Brancaccio pees his pants over "gun grabber initiaitive."

Fringe leftists are very big about punishing those following the law for the actions of those who choose not to.  Brancaccio, a dull-normal leftist, frequently confuses "motion," with "action."  This is yet another one of those occasions.

It's almost like he truly believes forcing us to jump through more of their worthless hoops will actually make any difference in the outcomes they seek to implement.  (It's the kind of garbage Dalesandro has endorsed (Bet you won't see THIS on his web or FB page!)

Leftist Louie Brancaccio spewed his latest garbage set on the "dueling initiatives", one which would assault the 2nd Amendment by punishing those of us who follow the law (I-594) and one which would support the 2nd Amendment (I-591), troweling out this set up:

Signature gathering has begun for Initiative 594, a reasonable, common-sense ballot measure that polls show is supported by 80 percent of Washingtonians, but which legislators have lacked the courage to address. The initiative would mandate background checks for all gun sales, similar to those already required for sales involving licensed firearms dealers.

If, in fact, "80% of Washingtonians" supported this, the legislature would fall all over itself to pass these confiscatory laws.

As always, when proponents are reduced to lying like this despicable cancer on our community does to get it's agenda passed, then the issue, item or project in question should, automatically, fail.

When turncoat GOP'er State Rep. Mike Hope engaged in this idiocy and was lionized by scum like Brancaccio, I wrote Rep. Hope this message:

Rep. Hope:

Let me say on the outset that I’m not a constituent.  I did, however, spend 6 years on staff as Marc Boldt’s LA in the House so I have at least a vague clue as to how things work up there. 

Thus, an “SNR” (Sincere Non-Response) is not necessary.

I am also an Army Veteran (Enlisted/commissioned – Infantry/Armor/Administration – 14 years) and was involved in the American Legion up to my eye balls (Including 5th District Commander of Washington) a while back so I also have some vague knowledge of weaponry.   

Further, I hold a CWP since I received death threats working for then Rep. Boldt, some 17 years or so ago.  I am rarely unarmed in public. 

I cannot adequately express my disappointment in your actions regarding this bill, but one of the joys of the First Amendment and the other Rights I prepaid through my service to this country is the ability to both speak my mind AND to speak it to you. 

During my time up there, I was privileged to see both the best and the worst of this body of people. 

Your actions here are among the worst, because this effort will accomplish absolutely nothing of what you want it to. 

This bill is a classic case of confusing “motion” with “action.”  As both a legislator and a police officer, you feel compelled to do SOMETHING in the face of Sandy Hook, presumably.  You obviously believe in this effort, unintended consequences notwithstanding, or you wouldn't be doing it.  Unfortunately, except for punishing those of us who obey the law for the actions of those who do not, this bill accomplishes absolutely nothing positive. 

Sandy Hook is yet another name that will live in infamy.  The question I have is this: what in this bill would have stopped it? 

That this bill, had it been fully implemented, would have made no difference in Sandy Hook is the thing. 

That this bill would do nothing to improve the security of soft targets like schools is the thing. 

That this bill punishes those of us who follow the law for the actions of those who break the law is the thing. 

That this bill will make no impact on street sales where guns are sold to those who are not supposed to have them (Felons, for example) is the thing. 

That this bill will do nothing to stop anyone from, say, buying a gun in Oregon or Idaho without undergoing this nonsense is the thing. 

In fact, I offer you one word that sums up the ultimate aim of the democrats you are joining with: Chicago. 

This bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except to increase the bureaucracy (always a democrat goal) and provide revenue to the state (always a democrat goal) while making it more difficult for those who obey the law to purchase weapons. 

It's difficult to see where THAT isn't the real goal of this idiocy: and why would government want it to be more difficult for the law-abiding to buy weapons? 

We have a Constitution. It sets limits on government. This bill appears to cavalierly violate those limits. 

Those who obey the law will suffer. Those who break the law won't even notice... or care. And it seems to me that government's priorities are just the tiniest bit screwed up here. 

I don’t doubt your sincerity.  But I would wish that in this instance, like all others where legislation is proposed or supported, those doing the proposing or supporting would stand back and see what the outcome would be BEFORE this (or any other bill) is passed into law. 

This bill will not do what it appears that you want it to do.  But it will harm those of us who obey the law.  And I find it hard to believe you seem unaware of that… so I thought I’d take this opportunity to write to a legislator not in my district (18th) to let them know what *I* see. 

A few amendments won’t help this fundamentally flawed bill.  There are many other options available that would not be offensive to my rights… such as mandatory life sentences for anyone using a weapon during the course of committing a crime. 

After all, if you want to stop the use of a weapon for an illegal purpose, what better way to do that than actually holding the perpetrator accountable instead of further restricting those of us who follow the law because of the actions of others? 

What a novel concept. 

Your web site is replete with all the pats on the back from the left.  There doesn’t seem to be much discussion there of the opposing point of view.  I would suggest that perhaps you give that opposing view a little more thought. 

Thank you for your time

And those are just some of the issues with this rank stupidity.  The demographic these morons are seeking to attack will pay no notice to this stupidity, passed...or failed.

The rag has presented no compelling reason to do any of this.  They call it "reasonable" but they can't explain what difference any of it will make.

There's nothing in this initiative that would keep me from crossing the river and buying a weapon privately.  There's nothing in this initiative keeping a serial killer from buying a gun out of somebody's car trunk.

In fact, there's nothing in this initiative that will make any difference at all.

But those shilling this garbage will sure feel better about it, won't they?