This post is now out of date. I594 passed amidst dramatic expenditures. It is now the law.
 |
| Donations for and against I594 as of 10/16/14 in top graphic bar. Currently I594 has consumed an astonishing $10M of the $81M total contributions for WA election for 2014 to date. . $2.3M of the $9.5M donations for I594 come from New York State. Screenshot graphic from WA PDC. |
HI PDC Compliance:
The 'WA Alliance for Gun Responsibility' has received a donation of $1M from New York State from EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND. Presumably, if this were a WA PAC or non-profit or 527, this organization would have to list the donors that made up that $1M contribution. But in this case, an out of state organization has injected $1M into a WA initiative race from some unknown number of donors, none of which the people of WA can possibly know. How does this conform with WA public disclosure law?Below the break is the R code snapshot look at the pro I594 contributions to date. Ninety percent of the $8,383,561 pro I594 contributions to date are under $500. This might mean a little more if the sums of the top ten donation amounts (range $500 : $1M) weren't ~$7M of the $8.3M of contributions. The top ten donation amounts themselves comes from only 29 unique contributors out of a total of 7,256 unique contributors. The sums of the top ten Contributor names are ~ $6.1M of the $8.3M donations to date. Those $6.1M contributions come only from Washington and New York. Politics is a sport for the rich these days. Looking at the top ten Contributor names on the list below confirms this for I594.
Are these the finances of a coordinated Capitalist Effort?
# R code availablesum(ALL$Amount)
[1] 8383561
quantile(as.integer(ALL$Amount), probs = seq(0, 1, 0.10), na.rm = TRUE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
2 25 35 50 50 50 100 100 250 500
arrange(ByContributor,desc(SUM))[1:10,]
Contributor SUM CONTRIB CONTRIB.UNIQ STATE.UNIQ
1 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND 1650000 2 1 1
2 HANAUER NICOLAS 1335000 4 1 1
3 BALLMER CONNIE 580000 7 1 1
4 GATES MELINDA 525000 2 1 1
5 GATES WILLIAM III 525000 2 1 1
6 ALLEN PAUL 500000 1 1 1
7 BALLMER STEVEN 500000 4 1 1
8 WYCKOFF ANN P. 376600 11 1 1
9 HANAUER LENORE M. 105000 3 1 1
10 HANAUER NICK 50000 1 1 1
sum(arrange(ByContributor,desc(SUM))[1:10,]$SUM)
[1] 6146600
arrange(ByDonation,desc(Amount))[1:10,]
Amount SUM CONTRIB CONTRIB.UNIQ STATE.UNIQ
1 1000000 2000000 2 2 2
2 650000 650000 1 1 1
3 500000 1500000 3 3 1
4 165000 165000 1 1 1
5 125000 1000000 8 2 1
6 100000 100000 1 1 1
7 70000 70000 1 1 1
8 50000 600000 12 5 1
9 30000 30000 1 1 1
10 25000 300000 12 12 1
arrange(ByDonation,desc(SUM))[1:10,]
Amount SUM CONTRIB CONTRIB.UNIQ STATE.UNIQ
1 1000000 2000000 2 2 2
2 500000 1500000 3 3 1
3 125000 1000000 8 2 1
4 650000 650000 1 1 1
5 50000 600000 12 5 1
6 1000 302000 302 269 2
7 25000 300000 12 12 1
8 5000 265000 53 47 1
9 500 213000 426 393 2
10 10000 200000 20 19 1
sum(as.list(arrange(ByDonation,desc(SUM))[1:10,])$SUM)
[1] 7030000
sum(arrange(ByDonation,desc(Amount))[1:10,]$CONTRIB.UNIQ)
[1] 29
sum(arrange(ByDonation,desc(Amount))$CONTRIB.UNIQ)
[1] 7256
arrange(ByState,desc(SUM))[1:10,]
State SUM CONTRIB CONTRIB.UNIQ CITY.UNIQ ZIP.UNIQ
1 WA 6692579 8479 5685 225 1406
2 NY 1681665 14 11 5 9
3 DC 3094 2 2 1 2
4 MA 2050 3 2 2 2
5 CA 806 17 14 12 14
6 AZ 735 5 4 3 3
7 MN 550 9 3 2 2
8 ME 500 2 1 1 1
9 FL 475 5 5 4 5
10 MI 250 1 1 1 1
arrange(ByCity,desc(SUM))[1:10,]
City SUM CONTRIB CONTRIB.UNIQ STATE.UNIQ ZIP.UNIQ
1 SEATTLE 3420772.4 4252 2944 1 575
2 NEW YORK 1680630.0 6 5 1 4
3 BELLEVUE 1190988.5 351 219 1 39
4 KIRKLAND 1082947.4 240 155 1 37
5 SHORELINE 400815.0 125 70 1 23
6 MEDINA 138039.0 43 31 1 6
7 MERCER ISLAND 123572.0 374 243 1 44
8 ISSAQUAH 55637.5 66 50 1 13
9 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND 31052.0 212 144 1 30
10 WOODWAY 18600.0 8 5 1 1
A Pre-existing Right?
It has long been discussed/rumored in post-Soviet Russia that websites must be registered with the state if they attract a specified limit of users. In China, the great firewall is rumored to be in place censoring what citizens can view. Either country has crimes against the state that can be applied to activities that citizens of a first amendment driven constitutional democracy like the United States would find intolerable. Make no mistake; in any state less friendly to freedom of speech this blogger would likely be spending time in nasty,dark places with concrete walls and drains. Here in United States, the Snowden revelations have let us all know that we are all constantly monitored. But if Justice Scalia is correct about the second amendment being a "pre-existing right" (and Justice Scalia makes a very powerful and historical,legal, and semantic case for such), then we must admit that we do not today treat those who exercise their second amendment rights with the same respect as the first amendment.Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment , codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER June26, 2008.
Monitored by the NSA or not, I AM NOT required to register this blog with anyone but Google. Anyone can view this blog and interestingly enough (although this is a local 'microblog' written in my own idiomatic English), Russia and China are in the top ten of countries that read this blog. Russia actually is a distinct second to the U.S. in non-java script pageviews. But if you own a gun in the United States, you are required to register that weapon with the state. The text of I594 increases the scope of this registration. The 18 page text of I594 is worth a read simply because it institutes an entirely new set of laws,regulations, and criminal offenses triggered by the proper/improper purchase or transfer of a firearm.
Reader: Although I can not be certain of the quality of my intelligence, I can tell you that if I faced the possibility of violating such a complex set of laws by simple ownership of this blog, I simply would not write at all. Instead, (like many freedom fighters in repressive countries), I would probably collect weapons in secret and plot revolution in the wilderness. Or perhaps simply emigrate to the United States like my Catholic great-grandfather who escaped eastern Poland and the Russian Tsar by emigrating first to Sweden and then to Wisconsin. If owning a fire-arm is a "pre-existing" right, why are we making it so difficult and treacherous to exercise this right?
The "Registration" of Gun Owners
In an excellent text I recommend to everyone, Edwin Black's "IBM and the Holocaust" documents and prototypes the danger of citizen registration in the modern state. Black, through use of meticulous research, documents how the data analysis software and hardware of its day ("Dehomag Hollerith") enabled the the Third Reich to have near total information and surveillance of its citizenry and those peoples in the path of Nazi conquest. It is no right wing delusion to conclude that in the next great national emergency that state wide databases will be accessed to determine "where the guns" are. Any martial law addendum to collect or outlaw the ownership of weapons would be enabled be database technology. Any one living in the post Snowden era who believes such a possibility is not real is suffering from political and historical delusions.
Another significant issue is the security of a gun registry database. It has long been pointed out by network security experts that "back doors" enabled by NSA are responsible for some of the worst penetrations by state and crime base cyber-terrorists. But SQL based databases have been subject to hundreds of thousands of "injection" based attacks regardless, an unfortunate amount of them successful into high profile clients like law enforcement, Social Security administration, retail establishments and investment banks. In light of this history, is it really reasonable to expect that "Washington state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate" gun registries as specified by I594 will be secure? Of course not. Here's 100:1 odds that the North Koreans have already hacked those databases. Imagine how much a list of all weapons stashed in households across WA would be worth to the narcotics trade? A thoughtful crime syndicate would simply filter on the type of weapon they want in the poorest neighborhood (least security) and hire some thugs to steal them; perhaps reasoning it would unlikely those thefts would be reported. Here is a quote from I594 specifying the gun registries that would be involved in registering firearm transfers/purchases:
Another significant issue is the security of a gun registry database. It has long been pointed out by network security experts that "back doors" enabled by NSA are responsible for some of the worst penetrations by state and crime base cyber-terrorists. But SQL based databases have been subject to hundreds of thousands of "injection" based attacks regardless, an unfortunate amount of them successful into high profile clients like law enforcement, Social Security administration, retail establishments and investment banks. In light of this history, is it really reasonable to expect that "Washington state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate" gun registries as specified by I594 will be secure? Of course not. Here's 100:1 odds that the North Koreans have already hacked those databases. Imagine how much a list of all weapons stashed in households across WA would be worth to the narcotics trade? A thoughtful crime syndicate would simply filter on the type of weapon they want in the poorest neighborhood (least security) and hire some thugs to steal them; perhaps reasoning it would unlikely those thefts would be reported. Here is a quote from I594 specifying the gun registries that would be involved in registering firearm transfers/purchases:
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, in
determining whether the purchaser meets the requirements of RCW
9.41.040, the chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either,
shall check with the national crime information center, the Washington
state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health
services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as
appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under
RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
(b) Once the system is established, a dealer shall use the stateHere is the WA DOL chart showing existing (pre I594) requirements for firearm purchases and transers in WA state:
system and national instant criminal background check system, provided
for by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921
et seq.), to make criminal background checks of applicants to purchase
firearms. However, a chief of police or sheriff, or a designee of
either, shall continue to check the department of social and health
services' electronic database and with other agencies or resources as
appropriate, to determine whether applicants are ineligible under RCW
9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
Firearms purchase/delivery requirements
| Handgun purchase without CPL | Handgun purchase with CPL | Rifle or shotgun purchase with or without CPL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| State application to transfer pistol or revolver required | Yes | Yes | No |
| Federal form 4473 firearms transaction record by dealer | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Local LEA conducts background check, including federal disqualifiers under NICS | Yes | LEA conducts all other background checks except for NICS check | No |
| Firearms Dealer conducts NICS for instant check prior to the delivery | No | Yes | Yes |
| Delivery | 5-days, or upon approval of the law enforcement agency | Upon notification of approval from NICS center | Upon notification of approval from NICS center |
Definitions
CPL - Concealed Pistol License
LEA – Law Enforcement Agency
NICS – National Instant Criminal Background Check System
LEA – Law Enforcement Agency
NICS – National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Surveillance of its citizenry classically makes the governments and the wealthy elite that control them feel more secure. It allows them to accomplish a number of aims. Many of them useful, but historically many of them for suspect purposes. If you think that government persecution can't happen here, maybe you should talk to a survivor of WWII Japanese internment camps in the U.S. Or the blacklisted labor leaders, politicians, artists, authors and entertainers of the McCarthy era. Or the scientists who helped us defeat the Nazis (like Oppenheimer and Turing) only to have themselves subject to surveillance, persecution and needless prosecution. That's a small lie I guess. Turing was, after all, a gay Brit who wasn't interned. He was simply forced by his country to engage in a form hormonal sterilization until in desperation he killed himself. That was quite a reward for mind that laid out the future of computing in the 20th century and arguably broke the Nazi codes that helped Britain survive WWII. Fear of its citizenry and loss of control compels weak and insecure minds that succor to government power to deploy means, often simply because they can.
There is one further problem of no small import; if one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present -day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights? [97] As Ronald Dworkin has argued, what it meant to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so. If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other parts of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) clearly cost less to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs -- criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech and so on -- helps to account for the observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments.
from https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html Sanford Levinson
No comments:
Post a Comment