Source
r/WA_guns•
bdnicho

I-591 & I-594 Elections Results Thread

Below are links to the official elections results pages. No info yet, the polls are still open until 8:00PM.

I-591: Overall | By county

I-594: Overall | By county

Edit: Polls are closed! Results will be officially certified by each county by November 25th, and the final results will be certified by the Secretary of State by December 4th. However, we should have a pretty good idea how things went over the next few days.

Update - 11/4 8:30 PM: Early counts have 591 (45% Yes - 55% No) and 594 (60% Yes - 40% No)

Update - 11/5 11:15 AM: Results are holding steadily and the count has slowed to a trickle. It's likely the vast majority of the ballots have been counted and we're just waiting for small numbers of ballots to trickle in.

Posted Nov 5, 2014, 12:14 AM UTC · edited

24156
Big_J•

AAAnnnnddd we're fucked.

20
DasUberSquidgatgatgatgat•

Our only hope is the NRA suing.

I don't like having to rely on them to sue.

4
MaximusNerdius45 Longslide with laser sights•

I wonder if the 2a foundation has anything in the works legal wise. I'd hope having them HQ'd in Bellevue they would have all sorts of legal challenges lined up.

2
DasUberSquidgatgatgatgat•

I'd hope so. I imagine they'd want to coordinate with the other 2A guys. One good sue is better than 3 or 4 mediocre ones.

4
CecilArongoSpokanistan•

I think they plan to. I don't like relying on it either, but I think that's why they didn't spend a lot on 594 itself.

Suing and winning could be better for the bigger picture nationwide though.

1
CubanMissileCrisis•

Why would they spend money on an initiative that was backed by billionaires and was a losing battle to begin with?

They pick and choose their battles, and this was a losing battle.

We hope now that this thing gets challenged in the courts.

If not, get ready for registration and bans.

4
DasUberSquidgatgatgatgat•

That's exactly what I was thinking. You can't take Bloomberg head-on or the hard-left bitches about "buying elections". I don't think it'll go much farther, but I tend towards optimism.

5
GoopyBootsYakima Valley•

It would have been a waste of money to try and fight it effectively.

Hopefully there will be a couple of good lawsuits.

1
for_no_rasin•

Yup.

3
moktor•

Roger.

2
Newrad0603•

Man King county drank the 594 Kool-Aid like the Peoples Temple cultists. 75/25 in favor, ouch.

10
Big_J•

Welcome to the epicenter of Pugetopolis...

5
mikaelfivel•

It's easy to see why, given that - what was it, $9mil of out-of-state funding? - and cheap marketing gimmicks (gunshow 'loophole') sell easy.

4
bdnichoOP•

Welp, looks like 594 is going to pass and 591 is going to fail, barring any dramatic swings in the remaining counts. This would mean no court battle between the opposing provisions of the bill, and that 594 would be passed as is.

Please remember that this was passed by a majority of the people and respect that it is law. While we may oppose it and be disappointed by the result, don't use that as an excuse to be an ass. We are quite fortunate to have an initiative system, and, who knows, maybe down the road we'll get an initiative to repeal 594.

In the meantime, stay safe and comply with the law.

8
CubanMissileCrisis•

Will not comply. Period.

10
raffastafarian•

Yeah but, jail time tho. Is your family on board with this plan?

Also, how does disobeying the law help to reinforce that we're law-abiding gun owners?

6
CubanMissileCrisis•

Your comment reinforces why we are losing the gun rights battle in this state.

Did you vote for 594?

-1
raffastafarian•

Tough talk on the interwebs isn't enough to convince me that breaking firearms trafficking laws is either a good idea or an effective form of civil disobedience.

"Hey America! We are gun owners and we break laws that we don't agree with!" = not a position I endorse.

Also: I voted no on both of them.

2
Gun_Defender•

There is no way to enforce this law, no jail time will be awaiting someone who chooses to sell a gun to another person without a background check. Only two people will know, and there is no need to exchange names.

-4
SpecialAgentSmecker•

Trust me, if they want to start dropping hammers on folks, they'll succeed. I'd put decent money that at least a few cops start offering face-to-face sales to see who bites.

2
raffastafarian•

I don't buy prostitutes online because the risk of it being a trap isn't worth the jail time. Same mentality applies here.

Heck, the first time I sold a gun online the buyer was a Sherrifs officer. LEOs are often gun enthusiasts. The private sales market is teeming with LEOs, making disobeying this law statistically more risky than buying drugs or a prostitute.

1
bdnichoOP•

And that's the kind of response that hurts the cause.

3
CubanMissileCrisis•

Please, the reason were in this predicament is because gun owners in this state don't have a back bone. I guarantee you there were plenty of gun owners who voted yes for this initiative. Fucking fudds.

You don't comply because "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

15
bdnichoOP•

So challenge it in court (or support those who will). But keep in mind that disobeying laws can result in the loss of rights, so you'll have to decide what's more important and weigh the risks.

4
guardpost•

Civil disobedience is not a bad response. The only bad response is resorting to violence.

9
bdnichoOP•

It has its place, for sure, and has been successful at various times in history. But it relies on showing people how it burdens the affected persons to change society. That is, when people start actively seeing others being repressed they slowly start changing their minds. I doubt ignoring this law would have that effect since it'd be behind closed doors. Two people meet up, exchange cash for gun, and walk away. Who's there to witness? What struggle is there to to make society reconsider?

2
BlueFalconNation•

Fuck them.

4
awex14•

I feel like the initiative system undermines government and encourages bloomy to buy and pass misleading laws.... But that's just me.

2
bdnichoOP•

If we didn't have an initiative system we'd just have legislators that are bought by lobbyists anyway (look at federal congress). The initiative process at least puts the voting process directly in the hands of the voters. We can vote in or repeal laws very quickly, without having to wait for legislative election cycles where incumbents have a very strong advantage.

1
awex14•

At least they're lawyers. If they pass crap like this, they know it and the opposition knows it. Most people who voted on 594 probably think they can still go to a gun range with friends and shoot their guns. I feel like putting things in the hands of the uninformed, lazy, and stupid masses is worse than a few malicious politicians.

1
bdnichoOP•

Lawyers specialize in certain areas. Very few are firearms law experts. But, I respect your opinion. I, for one, am glad we have the initiative system. I don't see gay marriage passing through the legislature quite yet, for example, but the general populace (at least those that voted), clearly supported it.

Most people who voted on 594 probably think they can still go to a gun range with friends and shoot their guns.

You probably still can. The language is a bit vague, so I won't say for certain, but handing a gun to your buddy at the range is most likely not a transfer as it doesn't involve "intended delivery", or an exchange of ownership. However, the possibility exists that it could be interpreted differently, so I understand your caution.

-1
slavik262•

this was passed by a majority of the people and respect that it is law

Just because a majority of idiots passed it doesn't make it right or just. I'll follow it so I don't go to jail, but you can't ask for much more.

-3
trashythrow•

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson

I'm not saying I will or won't follow the law. I'm currently looking for work in a state that doesn't have it's head up it's ass. I can't believe a few billionaire's were able to push this through with all its flaws. I guess we circle jerked a bit to much. I tried reaching out but now I wish I had done more.

8
slavik262•

Eh, you can't be too hard on yourself. You did more than zero effort, which is more than can be said of most people. And when you're having Gates and Bloomberg throw millions of dollars into the ring, it's going to be a tough fight no matter what.

3
bdnichoOP•

Yep, I had talked about it with quite a few people I know who all seemed receptive to voting no on 594. Tonight I found out one of those people, my roommate and good friend, didn't even vote. /facepalm

0
raffastafarian•

This is my problem with the initiative process in a nutshell. It undermines representative government by putting things up to majority vote.

49% of humans are below average intelligence. I don't want my laws written by a majority of humans who are responding to how an argument has been spun, rather than its merits.

3
bdnichoOP•

Neither approach is perfect. The initiative process allows the majority, however informed or not they might be, to rule. The representative process allows the vocal minority disproportionate control by forcing politicians to cave to their demands or risk losing elections.

I'm glad we have both, which gives us different avenues of approach.

1
irishink•

Living in Spokane County, we were nearly defeated. Being the "gun nut" county, I knew we were in for trouble from the state wide polls.

7
bdnichoOP•

I'm not sure what you mean, according to this map Spokane County passed 594 55% - 45%. That's not very close. :\

3
CecilArongoSpokanistan•

591 ALSO passed in Spokane County. Barely.

3
bdnichoOP•

Ah, good catch. If only it passed statewide. :(

1
CubanMissileCrisis•

Yet you voted against 591.....

I voted no to both as well...

You seriously have me at a loss for words.

2
irishink•

I did not clarify. I was looking at 591. My apologies. http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/spokane/

2
bdnichoOP•

It's all good!

1
irishink•

Wonder what Idaho land taxes are like....

6
amitymachine•

Cheap.

5
TrikeKid•

IDK, but I do know the land I have in Montana is looking pretty good right now.

4
EpicGuardpew pew•

Doesn't Montana have the big 3 NFA items legalized? That could be good.

2
TrikeKid•

Haven't really looked into the laws, I just know that when you google map my property, other than a shop on the adjacent lot there really aren't any structures or anti-gun hippies for the 15 miles or so between it and town, and I really doubt there's many anti's in Frenchtown, MT.

1
hatesseattletraffic•

Now considering starting up a kitchen table FFL out of protest.

4
SpecialAgentSmecker•

Yea, I'm probably gonna look into this myself. If nothing else, the already god-awful system is going to need more FFLs to pick up the new load.

2
bdnichoOP•

I'd certainly support that. Whereabouts are you located, roughly?

1
hatesseattletraffic•

Right near downtown Seattle.

There's probably zoning to make this less than possible :(

3
bdnichoOP•

Ah shit. Well, if you do get it up and running let me know and I'll stop by sometime. I live in Olympia but come up that way about once or twice a month.

1
raffastafarian•

How hard is it to get an FFL? This sounds like a good idea.

1
hatesseattletraffic•

$200 for just that license, plus a state license, plus city/state business license, plus a county license. All of those cost a fair bit of money and I don't yet know what order to obtain them in.

The ATF now has the opportunity to make one unannounced visit per year.

2
bdnichoOP•

Don't forget the record keeping requirements and that the ATF does not take kindly to people using their FFL solely for personal purposes. If you are not running a business don't expect to keep your license.

1
chattytrout•

When can we expect final results?

3
bdnichoOP•

Each county certifies results by Nov. 25th. The Secretary of State certifies final results by Dec. 4th. But, barring a really close vote count or forced recounts, we should have a good idea by the end of the week, if not sooner.

4
calis•

While I thought it was pretty awesome being able to vote in the middle of the night by dropping my ballot in the box (originally from Indiana, all voting was in person unless you had a really good excuse), I realized that this will require a huge effort to tally the votes.

These two measures are the only thing that made me bother this time. On my ballet the only people running against each other were from the same party, everyone else was unopposed.

3
bdnichoOP•

In local elections I've noticed party doesn't mean as much and candidates from the same party can have significantly different views. It can be difficult finding this information, though, since local candidates don't usually have very informative websites.

5
Kitchen_Duty•

When does 594 go into effect?

3
bdnichoOP•

I believe it's the day the Secretary of State certifies it, which would be 30 days after the election -- December 4th, 2014.

2
vatothe0•

I got some guns to go buy

3
totes_meta_bot•

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.

-3
inEffectedBeretta 92fs Inox / Bersa Thunder .380 CC•

Pretty fucking disgraced to be a Spokanite right now

3
BlueFalconNation•

Start singin' it..

2
dimcoin•

YOU STILL HAVE AN HOUR, GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!

2
ReReDRock1039•

We gave them their weed. Why can't they let us keep our guns?

2
bdnichoOP•

Nobody is taking your guns. If you were eligible to possess before 594 then you still are afterwards, you just have to prove it on private sales now too. You can argue that the checks are frivolous or wasteful or a hindrance, but 594 doesn't actually change eligibility requirements for ownership or possession. Acquisition procedure has changed, but, again, if you were not prohibited before you're not prohibited after.

2
EpicGuardpew pew•

Let's do some market math:

Increasing barrier to entry of supply through regulation of private sales = decrease in supply. Decrease in supply = Supply minus X, supply being "our guns" and X being the level to which regulation has impeded private transfers. "Our guns" have been mathematically reduced by a value not zero, increasing in size with relation to the scope of "our guns" as compared to X.

ie: if you believe the ability to lend a rifle to a friend for his hunting trip without involving the government falls into "our guns", X (regulation on private transfers) has a larger effect.

Our guns are being taken away.

3
bdnichoOP•

I agree the barrier to entry has been increased by 594 and that could potentially discourage some people. However, I doubt 594 will stop anyone who really wants one and isn't prohibited.

I just disagree with the "they're taking our guns" terminology. It overly simplifies the issue and is inaccurate.

0
EpicGuardpew pew•

However, I doubt 594 will stop anyone who really wants one and isn't prohibited.

Well that's true, since it won't even stop people who are prohibited...unless you think the threat of a misdemeanor for the transfer will deter a prohibited person who's already risking 10 years in prison for just having the gun.

2
mclumber1•

Background checks on private sales? This bill does much more than that. It calls for background checks on nearly all transfers. The way the law is written, my adult son would have to have a background check performed to hold (yes, simply hold) one of my firearms. How is that reasonable?

2
bdnichoOP•

I agree the bill does much more than background checks and is both purely written and unreasonable. I don't, however, agree that it amounts to taking guns away.

-1
sharkbot•

It's a step in the that direction, another 'compromise'. But to the anti gun side compromise mean "I get what I want and fuck you."

They just took another slice of cake, we were told we could keep our cake, but the cake was a lie.

1
Keruki•

Man, fuck king county! All you have to do is get all the granola hippies afraid of any type of defense weapon and people who are too much of idiots to actually look into what they're voting for, and you've basically won the whole state.

2
antoinebugleboy•

Time to get that CHL I've been putting off. Skate through that background check.

1
bdnichoOP•

A CPL won't let you skip the background check. It just lets you leave with the pistol that day instead of having to wait for either the 5 (now 10) days window or the law enforcement approval. It has no effect on the sales of long guns, which you can leave with following the NICS check.

4
antoinebugleboy•

Am I misunderstanding what I'm reading here, then?

https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/permanent-brady-permit-chart

Permanent Brady Permit Chart

Prepared by: ATF Office of Enforcement Programs and Services.

Last updated: June 10, 2014

Note: Notwithstanding the dates set forth below, permits qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for no more than 5 years from the date of issuance. The permit must be valid under State law in order to qualify as a Brady alternative.

Washington Concealed pistol license issued on or after July 22, 2011 qualify.

Also, this:

https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/1998/10/103098-openletter-ffl-washington-brady-law.html

1
bdnichoOP•

The feds accept either a NICS check or a concealed carry permit in its place. WA elected not to follow the second option and still requires the NICS check.

4
antoinebugleboy•

I thought I might have misread, but the guys on this message board seem to be reading the law as stated in the ATF site the same way I am. I.e., if the CPL was issued on or after 7/22/11, you don't need a background check.

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/are-new-wa-ccw-permits-now-nics-exempt-or.71026/

EDIT: I read a little bit further, and found some contradicting information, which supports what you're saying:

I found the answer. I contacted the WA Dept. of Licensing about the NICS Exemption for WA CPL holders permits issued on or after 7/22/11.

Basically WA State has aligned its criteria with the Federal ATF standards for issuance of a WA CPL based on the Federal Firearms Prohibited Person criteria. Before this WA issuance of a CPL did not meet all of the same criteria as Federal Law so someone prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm may have still been able to obtain a WA CPL permit, not anymore.

So, based on that change by WA State the ATF sent an open letter to all WA FFL’s stating that WA CPL’s issued on or after 7/22/11 are now exempt from NICS background checks for firearms purchases, BUT that’s not the end of the story.

WA law has to be updated to allow this exemption to be used so even though new permits qualify for NICS exemption all WA CPL’s holders will still receive the NICS background check for every firearms purchase from WA FFL’s until WA law is changed.

2
trashythrow•

Per 594 the dealer conducting the transfer has to take the weapon if it is a pistol into their inventory and conduct the background check as if it was one of their firearms. Per another state law all second hand goods have to be put on a 10 day hold to make sure they aren't stolen. CPL (concealed pistol license) as its known in WA would have no effect on background check waiting.

CHL is what Oregon and probably other states call theirs.

1
Redeemed-Assassin•

Wait, so you're saying that if two people go to transfer a gun, it has to go to the dealer, then have a 10 day wait, THEN it gets given to the buyer? Because I know that the second hand goods law didn't apply to games when I worked at Gamestop. I think that may be a county by county thing. Either way, if that's the case, it could constitute an unconstitutional burden like the previous waiting periods in other states.

2
bdnichoOP•

No, he's wrong. If you have your CPL you don't have to wait for the local law enforcement check. You still have to spend the 5 minutes on the NICS check, though.

3
Redeemed-Assassin•

I have my CPL, I'm aware I don't have to wait for thew LEO handgun check. My question related to the idea of "second hand goods", which in this bill would be a gun being transferred from one person, to a store, and then to it's new owner, the buyer from the original person, and if that would force a 10 day waiting period to ensure the firearm was not stolen. Sorry, that's a hell of a long sentence. The person above mentioned that under the new bill, firearms would have to be taken in to the store transferring them as if they were inventory. That would be what causes the cluster fuck here, if it's true. I don't recall seeing that language in the bill though, but who the fuck knows with how poorly it was written.

2
sharkbot•

Like I said in my other reply to you thanks. I'm OK with this portion of it, another NICS check when I buy a pistol even though I have a CPL is not a big deal to me. I had to do that when I bought my rifle lower even though I had my CPL (which duh it's for pistols).

Like you said in another response, it's the rest of the bill wording that made me vote no really.

1
sharkbot•

When my father-in-law bought a used shotgun that had just come into the FFL dealer as second hand, they made him wait 30 days.

1
bdnichoOP•

Yeah because it was being sold second hand. For a private sale the bill explicitly says it operates as if the dealer was seeking from its own inventory. That strongly suggests it isn't "second hand" to me.

1
bdnichoOP•

Per 594 the dealer conducting the transfer has to take the weapon if it is a pistol into their inventory and conduct the background check as if it was one of their firearms. Per another state law all second hand goods have to be put on a 10 day hold to make sure they aren't stolen. CPL (concealed pistol license) as its known in WA would have no effect on background check waiting.

You are wrong. 594 requires the pistol to be delivered to the dealer and processed as though it came from their own inventory. Thus:

Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license ...

(b) The dealer is notified in writing ... that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff;

or (c) The requirements or time periods in section 4 of this act have been satisfied [ the 10 day waiting period]

As soon as one of A or B or C is satisfied the dealer can deliver the pistol. Thus, a valid CPL let's you skip the weight.

The other law you're referencing is probably a pawn broker regulation which wouldn't apply here.

2
sharkbot•

As soon as one of A or B or C is satisfied the dealer can deliver the pistol.

Thanks, I was re-reading the initiative earlier and wasn't sure about that, if it took just one of those conditions or all of them. So CPL still works like it did before 594 then it sounds.

2
bdnichoOP•

Yeah it's hard to see in the bill because it gets lost in the text, but there's a critical OR before item C.

I like the approach I saw somewhere else that was more or less like this:

In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until the earlier of

1
antoinebugleboy•

I'm going by what I read here:

http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_(2014)

Federal law also requires background checks on potential buyers of firearms. This federal requirement applies only when the seller is a firearms dealer. Unlike Washington law, the federal requirement applies to all types of firearms, not just pistols. Federal law does not require a background check if the buyer holds a concealed pistol license.

1
bdnichoOP•

WA state law does, though, and will continue to require one with 594.

3
antoinebugleboy•

Based on further research--wow there's a lot of confusion out there--I think you're right.

Still, if it'll save me a waiting period, and because I've been meaning to get one anyway, I'll still proceed with applying for a CPL.

2
englishmuff•

Is gun registration required in Washington?

If not, then how can they enforce background checks on private sales?

If they don't know what guns are in who's possession before the initiative was passed, how can they know that you didn't get the gun before the initiative was passed?

For example, let's say I sell a gun to a friend. We ignore the background check. How does anyone know that the "transfer" ever occurred? Seems like this law should just be ignored.

1
bdnichoOP•

Is gun registration required in Washington?

Yes, and no. You don't have to register your guns, but pistol sales from dealers are reported to the Department of Licensing who maintains a database. 594 will force private sales to report as well, since private sales must now go through a dealer.

In addition, all dealers must keep a record of every gun transfer they conduct per federal law. This information is stored in the dealer's bound book and not sent to a centralized database. It allows law enforcement to see a record of the exchange of ownership without having the ability to leverage and abuse a central database.

If not, then how can they enforce background checks on private sales?

Retroactively. There's nothing that will prevent it from happening other than the fear of being prosecuted later.

If they don't know what guns are in who's possession before the initiative was passed, how can they know that you didn't get the gun before the initiative was passed?

They couldn't.

For example, let's say I sell a gun to a friend. We ignore the background check. How does anyone know that the "transfer" ever occurred? Seems like this law should just be ignored.

They won't, unless someone slips up and admits it or it is otherwise discovered in an investigation.

1
englishmuff•

That's what I thought. It's a law that only the law abiding will follow. It will do nothing to reduce crime. It's a feel good law at the expense of law abiding citizens. Personally, I'd just ignore it unless I was selling to a stranger.

1
bdnichoOP•

That's pretty much my assessment of 594 as well and one of the reasons I opposed it. However, I don't agree with ignoring the law, nor do I think it's wise to suggest others do. For one, on a strategic level, it'll be easier to convince the supporters to repeal it if you can say: "See? We tried your way, I complied with it, and it didn't matter" than it will be if you just say "Fuck your law, I ignored it."

1
Shleppy2010•

So correct me if I am wrong but this now means that if I let my girlfriend shoot my guns with me there that we are breaking the law in the state of Washington?

1
bdnichoOP•

Most likely not, but the bill is unclear. It will take a court ruling to say for certain.

Also, there are exemptions for "established ranges", as well as a few other types of activities.

1
Shleppy2010•

The problem with that is that I tend to target practice on my own property or public land, not an "established range".

1
bdnichoOP•

I know. They don't define what qualifies as an established range in the bill, so that, too, requires clarification.

That exemption, however, applies to temporary transfers. As previously mentioned, shooting with your girlfriend probably isn't even a transfer at all, in which case none of 594 would apply.

1
Shleppy2010•

Well we will see what happens in the coming months. I think that they left this way to open to interpretation.

1
UbergopherYakima native living in Portland•

Well, I'm not movin' back to Washington if I can help it. It's sad to see my home state doing this.

Thanks for the effort though guys!

Edit: So I'm reading the actual measure now (I'm not registered to vote in WA anymore so I haven't kept too up to date on it) and I saw this section

"Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail who has, or is required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). A person who does not have, and is not required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a), is not a dealer if that person makes only occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or sells all or part of his or her personal collection of firearms.

Does that mean that the kitchen table/part time FFL businesses are not able to transfer firearms anymore?

0
SpecialAgentSmecker•

I think they'll be fine. The way I read it, if you don't require an FFL for what you do, you're not a dealer by this definition. If you do (like kitchen-table transfer guys), you're considered a dealer.

3
SeahawksClippersBro•

there has to be "lost" ballets somewhere. my hate for californians and seattleites grows stronger.

0
bdnichoOP•

Why does there have to be lost ballots? Public polling has shown majority support for 594 since at least last summer. It's not unexpected it turned out this way, though it is still disappointing.

2
SeahawksClippersBro•

lol maybe we should try and take away their weed and then make a deal.

0