Of the many things I care less about, Gabby Giffords testifying on I-594 tops the list.

I freely admit that what happened to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was a tragedy.

What I fail to see is where her testimony on a Washington State law, a place that she does not live in or have any say over, will make any difference.

This effort it gun grabbing, which is designed entirely to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of those who ignore the law, will accomplish none of it seems, none of its goals, nor will it arrive at what these people are looking for: a reduction in gun crime, a reduction in suicides, a reduction in reductions.

Is this where I point out that many other municipalities with the strongest gun control laws have the highest rate of gun crimes? Why is that?

It's likely because those who have a mind to commit crimes using a gun, don't care about laws like this.

As I pointed out in the past, any gun control issue before the people must be viewed in terms of what it would accomplish when implemented.  The questions are simple: would I-594, fully implemented have stopped any mass shooting of any kind?

Would I-594 fully implemented have stopped Sandy Hook?

What I 594 stop any crime of any kind from taking place?

The answers are clear and stark: no.

The basic flaw in the judgment of those who advocate laws such as these, is that the people who break the law, the people who carry weapons illegally, the people who kill people, are not going to pay attention to this kind of restriction.

I've had a concealed weapons permit since about 1997, when I began to receive death threats working for then representative Marc Boldt. I have not had occasion to shoot anybody and hopefully I never will.  But putting restrictions like this on to a law-abiding citizens is not designed to reduce access to weapons for people with psychological or criminal issues.  It is instead designed to reduce availability of weapons to people like me.

The absurdity of this law is best illustrated by the fact that many of the upper echelon pushing laws like this, including our own governor, really don't go anywhere without an armed guard.

As a result I don't give a damn what Gabby Giffords has to say about this.  The fact is, that she's not go to have to live with the results of whatever it is that we do up here in Washington over weapons.

All this kind of thing does, I believe, is to build resentment towards those who insist on socially engineering our lives, to fit their template.

In the end, it's going to take a great deal of will on the part of the public, to address these issues.  In the past I have advocated for a model more closely aligned to that in use in Singapore, where gun crime is effectively unknown.

They took the tough stance.  They made the hard call.  And now if you use a gun in any crime whatsoever whether you pull the trigger or not, you're executed.  If you even carry a gun when committing a crime you're subject to a life sentence, regardless of what that crime is.  The result?

Well, you're hard-pressed to find gun crime happening in Singapore.

As it is, I don't even go out and check the mail without carrying a weapon.  That old saw about "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is the harsh reality we face particularly out here in the rural area of the county. 

I will oppose any law that further restricts my constitutional rights.  And these laws, do, precisely that.

Here's my message to RINO Rep. Mike Hope who shilled for this garbage early last year:

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 eyeballs (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 f you are likely to describe it will in and or 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 then 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.

That is the crux of the matter.  And no amount of testimony from Gabrielle Giffords will change it.