That doesn’t seem very fair. And being a liberal is all about being “fair”.

Solution? People will have to provide the name and serial number of ALL their old guns too.

Here in Washington state they are already talking about all the new bills they are going to bring to the legislature because the “people” have spoken.

However, we also elected more Republicans, and have even more control of the state house and senate than before, so hopefully those new bills will die.

[Axenolith]

If you’re a voter, there are rules...

If it wants money: Vote NO
If you have any doubts about it, or it’s confusing: Vote NO

The morons in this state (CA) actually voted to release a crap load of convicted criminals (Prop 47) because the damn thing was titled “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014”

I swear, if you vote for something that you can’t even define you should lose your right to vote for 1 or 2 cycles...

[21twelve]

“...was titled “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014”

Must have been the same people that came up with the name “Affordable Health Care Act”

[Axenolith]

Hypothetically: You can have “gifted” a weapon to anyone born before the initiative goes into effect. The burden of proof that this is otherwise will be impossible for prosecution and the defense for the under 18 at gifting would be that this was to be “handleable” under adult supervision at such as as deemed capable.

Hypothetically: Another means would be to take either a certain subset, or all of ones weapons, and roll them into an NFA trust and list those whom they could possibly be either lent or gifted to as beneficiaries.

[rockrr]

You should have seen the ads for THAT one! They actually had a guy deliver their “rationale” stating that all the money we would “save” by early release could be plowed into safer schools. Their guarantee was that some unknown somebodies vouched for the “low-risk” felons.

We are so screwed in this state!