I promised last week that we would look at actions you might take, now, to protect yourself from some of the difficulties and landmines you will experience if Initiative 594 passes in November.

The bottom line is this: not much. Some attorneys around the state are willing to help you set up a family trust, but there is doubt about whether or not such a trust could be established in a timely manner. A street-sense suggestion is that you formally give the firearms away now to those family and friends you wish to have them, then keep the firearms safe for them. Holding on to someone else’s firearms, however, would be an illegal transfer under 594. At the end of every conversation I have had about this is a certainty that—if it passes—594 will end up in court over its re-write of Washington law to make transfer violations the equivalent of “serious crimes” and class C felonies, its consecutive sentence requirements, and its several conflicts with federal law.

In our last episode, I passed along a small handful of the concerns Phil and the Washington Arms Collectors (washingtonarmscollectors.org) have with the initiative. I mentioned that the Council of Police and Sheriffs (www.wacops.org/) had voted in June to oppose Initiative 594.

If you read all 18 pages of the initiative for yourself, you certainly saw that its certified title, below, falls somewhere between misleading and dishonest.

Certified ballot title for Initiative 594:

“This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

“Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]”

As widely publicized, background checks would be required for nearly all sales or transfers. “Transfer,” remember, includes gifts and loans to another—even loaning a rifle to a buddy for test shooting or to replace his or her own disabled firearm. Transfer, under 594, goes far beyond transactions involving a sale or trade…and well beyond just a simple inconvenience for law-abiding citizens supporting the greater good of keeping society safe.

Allow me to pass along a couple more examples of the traps in this initiative—under that phrase “with specific exceptions.” One of these comes from my own experience in Wyoming ten days ago.

Suppose you keep a rifle in your ranch truck and one of your youngsters drives the truck on your property. Under the provisions of 594, you would have both acted illegally unless you were in the truck and the kid was a minor. If not, a dealer with a federal firearms license (FFL) would have to handle a transfer at the beginning and the end of the drive.

Among the five of us who attended the 2014 Antelope and Deer Safari in Wyoming, were buddies Steve Kiesel and Hal Mason. It quickly became obvious that repairs I made a few years ago to my favorite 7mm hunting rifle had come undone. Hal offered me the use of his sweet-shooting .243, as he was using another rifle this year. Steve offered me the use of his .270 as he had already filled his tags with it. I opted to use Steve’s rifle as I was a bit more familiar with it, and headed off on my own to make deer meat.

This exact scenario plays out across the US every hunting season—probably a thousand times. Such a loan is simple courtesy. Under 594, however, that loan would have been an illegal transfer. Even though we were all hunting legally, Hal could not “transfer” his spare rifle to me without an FFL dealer and paperwork. Steve could loan me his rifle without such paperwork, but only if he stayed by my side while I hunted. Thus, under the provisions of 594, we would have broken a part of the law covered by that phrase in the ballot title: “with specific exceptions.”

This week I have heard one person speak of “an epidemic of gun violence” and somewhere in this rag, I saw a reference to the same thing. At some level it comes down the The Old Man’s questions about defining the problem to be solved. Honoring The Old Man’s inquiring mind, we might think about where such an epidemic exists and how this initiative is going to solve that “epidemic.” It’s a bit over the top, but this seems akin to quarantining Ellensburg residents to stop the terrifying spread of ebola in West Africa. We will soon look at existing firearms rules and such “epidemics.”

Explore this for yourself. Read Initiative 594 and debate “analysis” of it next Tuesday, 6 p.m. at the Hal Holmes Center. A variety of folks who have carefully studied the initiative, including representatives of the National Rifle Association, will be there. Bring your views and let’s talk.

Ballot Inititiative 594 is a Trojan Horse. It will significantly alter the way you, your family and your friends use and enjoy your firearms. It will also, in my view, seriously impact your ability to keep and bear arms. Contact every person you know—especially on the West Side—and ask them to read the whole text. Then ask if that is the future they truly would like to see. If not, they must vote against 594 and in favor of 591.

Last week, I passed along the ballot titles for our opposing firearm initives. I also suggested that you read the full text of each. Again, the titles below are all you will see on your ballot.

Certified ballot title for Initiative 591:

“This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.

“Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]”

Certified ballot title for Initiative 594:

“This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

“Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]”

591 covers less than a page and its ballot title accurately reflects its text and intention. 594, on the other hand, covers 18 pages and its ballot title is misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

You will note that some very wealthy and influential people are supporting 594. You will also hear that a few high-profile law enforcement officials think it is a good idea. I would encourage you to consider that the membership of The Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs voted, on June 27, to support Inititative 591 and oppose Initiative 594. The Council (www.wacops.org/) is fifty years old, and has some 4,300 members.

Phil Shave is Executive Director of the Washington Arms Collectors (washingtonarmscollectors.org). The group organized in 1952 and today has more than 17,000 active members. Phil put together a several-page fact sheet addressing the ways in which 594 will impact our lives, should it pass. I have read the full text of the initiative, and I would not argue with any of his points. Almost all of his concerns fall within the catch-all phrase at the end of the ballot title, above, “…with specific exceptions.” Let me pass along a mere handful of Phil’s concerns. Find the text of 594 online and read it for yourself.

Background checks would be required for all sales or transfers. “Transfer” includes gifts and loans to another person—even a loan lasting less than two minutes. This goes far beyond transactions involving a sale for money or a trade for goods.

Gifts are only exempted if they are to immediate family members—my son-in-law is not an immediate family member.

There is significant paperwork involved with any transfer. This includes loan of a rifle or shotgun to a buddy or non-immediate family member. Many of the transactions must go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, and there will be new costs whether you sell a firearm or give it to someone outside your immediate family. If you screw up the transfer paperwork more than once, your violations will become class C felonies, which result in loss of your civil rights (such as voting and possessing firearms).

If you and your son or daughter go to a trap range to shoot, and you both use the same shotgun, you are okay unless the kid is over 18. In that case, you will both do something illegal. The same is true if one of your buddies comes along and shoots the gun.

Most adult handgun or firearms safety training classes would be breaking the law simply because of the passing of a training firearm from person to person.

If you hand off a firearm to a buddy to drop off for repair or even stock refinishing, you will both have committed a crime.

Even if your under-eighteen kids have completed their hunter safety training and have years of hunting experience with your firearms, they must be under your direct supervision while hunting. If not, you have each committed a crime.

Word is that 594 is not a firearms registration law. Question: Where does all that paperwork go?

And the list goes on. And on. And on…

Oh, by the way, did I mention that, in the 18 pages of text for 594, at least three pages have to do with taxes related in one way or another to the firearms transfers and background checks?

And in the midst of this mind-boggling reading, I kept asking myself a paraphrase of one of The Old Man’s questions: “What is the real problem to be solved here, and how in hell is this 18 page mess going to solve it?”

Next week, a look at your options, if you think you want to protect yourself and your family from the problems 594 will bring, if passed.

Ballot Inititiative 594 is a Trojan Horse. It will significantly alter the way you, your family and your friends use and enjoy your firearms. It will also, in my view, seriously impact your ability to keep and bear arms. Contact every person you know—especially on the West Side—and ask them to read the whole text. Then ask if that is the future they truly would like to see. If not, they must vote against 594 and in favor of 591.

Monday evening. Another far-off-Reecer Creek meeting of the Reecer Creek Rod, Gun, Working Dog & Outdoor Think Tank Benevolent Association. This one with a group of Columbia River homeys gathered along the Deep River not far from Cathlamet, Washington. The gathering was in celebration of one of the limited number of nights during which said homeys might take set their nets for a commercial harvest of coho and Chinook salmon.

The nets could go out only after 7 p.m. and had to be reeled back into the boat by 7 a.m. I was onsite for my annual overnight helping buddy Steve Souvenir set and retrieve his 90 fathom (about 540 foot) gill net. This time around, we were joined by Steve’s stepson, Jarrett, who fairly regularly helps Steve handle the net.

Immediately after 7, we set the net. Six-inch wooden floats, every few feet, kept the top line of the net at the surface, while the lead line – and a few anchors – held the net more or less taut in the slow-moving stream. Once the flashing beacons were activated at both ends of the net, we returned to the dock and watched the floats. The whole thing reminded me of bobber fishing – each time a salmon hit the net, a float would splash and dive momentarily.

At dark, we reassembled on the dock for a confab. Bill, Cody, Jeff, Gordie, Steve and Jarrett and I shared a community take-out dinner, compliments of Steve, and conversation about fishing, small-scale gill netting, and hunting. Scattered through the next hour or so was a question or two about firearms and the furor around proposed new rules.

I asked a couple of the Oregon guys about firearms initiatives on their ballot for this fall. “Nah,” one said, “our legislature squashed a bunch of that over the last couple years, so we won’t be voting on any gun stuff, like you Washington guys… At least for now.” The other just looked at me and said, “It doesn’t matter what they do, anyway. The will never get my guns.”

There seems to be no shortage of folks who feel that way across the country. I don’t really want to think about what would happen if there was a real effort to confiscate firearms in the US. Be that as it may, however, we keep dealing with one initiative after another to somehow control access to, and ownership of, firearms. For me, it keeps coming back to The Old Man’s questions – the ones we looked at three weeks ago – “So, what is the problem to be solved by this brilliant solution?” and “How in hell does this solve that ‘problem?’”

As I have mentioned, my father (he called himself The Old Man from about age 26) had a finely tuned BS sensor. I can just hear him now expounding on one of his pet peeves. It irked him that people often didn’t consider whether their solutions would actually solve some perceived problem, they just had to “do something.” The most dangerous ones, he figured, were the ones with enough money to “stir up enough muck that nobody else could see the issue clearly enough to deal with it in a way that mattered.”

Our two initiatives are competing: Initiative 591 would prevent the state from adding requirements without a uniform national standard and Initiative 594 will require background checks for a wide array of firearm transfers and loans.

I will spend next week – and more – on these initiatives. Do your homework and see through the muck; read the complete text of each. The text for 591 is on one page, and that for 594 covers 18 pages. Google “Washington initiative 594” and “Washington initiative 591,” and click on the Ballotpedia site (easiest for finding the text and discussion, I think). After that, consider the titles, below, on which you will vote in November.

Certified ballot title for Initiative 591:

“This measure would prohibit government agencies from confiscating guns or other firearms from citizens without due process, or from requiring background checks on firearm recipients unless a uniform national standard is required.

“Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]”

Certified ballot title for Initiative 594:

“This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.

“Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]”

Somewhere in there, you might consider the question “What is the real problem to be solved?”

Oh, yeah. We pulled nets about 3 a.m. Tuesday. The fish were abundant and all netters had a good harvest. We packed them on ice, sent them off to the cannery with Bill, and were having breakfast just after dawn.

On my way out of Clatskanie, I picked a couple gallons of marble sized fruit at the Blueberry Farm. On the drive home, I kept thinking about society’s problems and voting and mass wisdom.

It seemed like a more or less typical late summer two-day adventure.

We spent the better part of another Labor Day Weekend in Ilwaco, just north of the mouth of the Columbia. There, we sat around a campfire meditating upon our Monday trip to chase albacore tuna, aka ocean torpedoes, across the Pacific.

This was my third Labor Day in a row in Ilwaco. As I watched all the families on Long Beach playing and laughting and fishing, I realized that this is about family for me, too. Around the campfire over these three 0years have been sons and sons-in-law and daughters and wives and fiances and men I call brother. Somewhere in there, it struck me that this “family” connection with fishing and Ilwaco has been in place for more than four decades, dating back to when my father – The Old Man – and his sons and grandkids chased salmon here.

In early summer of 1975, eleven of us made our last annual salmon pilgrimage to Ilwaco. We had pretty much grown up on salmon, and we loved these trips. Sadly, The Old Man’s health took a tumble in the following year and I think we just never had a heart for making the pilgrimage without him. At any rate, that was a special trip.

The Old Man always wanted a pool. It would spice up our fishing, he insisted. Ten-year-old Tim had an unusual level of confidence that year, and confided to me that it seemed unfair for us to put money in the pool when we already knew we were going to win. I agreed with him that it was probably unfair, and dropped our three bucks apiece in the hat – one dollar for the family’s first salmon, one for the biggest and one for the most caught.

As it turned out, we caught our limits (two apiece, as I recall) and laughed our way around the big water. Everybody managed to catch at least one salmon. Tim caught the first fish and the largest fish of the day, and I caught the most. Back on the docks, as we counted out our winnings, Tim smiled. “They always have to have a pot… They’re gonna wanna play poker tonite to get even, too, I betcha.” As I recall, Tim and I took those pots, too. It was high family times.

So, here we were on Labor Day, last Monday, climbing aboard the Katie Marie. 3:20 a.m. Captain Rob Gudgell, the tuna whisperer, Deckhand Brian, aka Mongo, and ten fishers. I was joined by son Edward, who flew in from Colorado, buddy Bruce Sievertson, who drove up from California, Boyfriend-in-law (one day, perhaps, a son-in-law) Brian Smith and a couple of his homeys, James and Tom O’Grady. Another family group filled our party of ten.

Captain Rob reviewed safety issues and we settled how the fish – if we caught any – were to be divided among fishers. Then there was his serious reminder. We who’d been on Cap’s Katie Marie before knew what was coming, but the newbies needed to hear it; his admission of passion for finding and catching fish, and an admonition to not take personally anything he might say in the midst of fishing chaos. That said, we headed onto the smoothest Pacific I have seen in decades.

At a spot teeming with gulls and baitfish, Cap began a seminar on how to catch tuna. He baited with an anchovie, dropped it into the water and watched is swim slowly away from the boat. As he explained his counting system, and was about to explain how to coordinate with other fishers around the boat, a large tuna grabbed his bait and headed toward Japan. At that moment, our seminar became OJT – on-the-job training. Organized chaos ensued.

Cap or Mongo would skillfully hook a live anchovy, and it would swim away as the fisher stripped line. As a fisher focused, they repeated coaching: “One… Two… Three… Four… Five… Now drop the drag! Six… Seven… Tighten it! Eight… Nine… Ten! There it is! Don’t lose this one!” Then to the next tuna wrangler, continuing the mission to welcome tuna aboard the Katie Marie.

Cap circulated with live anchovies, cajoling and pleading. “Watch your lines! Follow your fish – wherever it goes, go with it! Go under him! Now go over her! Come on people, pay attention! Talk to each other! No tangles! Don’t let anybody cut your line! Get ‘em on deck, bait up and get back out there! Hey, no slack line! No bird nests! Pay attention guys! Over! Under!” Thus we filled the next 45 minutes in arm-wrenching struggles with 20- to 30-pound ocean torpedoes.

And then it stopped. Over the next hours, Captain Rob found a few small schools of tuna. We picked up a fish or two from each, but it was as if the tuna had left the ocean.

By late afternoon, as the Katie Marie turned toward port, we figured that our ice bins held 21 fish – a bit over two fish per fisher. The boat returning to port ahead of us reported a total catch of two tuna, a story repeated by others returning that day.

Somewhere in that journey home, it was reported that the tuna had gone to 300 feet and were feasting on squid. I could see the wheels turning in Cap’s head. This is they guy who brought tuna success to Ilwaco with live anchovies. He will solve the squid problem, too.

I booked the whole boat for a date on Labor Day Weekend, 2015; for family and fun and fish.