As I discussed last week, the RLCWA State Convention was this past weekend.  We debated and adopted bylaws, elected officers and had the opportunity to hear a right to life/anti-aggression resolution.  I had the honor of introducing this resolution and of speaking in favor of it (please watch the video of it HERE).  After a total of close to two hours of debate, the resolution failed by a quite large margin.

Many members joined the RLC reluctantly, with the promise and understanding that the Washington State Charter would adopt a solidly pro-life position.  It is now clear that this will not happen, and as such, I have tendered my resignation.  Many others are in the process of doing the same.  Please find my letter to my County Chapter Chaiman, which includes my reasoning for my resignation, below.

“Mr. Chairman;

This letter serves as notice of my resignation from the office of Secretary of the Snohomish County Republican Liberty Caucus, effective immediately.  I also request and require that I be removed from the membership rolls of the Republican Liberty Caucus from the Caucus, Charter, and County Chapter levels.  I do not expect to see my name listed as a delegate to the upcoming RLC Convention.  I do not wish to receive any further correspondence from the RLC or any of its affiliates, including any electronic communications.

It is most distressing to think that the RLCWA has refused to make a stand for life, voting instead to uphold and affirm the modern American Holocaust that is abortion.  I cannot, in good conscience, associate with an organization that will vote overwhelmingly to remain silent at best, and retain a statement that says it can be “honest and ethical” to support an act and a culture that annihilates humans, created in the image and likeness of God.  It is clear that while the RLC may be in the right on certain and limited issues such as the 2^nd Amendment and sound monetary policy, they will not stand for godly principles, and thus have voluntarily stood in firm and defiant opposition to Him.

As I know you are aware, the issue of abortion abolition is not something that I am willing to compromise on.  It was made clear to me prior to my joining this organization, that the pro-abortion stance of the RLC, specifically at the State level, is something that would be changed.  The RLCWA Convention in Yakima on April 27 has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the case.  Instead, we saw that those who have claimed to be both “pro-life” and Christians will refuse to stand on the truth on this most fundamental issue of liberty.  In fact, the opposition by such people reached lows that I only thought possible from groups such as the Democrat Party and the Mainstream Republicans of Washington, which is interesting as the RLC does seem to agree with both of those groups much more than the Republican Party with which they claim to associate.  There were proven and demonstrable acts showing a lack of integrity, personal malice, and conduct unbecoming leaders for liberty. Aside from the obvious lack of willingness to stand for life, it has become apparent that remaining part of this organization would require me to condone tactics and conduct that is personally abhorrent and professionally unacceptable as demonstrated by several Officers from the County Chapter to National levels.  I have rarely seen such open hostility to life from a group of people who claim to be leaders in the cause of liberty, with one member even going so far as to say that Satan himself was behind the proposed anti-abortion resolution.  As shocking as this was, the thunderous applause with which this statement was met was even more disturbing.

There are a small number of honest, godly people dedicated to real liberty who currently are and will remain members or will remain associated with the RLC, and it is not my intention to disparage these individuals; however I think that it would be wise of them to also disassociate with this organization.  That being said, I will remain ready, willing and able to partner with those few individual in common cause where appropriate, and where conscience will allow.  I will continue to stand with and for such people and will endeavor to work, in my own small way, to advance the Gospel, Abolition and the cause of true Liberty.

In Liberty,

 

R. Clayton Strang

A//∀”

This piece is also being written about at the Victory Girls blog.

This coming weekend the RLCWA will hold its first state convention in Yakima.  We will be adopting bylaws and electing delegates to attend the National Convention in Austin, Texas.  We will also be voting on several resolutions.  As the largest charted State Chapter, the RLCWA has the largest number of delegates to the national convention, and a unique opportunity to shape this growing caucus of Republicans.

One resolution that will be considered was recently passed by the Snohomish County Chapter of the RLC and could move the RLC into a position in which its call for liberty may finally be consistent.  The full text of the resolution reads as follows:

“Whereas, the Declaration of Independence States “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;” and

Whereas, it is the sole duty of government to secure these rights for the people of the United States of America; and

Whereas, without the right to life, all other rights which the government should properly secure become meaningless; and

Whereas, the right to life for pre-born humans is currently not secured; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Snohomish County Republican Liberty Caucus (this will be replaced with “Republican Liberty Caucus of Washington” via a motion to amend from the floor) opposes any act of aggression against an innocent individual and his inherent right to life.  This includes such acts against any human whether born or unborn”

The members of the RLCWA have a choice to make: Will we truly stand for liberty, or simply give the word lip service?  Thomas Jefferson said “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”  In order to begin to protect liberty, the right to life must be affirmed and fought for.  The fight for liberty is incomplete and wholly irrelevant if the right to life is not protected or if it is deemed non-existent.  It is simply not enough to say that the subject of brutally tearing pre-born human persons into pieces is a “critical life and death choice for every pregnant woman.” (Sure, the “life and death” bit is accurate, but the rest misses the point!)  It’s wildly insufficient to simply say that the Caucus opposes “any allocation of government funds or resources to facilitate abortion.”  No!  Killing innocent humans must be opposed by all who claim to love liberty!  Our Declaration of Independence does not say “All men are created equal, and entitled to protection, excepting those who are unborn or unwanted, or, to prevent mistake, excepting those who are poor or with some physical or mental defect.”  (H/T Abolish Human Abortion)  No, the founders agreed that “all men are created equal.” No conditions, no exceptions.  Just equal.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the liberty activists in Washington State.  I believe that when presented with the choice between liberty for all and embracing selective tyranny, we will make the right the only choice.  We will stand firmly on the principles of liberty and justice for all that once defined our nation and our Grand Old Party.

I find myself, surely like many of you, pulled in numerous directions right now.  I end up attending meeting after meeting, being inundated with an abundance of information.  There’s work to be done, but the distractions just keep coming.  We find ourselves fighting about bylaws, and, granted, bylaws need to be in place in the GOP and other caucuses, and they need to be the right bylaws.  While we fight about these things, there is the further perceived need to all gather together, in fancy dress, to tell each other how wonderful we are, how we’ve made such a great difference.  We reward “maverick” activists, who buck the principles that we claim to hold most dear.   Inside these groups we find even more distractions, sometimes in the form of people.  Such people continually usurp every good and necessary issue and conversation in order to fulfill their own need for self importance.  All issues, no matter how vital, become about nothing more than their favorite subject: the subject of “me.”  While distractions abound, matters of imperative concern can fall by the wayside.

As with most problems, we cannot hope to put these distractions aside without an understanding of what the root cause.  The cause is, at least in large part, idolatry, the tentacles of which can be found in many areas of life and society.

Throughout our lives, we’ve been trained to put our government on a pedestal.  It seems as though every societal or economic problem we’re confronted with can be solved with the right government program. And, when that program fails, the next one will surely work!  We, as Republicans, are generally inclined to speak against this particular form of idolatry. But when we conclude with condemning that form of idolatry, we actively and, sometimes eagerly, engage in another: We must revere the Republican Party!  We’re told to leave Republican politicians alone; “Don’t attack your teammates!” so the reprimand goes.  No matter how far down the path of progressivism (or other anti-liberty ideology) that a politician goes, to speak and work against them is akin to heresy.  Sir Winston Churchill once said that socialism is “the abject worship of the state,” yet here we are engaging in our own type of worship:  The worship of our Party.

A friend of mine told me recently that the Liberty Movement is really a call to repentance, and he’s absolutely right.  Our Party needs to repent.  We have regularly been on the wrong side of important Constitutional issues.  Please hear me clearly on this: I’m not saying that the Democrats are on the right side; rather, that we have joined them on the wrong side.  We could go through example after example, ad infinitum.  We all know that there have been usurpations from those on our side of the aisle.   Violations of our Constitution, the rule of law, the intent of our Founders and more, have taken place, yes, even inside our Republican Party.  The most offensive and dangerous of any of our wrongs is this:  That we have attempted to replace the one true God with the god of The Party.  We stand for a return to truly limited government, for the rule of law and for a return to strict adherence to the Constitution.  Yet we, in the Liberty Movement, must be wary of doing the same thing; in fact, we can see it happening already.  All of us, no matter the party affiliation, also must be vigilant in putting to death the ultimate idol; the idol of “self.”

The Constitution is important.  It is the “how” of our Republic.  It outlines what government is and, more importantly, is not allowed to do.  Even this, as important as it is, is insufficient if we are to save our nation and restore liberty for our children and our grandchildren.  Our ideals must have their foundations built on nothing less than Christ and His Holy Word, the Bible.  Even the Founders, some of whom may not have been Christians, such as Benjamin Franklin, understood the importance of God and obedience to Scripture.  Not simply the portions of the Bible that deal with such things as “this is allowed and this is not,” but, rather, in the fundamental view that all men are created equal and that all men are fallen and depraved (“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jer. 17:9, which, incidentally, is the verse our Founders used when creating the Separation of Powers).   Only when we, too, realize this truth and that we need a real savior (the government, a political party and political movements don’t count here) can we ever hope to experience true liberty in our nation once again, for, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”( 2 Cor. 3:17)

For more information on the Christian foundations of the United States of America, please visit: http://www.wallbuilders.com

We have been so honored to be a part of the liberty movement here in Washington State.  We’ve been able to come together to defeat some truly terrible legislation.  We’ve killed Rep. Mike Hope’s (R, 44^th LD) “universal background checks for all firearm transfers” bill (HB 1588) which was really nothing more than a prelude to universal registration.  We’ve put an end to Gov. Inslee’s so-called “Reproductive Parity” bill that would have required all employer provided insurance plans covering maternity care also provide coverage for the legalized child murder that is commonly referred to as “abortion.”  Activists have even put enough pressure on the legislators to defeat an assault weapons ban.   In fact, we’ve even been led to believe that all of the anti-2^nd Amendment legislation coming out of Olympia was dead.  We’ve been repeatedly told that by the news media that this is the truth, but we’ve been lied to.

House Bill 1840 slipped right by us.   This bill passed through the House of Representatives and is currently in the Washington State Senate.  In fact, it has already passed its first hurdle, the Senate Law and Justice Committee.  Not all of the Senators gave it a “do pass” recommendation.  One Senator, Sen. Pam Roach (R, 31^st LD) voted that it be “referred without recommendation” which is a nice way of trying to cover herself.  She didn’t give it a positive recommendation, but she didn’t stand against it either.

So let’s talk about HB 1840 for a minute.  What does it do and why is it so dangerous?

The stated purpose is that it “addresses the possession of firearms with regard to persons subject to no-contact orders, protection orders, and restraining orders.”  In short, they want anyone who gets a restraining or protection order, or who is already subject to one, to surrender all firearms or have them confiscated.  That sounds reasonable, right?  The idea conjures up an image of the quintessential domestic violence situation, where a defenseless abused wife is at the mercy of her gun-owning abuser.  Ostensibly, bill supporters would claim that this will cut down on violence against women and children.  There’s only one problem:  All of that is a smokescreen, and will result in innocent people having their guns taken away (which is what the government wants anyway).  But in order to understand how this will work, we must first understand how protection orders are obtained now, as opposed to when they were first created.

In 2001, the group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, or SAVE, released a special report on the use and abuse of protection orders.  While they declared that the idea was initially sound, the report cites large amounts of system abuse and incompetence in how orders are granted.  “The judge issues the order without the respondent having legal representation, being allowed to present opposing evidence, or even being aware of the allegation,” it states.  This means that if someone requests a restraining or protection order against you, you will not be granted an opportunity to defend yourself, present evidence that the order is unfounded, or even know that the order is being granted against you.  In Washington State, it’s even worse.  “The burden of proof rests not on the complainant, but on the respondent to prove that the order should not be extended for a full year.”  In addition, the report states that the broad definition of what constitutes grounds for a restraining order makes getting them incredibly simple and easy.  This means that anyone can ask for a restraining order against you, have it granted if they feel somehow harassed or unsafe—regardless of whether you have actually done anything to them physically, emotionally or sexually—and then it’s YOUR responsibility to prove that the order should not be extended to a full year.  That’s not counting the effects of this order on your current  employment, your ability to gain future employment, any security clearances, or even ability to pass a basic background check—and yet you’ve never been convicted or even charged with a crime.

Restraining orders are used as tools in divorces. An article in the Illinois Law Journal called them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”  In Missouri, protection orders are called a “litigation strategy.”  In California, they are “almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person.”  In short, the national attitude of protection and restraining orders makes them easy to get, put an undue burden on the restrained person, and are notoriously difficult to have vacated.  In many cases, they are difficult to get expunged from your record, even if they were frivolously obtained.

Now let’s talk about what this bill does.  If you have a restraining order against you, for whatever reason, from anyone, you will have to surrender your firearms or face forcible confiscation.  Now the average person may say, “Well of course we don’t want abusive husbands to have access to firearms.”  But is that what is really going on?  When you look at the ease with which someone can get a restraining order—one woman was granted an order against talk show host David Letterman for supposedly sending her coded messages through her TV—is it not obvious that this system would be abused as prolifically as any other?  Certainly no one wants a violent, abusive party to be able to hunt down and kill his victim.  However, he (or she, since 15% of restraining orders are filed against women) can do it without a gun, and a restraining order never stopped a truly violent person anyway, much like gun control laws don’t stop gun violence. This bill is simply a way to whittle away at the number of citizens who own firearms, and claim the interest of public safety.

Most people know at least one person who has been through a divorce, and has had a frivolously obtained protection order against them.  As we’ve already seen, it’s part of the gamesmanship.  That’s not even counting the non-domestic orders granted for things like perceived harassment or stalking—and according to the law, it doesn’t matter if you actually stalked them or harassed them, only that they feel harassed.   If you are unfortunate enough to run afoul of a nasty neighbor, you may have your record forever paint you as violent.  This bill would ensure that you also lose your ability to defend your home and family as well—and the fringe benefit to the government is, you’re no longer in a position to defend againt tyranny, either.

As bad as this bill is, there is a glimmer of not-quite-so-bad.  Rep. Matt Shea (R, 4th LD) had introduced an amendment to this bill that would, with the changing of one word, drastically alter this bill.  This amendment would have simply changed the word “or” to “and,” making the once offensive portion of this bill not quite so offensive.  Of course, this amendment was defeated in the House, but it has been promised to be introduced again in the Senate.  The real effect of this amendment is that the burden to prove a “credible threat” is great enough to prevent most abuses that may arise from this poorly thought out bill.  The preference of the authors of this piece is that this bill not be passed at all, but if it must or will pass, this amendment is vital to have passed, as well.

We have to keep in mind whose name appears right at the top of this bill.  It’s our good friend, Rep. Mike Hope.  You may remember him from such bills as the afore mentioned universal background check bill (HB 1588) and the bill that strips parental rights away and give those rights to the State (HB 1934).  He’s at it again, and he almost got away with this one, too.  This bill is just one of many reasons why citizens in his district are seeking support for a recall petition.  Now we want to be clear for the record here.  It’s not simply Rep. Hope.  He is not the only offender here.  We simply pay him a bit of special attention because he’s a Republican, and Republicans are supposed to defend liberty, not actively seek to destroy it.   It is the greatest betrayal to be elected on a platform of liberty, only to align with the gun-grabbing Left once in office.

If this bill is going to be defeated, it must be now!  We have to understand exactly what this bill does, and what the potential for abuse is.  This is one of those “slippery slope” bills that can and will be used to abuse law abiding owners of firearms.   This bill only has to get through the Senate Rules Committee and then it can be brought to a vote on the Senate floor.  We have very little time to defeat this.  Read the bill.  Really understand it, and then get on the phone to your Senator.  If this bill goes through, it may be YOUR firearms they come for.

This piece has been published on RedState with the express permission of both authors

Conservative and Liberty activists have been great at helping to kill anti 2nd Amendment bills in Washington State. Most notably, activists were able to help kill HB 1588 (see here, and here). We should be equally fired up when a bill is introduced that needs to pass! A new bill introduced by several great legislators, HB 2020, is one such bill.

HB 2020 , known as the “Washington state firearms ammunition, parts, and accessories jobs act,” seeks to do two things at once: To bring new jobs to Washington State by attracting manufacturers of firearm ammunition, parts, or accessories to relocate or start operating in our state, and also would help to potentially ease the ammunition shortage that firearm owners are currently experiencing. I don’t know about you, but I think that both of those things are noble goals that require some attention, not just from the legislature, but from us, as well.

With Washington’s unemployment rate last year between 8.3% and 7.6% and a current rate of 7.5%, I would think that our legislators would all want to work hard to bring good, long term jobs into our state. With firearm manufacturers like Magpul getting set to pick up and move their business from Colorado due to the State’s new restrictive (and unconstitutional) anti 2nd Amendment laws, and Colt talking about leaving Connecticut, it makes perfect sense to do anything that we can to attract these businesses to our state!

I would ask the same citizens that helped to defeat the gun grabbers in Washington to once again pick up your phones and call your legislators. Ask them to do their part to lower unemployment in our state by putting their support behind HB 2020.

Boeing objected.  The Seattle Times reported that House Democratic leadership has said that “…Boeing lobbied against the bill because the company feared it could hurt its ambitions to manufacture and test drones for use by law-enforcement or other agencies.”  This same Democrat leader, Rep. Jeff Morris has told the Seattle Times that the lobbying by Boeing isn’t what killed the bill, the House leadership simply wanted more time to study it.  I wonder, will they use the time in between legislative sessions to study this issue?

A main sponsor of this bill, Rep. David Taylor (R, 15^th LD) said “This is about profit over people’s rights.”  He’s absolutely right!

The Democrats in the House, specifically the Speaker, Rep. Frank Chopp (D, 42rd LD), is ultimately the one responsible for refusing to allow a scheduled vote on HB 1771 to take place, despite overwhelming support in Speaker Chopp’s own district and broad bipartisan support, and I have to ask “Why?”  For further study?  I doubt it.  Could it be that a back room deal was made between the Democrats and Boeing?  What if Boeing promised to make off season campaign donations to key Democrats in the House?  What if the Democrats offered to kill the bill in exchange for Boeing’s public support of legislation that’s bound to be wildly unpopular with Washington voters, like a massive hike on the State gas tax?  Would that shock you?

Keep in mind that this bill truly was bipartisan, and was sure to pass the House prior to Boeing’s meddling.  All we hear from the mainstream media  is that Republicans and Democrats need to come together.  That’s exactly what happened with HB 1771 and the Democrats chose to bow to the pressure of special interests rather than protecting the civil liberites of Washingtonians.

I suggest that we watch closely what Boeing does in the coming months.  We should watch for any off season campaign donations (to Rep. Pat Sullivan and Rep. Eric Pettigrew, for example).  We should keep an eye on what legislation, if any, that they publicly support.  Maybe the legislature really does want further study.  After all, we’re told that only Republicans make sneaky, unethical back room deals, right?  Then again, maybe there’s something more going on.  Whatever happens, we’ll be vigilantly watching.

The Democrat controlled House was scheduled to vote on HB 1588 last night, and they didn’t  They were supposed to vote on it this afternoon and didn’t.  The vote was rescheduled for this evening, but the day ended without the vote happening. Rep. David Taylor (R, 15th LD) posted the following on Facebook: “Folks, stay focused and vigilant … THIS IS NOT OVER. Sleep well ladies and gentlemen, for tomorrow is another fight.” Rep. Taylor is absolutely right; the fight is not yet over.  The gun-grabbers in the Democrat Party, and Republican Rep. Mike Hope, have one more day to pass the bill, which means we have one more day to fight it.

I would ask all Washington State patriots to call your legislators again to express your support for both the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions and your opposition to HB 1588. The pressure that you’ve all been applying to them may be working. I’d also ask you to do one other thing: Pray. Pray for wisdom, strength and perseverance for the brave men and women who are standing for liberty in Olympia. Ask God to give them favor with their fellow legislators. Finally, pray for courage for those who are going to go to the floor of the House to speak out against this terrible bill.

“THIS IS NOT OVER.”

There are some Democrats being lobbied such as Rep. Steve Kirby (D, 29^th LD) and Rep. David Sawyer (D, 29^th LD).  Rumor has it that Vice President Joe Biden may even be calling the Democrats in an attempt to secure their allegiance to the anti-2^nd Amendment agenda of the POTUS.

The most urgent action is needed with the Republicans that are being pressured into supporting this bill.  Below, you’ll find a list of Republicans that 2^nd Amendment defenders and liberty lovers must contact urgently!  Please contact them immediately and demand, even plead if necessary, that they support the Constitution and honor their oath of office.  If you can’t get a hold of them, leave a message and call them back.  Tell them not to support HB 1588.  No compromises and no deals!  All we require of them is to stand on traditional Republican values and defend liberty!

I’m being told that the vote on this bill might happen on Monday, March 11, so your urgent action is vital!

Rep. Linda Kochmar (R, 30^th LD) 

(360) 786-7898

Rep. Mike Hope (R, 44^th LD) 

(360) 786-7892

Rep. Mark Hargrove (R, 47^th LD) 

360) 786-7918

Rep. Steve O’Ban (R, 28^th LD)

(360) 786-7890

Rep. Cathy Dahlquist

(360) 786-7846

Rep. Hans Zeiger (R. 25^th LD)

(360) 786-7968

Rep. Drew MacEwen (R, 35^th LD)

(360) 786-7902

Rep. Chad Magendanz (R, 5^th LD)

(360) 786-7876
Rep. Maureen Walsh (R, 16^th LD)

(360) 786-7836

Rep. Terry Nealey (R, 16^th LD) 

(360) 786-7828

The 80/20 argument often comes up whenever conservative activists have any criticism whatsoever towards a Republican candidate or elected Republican official.  It’s a pragmatist argument: “My 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy” or “I’d much rather lobby a Republican who agrees with me on 80 percent of the issues than try and lobby a Democrat who agrees with me on nothing.”

Perhaps there is some truth to the pragmatist argument, but just how is it that activists should go about lobbying their Republican elected officials when they go astray from not only the party platform but the state and U.S. Constitutions?

Predictably, the 80/20 argument came up in response to the firestorm that has surrounded State Rep. Mike Hope (R) of Washington State’s 44^th Legislative District over his sponsorship of two controversial bills: HB 1588 requiring universal background checks on all firearms purchases and HB 1934 overriding parental decisions on who can petition a judge for court ordered visitation with a child (even if that visitation goes against the wishes of the child’s parents.)

Fired up over Hope’s support of HB 1588, conservative activists responded with critical open letters that went viral on blog and Facebook posts.  These activists cited the right to bear arms from the Washington State and U.S. Constitution as well as factual information on the unintended legal consequences of the proposed legislation.  Predictably, one local pragmatist and former party official responded with the 80/20 argument, followed by these comments:

“You guys are going about it all wrong! You aren’t thinking this through. Mike Hope is a great asset to have in the legislature. Instead of all of this hot-headed stuff I’m seeing from you, take the time to talk to him. There’s a better way to work with him on this and the very first part is to treat him with respect. There are two issues: the first is the constitutional issue and the second is how we treat our team members. You have to dial back the rhetoric and treat people with respect, particularly your representatives as you are going to need them in the future. I am totally opposed to this bill. I don’t think we need any more interference with private life buy [sic] I’m going to treat him with respect and find out where he’s coming from. I’ll be calling him later this evening. Read your own posts…[sic] it’s totally unwarranted and unproductive.”

But is it unproductive for activists to get fired up, even mad enough to air their criticisms in public forums?  Let’s compare the results of the two approaches.

This same party pragmatist did contact Rep. Hope about his support for HB 1588 and he reported back by simply regurgitating the exact same talking points the representative had been using in his form letter responses to all who have contacted him about it.  In other words, the pragmatist was prepared to accept any excuse without questioning or addressing the concerns raised by conservative activists in response to these talking points.

Contrast that with the response grassroots activists received from the only other Republican who co-sponsored HB 1588, Rep. Maureen Walsh of Washington’s 16^th Legislative District. She reversed her position.

“I have really come to realize that no legislation will ever address the criminal element as far as guns are concerned. Thus the bill only targets (no pun intended) lawful gun owners and the application of the law would not be logical. I will not be supporting the bill and thank everyone who wrote to me with their concerns. Your comments were very helpful to me in discerning this issue.”  You can read her entire statement here.

While it doesn’t look like we’ll get the same type of reversal from Rep. Hope on HB 1588, there is no question that he has responded to the pressure.  He has privately told some activists that he plans to vote against HB 1934 and make a public statement and a strong argument against it when it comes up for a vote on the house floor, although to date, he has yet to do so.

Rep. Hope has tried convincing the critics of HB 1588 that he has the support of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb.  In fact, Gottlieb and the SAF have also been very critical of the bill in its original form.  Hope has indeed been in negotiations with them but it remains to be seen whether or not the final version of the bill will contain the concessions they’re looking for.  In fact, it appears more that Rep. Hope has doubled down on his support for the bill, while being dishonest about what’s actually in the current version of the bill.

There is something to be said, however, about a “carrot and stick” approach to the application of pressure to politicians. A great many conservatives have contacted Rep. Hope directly and engaged in conversation with him.  These conversations have been mostly filled with form letter style responses, as mentioned above, but some interesting information has been gathered.  For example, Rep. Hope has allegedly claimed to have not read legislation, and even blamed particular Statesmen for his failure to understand the goings on of the bills being voted on (this pertains specifically to HB 1934).  These conservatives were offering Rep. Hope a “carrot,” explaining to him why they were upset and offering forgiveness and future support should he withdraw his support for these bills.

While these conservatives were engaging, or rather attempting to engage, the Representative in discussion, others were publicly blasting him on his seeming lack of principle.  The “stick” consisted of warnings to Rep. Hope of the political consequences for willingly betraying the grassroots conservative Republicans.  He was told, in no uncertain terms, that he would find reelection to his position, or election to another office, exceedingly difficult to manage as conservatives are not willing to support those who openly betray their oaths of office and the principles that have made the Grand Old Party a strong ally of liberty.  One might argue that both the “carrot” and the “stick” are needed to persuade politicians to do the right thing.

There’s an old adage:  “When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest!” It remains to be seen which of these two paths Rep. Hope will take in the end, but whether we have succeed in persuading him or simply caused him to show his true colors, putting on the pressure was worth it.  The test is a good one for all politicians. Rep. Walsh took the right path.  Other politicians are taking notice of what is happening and what will happen with Rep. Hope’s political career.  This whole controversy is a useful lesson for all political activists.  It’s certain that no strategy is 100% effective, and it would be unwise to think that any politician can be corrected 100% of the time.  That being said, a healthy skepticism should be maintained regarding our elected officials, even when they are from our own party.  Constant vigilance must be maintained in defense of our rights.  Politicians respond to pressure and it’s time for conservative activists to use it in their own party.

There has been further controversy surrounding this bill, as substitute bills have been introduced and withdrawn, leaving many folks confused as to which bill was actually voted on and approved by the House Judiciary Committee.  The version that did, in fact, pass the Judiciary Committee is the first substitute bill that can be read here.

Today Rep. Hope released a video defending this bill.  In the video, Rep. Hope tells us that this bill exempts non-profit groups and gifts to family members, but the bill that he voted in favor of in committee does not contain any such language!  Rep. Hope asks us all to ignore those who “spread misinformation” about HB 1588, and I wonder, does he include himself in that?  Rep. Hope apparently either hasn’t read this bill or is trying to mislead the public regarding it.

To contrast Rep. Hope’s spin on HB 1588, here is a Legislative Update from Rep. Matt Shea (R, LD 4).

Please continue to call and email your legislators asking them to not support this bill, and while you’re at it, contact Rep. Hope and ask him to honor his oath of office by supporting the Constitutions of the United States and of Washington State.

Representative Hope can be reached via email or telephone:

mike.hope@leg.wa.gov

(360) 786-7892

Toll-free: (800) 562-600