10/30/2014 at 11:53 am #74925
Really, no discussion of the election around the corner? Then again, the most controversial ballot measure(s) are about preschool.10/30/2014 at 3:24 pm #74932
Universal background checks is pretty controversial once you leave the liberal enclave zone.10/30/2014 at 3:33 pm #74934
Background checks yes.10/30/2014 at 3:52 pm #74939
Allison, yes. I’d forgotten about it because I hadn’t gotten any spam on that issue. Plus I think that one is less confusing for most people. There are more people that have their mind set about that one, but that’s a subject that is perennially controversial.10/30/2014 at 4:10 pm #74941
I own guns. If a gun store should have BG checks then so should gun shows.10/30/2014 at 5:35 pm #74946
It’s not just guns shows. It’s also between two private owners, even if they are family.10/30/2014 at 6:03 pm #74947
Transfers of guns as gifts between family members are exempt, along with antique guns and guns that are inherited.
I have noticed that a lot of people are confused about the Preschool vote and think that Seattle will have a pre-K program and it’s only a choice of which one. You can vote against both of them by choosing No to the first question. If the majority vote No to any pre-K, we will have neither. If the majority vote Yes, we will have whichever of the two options gets the most votes. I have to say that listening to both Pre-K groups arguments against each other has me unenthusiastic about both of them.10/30/2014 at 7:21 pm #74955
Background checks for buying a gun can only be a good thing. No question on that one. And, btw, most members of my family I would want to do a background check on before giving them firepower.
The only one I needed help on was the 1-A and 1-B thing.10/30/2014 at 10:55 pm #74966
Oly got one right, but I wants me a shiny new monorail. I imagine new stations along 15th falling out of the sky and squashing the pre-existing structures like a giant Monty Python foot. The horrid new vaping store by BHS — squash! Mod/Mid/Mad/Mud Pizza — squash! The Shell station at Market — squash!11/02/2014 at 12:16 am #75107
Doing my ballot tonight. I consider myself an educated voter…until I get to the section for judges. Does anyone really feel they know what their doing on that part of the ballot? I confess that mostly I just leave the judgeship elections blank.11/02/2014 at 7:39 am #75110
Most of the judges were running unopposed. The ones that were opposed, I found the descriptions each candidate wrote were illuminating. Actually, I think the only ones that were opposed were voted as not-so-good judges by some sort of committee.11/02/2014 at 8:28 am #75112
I always find The Stranger useful for the judges. I haven’t heard from my attorney friend this time around, but they are usually in line with The Stranger’s analysis.11/02/2014 at 1:05 pm #75115
The King County Bar Association rates judicial candidates:
which is a good place to start.
I believe that The Stranger and The Times both endorsed the same candidates in all the judicial elections, which is another way to get information and make a decision.11/02/2014 at 1:55 pm #75117
I’m having a tough time on preschool. I really do want public preschool, but like Kate hearing the two groups argue against each other has made the whole plan unappealing this time around. And I have plenty of experience with Seattle Public Schools that has demonstrated they don’t have enough resources as it is and spend too much money top-down — adding a mission seems like a bad idea.
Also having a tough time on the class size initiative. I’m for reducing class size and for getting education fully-funded by the state as it ought to be. But will this step in that direction? Stranger says “yes” and I do tend to trust their research and analysis, but the opposition says “no.” Will this result in no new funding but shifting of scarce resources away from those who need it JUST to reduce class size? If so, is that a bad thing? I don’t want Special Ed to get even less funding, but funding for task forces endlessly debating, extra district-level executives, and consultants pointing out the obvious? Can probably handle those being cut.11/02/2014 at 6:07 pm #75128
I just read as of Oct 31, WA student teacher ratio was 19.6 for the 12-13 school year and MA had a 13.5 ratio. I picked MA because I vaguely remembered that they are near the top in student – teacher ratio. Then I looked up salary and test score statistics for both states. MA teachers salaries, while not fantastic, have gone up in 14% recent years while WA salaries have gone down slightly. I didn’t spent much time on it, but comparing 8th grade test/proficiency scores for 13-14, it looked like WA students are doing maybe slightly better than MA students (it’s not apples-apples, hard hard to tell for sure), so big kudos to WA for doing better with less.
I think studies have established that students generally do better with smaller class sizes. However, that is just one of the many things that makes a good education and I’d rather that our educational system used more nuanced approaches, based on specific school populations than a “one size fits all” approach. The initiative doesn’t provide any funding. Maybe I’m too cynical but I think it’s because if people found out how much it would cost, they wouldn’t vote for it.11/02/2014 at 7:32 pm #75129
Thank you for the info on voting for judges. I guess my issue is that we vote for them at all. The blurbs in the voter’s phamoket have a decidedly political tone to them and they have to raise money and seek endorsements like a politician. At what point do they lose their judicial impartiality in favor of what will get them re-elected. But then again being appointed can be very political depending on the governor. And I do want some process for removing bad judges from office. I find voting for judges very confusing even when I do read what they have to say or is said about them.11/02/2014 at 8:24 pm #75132
I generally don’t mind voting for judges. I can often tell if I’m ok with them, though I have no way of being able to tell if they are a good judge. I remember thinking someone was good until the opponent pointed out that the judge didn’t show up for most of the required meetings. I kinda look for certain buzzwords or phrases. Most of which will tell me I’m not interested in that candidate.11/03/2014 at 4:52 pm #75193
Hey, I know we’re just about to day zero here, but for those who aren’t absolutely sold on (or against) I-594, here is a page with more info. Note that it’s not by a neutral party, but it still has good information on what constitutes a “transfer” under this bill.
Update: here’s a link from a more neutral party. It’s short with less details, but is a bit surprising coming from sheriffs. http://union-bulletin.com/news/2014/oct/31/letter-most-sheriffs-oppose-initiative-594/
Something that happens frequently is two friends will go to the range and will use firearms brought by both people, or maybe someone who is trying to decide which firearm to purchase. It would be illegal under I-594 for your friend to hold your firearm without undergoing a background check. You might say that aspect probably won’t be enforced much, but it’s a bad idea to vote something in hoping that part of it won’t be enforced. And it’s a great platform for selective enforcement. If someone becomes a target for any reason and LE can’t get them for anything illegal they’ve done (say because they haven’t committed a crime), something that people do everyday under this bill could then be used to send them off to the pokey. Someone could become a target for having the wrong politics, skin color, whistleblower, or very unpopular (think someone ranting on youtube, but with no threats).11/03/2014 at 5:11 pm #75195
Wow, that’s strange. The original link didn’t make it in and it’s too late to edit now. So here’s the original link: https://washingtonarmscollectors.org/reference/myths-initiative-594/11/03/2014 at 6:00 pm #75200
I am sorry to see the Republicans gaining in the polls nationally. I guess people forget all the crud we’ve been through and go for the slick advertising.11/03/2014 at 6:13 pm #75201
I really don’t bother watching the polls. It’s just useless information for me. In the information age, learning to filter is crucial. It may mean something to someone else, but I just don’t care what other people are theoretically doing. I’ll still do what I think is right.11/03/2014 at 8:31 pm #75204
Re: Voting for judges, there’s a website http://www.votingforjudges.org/ which claims to be “VotingforJudges is a nonpartisan, impartial source of information about judicial elections in the state of Washington.”11/03/2014 at 9:04 pm #75207
Just worked through the judges section of my ballot and *finally* learned who was behind all those “Shadid” campaign signs I’ve seen around town.11/04/2014 at 10:34 am #75211
Interestingly, the initiative is quite specific about transfers. Based on the scare mailers and whatnot, I thought it was left vague. Based on Section 3 of the text, the following transfers do not require a background check:
* Gifts between family members
* Sales or transfers of antique firearms
* Temporary transfer to prevent death or bodily harm (take my gun and hold them off!)
* Law enforcement agencies and employees in the course of their duties
* Licensed gunsmiths receiving guns for service or repair
* Loans/temporary transfers (this is where it gets interesting)
– Between spouses or domestic partners
– At an established shooting range authorized by the local government if the gun stays on the premises
– At a legal organized competition
– To a minor while under the direct supervision of an adult who is allowed to have guns
– While hunting if the hunting is legal and the person receiving the gun is allowed to have guns
– Anyone who inherits a gun has 60 days to either get a background check or transfer it on to someone else
So Phoo’s comment is only marginally applicable. You can still go borrow a gun to try it out for sale, you just have to go to a legal range rather than the quarry out in the sticks. Another good example of the importance of reading the initiative rather than just relying on what various people are telling you. Actually reading what the law says completely demolishes most of the “well, what if” questions I’ve heard about this bill.11/04/2014 at 12:20 pm #75244
Life is amazingParticipant
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.