Over 1,000 Just Gathered for the Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally in US History


“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.”  “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”

Olympia, WA — Over the weekend the largest felony civil disobedience rally ever held in American history took place. It is estimated that anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 well armed gun owners showed up to the state capital in Olympia to openly violate the unconstitutional gun law, i594. 

The event’s organizer, who frequently appears on the Free Thought Project, Gavin Seim, made the extraordinary nature of the rally very clear,

“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.”

On his website Seim explains the ominous nature of the legislation:

On Nov 4th 2014 a piece of legislation called i594 passed in Washington State (read text). It will make so much as handing a gun to a friend a felony. While this started here in Washington, it was funded by big out of State money and you are next.

Seim goes on to emphasize the importance of this day of resistance:

This stand is about all of America. It’s about public officials deciding if they will keep their oath, or support tyranny. It’s about us deciding if we will stand or allow liberty to be lost.

On Dec 13th we gather for the largest Felony civil disobedience rally in American history. Thousands are coming to stand at the capital in Olympia. This is not simply a protest. We will openly exchange, buy and sell and trade guns and start a plan to break apart this legislation and violate i594 in every possible way. Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!

We the people will not tolerate this law. We will not bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, we will stand for the liberty of our children? We’re not waiting for politicians, judges or lawyers. Our birthright is NOT to be touched. We gather and we will affirm that liberty.

Original RSVP’s grew to over 6,000, so police decided that it would be in their best interests not to enforce the law. The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging guns – not even for selling guns.

READ MORE:  Violent Government Has Awakened a Sleeping Monster: War Zone Erupts in Berkeley, #Ferguson Rally

Like the professional liberty flexing guru that he is, Seim refused to even obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing the right of people to peaceably assemble.

The sheer number of people that showed up, along with the attendance of lawmakers and even law enforcement, made this event hard to dismiss as a fringe group of people, “clinging to their guns.”

Despite there being over a thousand loaded weapons, the protest went off without incident. Washington State Trooper Guy Gill predicted beforehand, “Most of these folks are responsible gun owners. We probably will not have an issue.”

According to Townhall.com Another rally in Olympia is planned for January 15, and another one in Spokane on December 20. The Second Amendment Foundation, headquartered in Bellevue, intends to sue the state over I-594, and will be lobbying the legislature to get the law changed or repealed.

We commend Gav Seim’s efforts to organize such an amazingly powerful and effective protest. This is how change is sought, and made.

  • dave

    How embarrassing that this bullshit is going on in my state. We have a handful of wimp-ass conservatives in Washington who want to ruin things for all the adults in the state.

    • idiots

      “We have a handful of wimp-ass conservatives in Washington who want to ruin things for all the adults in the state.”

      Tell that to the wimp-ass Sons of Liberty in Boston, 1773.

      • dave

        Well, your username describes you well. You see no difference, you pea-brain? None at all? Or are you just another conservative wimp bed-wetter?

        • idiots

          No, no difference at all. Please explain, rather than hurl insults.

          Many people back then did not want to fight the British tyranny (modern day, you). They rebelled against taxation without representation which helped lead to the American Revolution. If you were alive then, you would be calling them pansies as well.

          So, please explain where these people are wrong in protesting against unconstitutional laws. These people who are standing up against unconstitutional laws are no different whatsoever than the Sons of Liberty. Well, accept in one area. These guys have not destroyed any property.

          So, try and calm down. Now explain yourself, if you can.

          • dave

            The fact that your pea-brain cannot comprehend the difference does not make the difference less obvious.

            You have no comprehension of taxation without representation, apparently.

            The residents of Washington had a vote, and we passed the law. Every adult resident of Washington was sent a ballot, and we all had the chance to fill that ballot out, sign it, and send it back in, postage-free. WE voted for this law. Those who were eligible and did not vote get no say. Those who voted and lost have to deal with the democratic form of government.

            The “unconstitutional law” of which you speak IS constitutional, ignoramus. These people are immature wimpy fearful conservatives who had their day at the “voting booth” and lost.

            So now that YOU have shown your incredible ignorance, and I have explained to you the difference, maybe you can stop your bed-wetting.

          • idiots


            The Sons of Liberty rebelled for what was at the time a huge issue, Taxation without representation. If you knew history you would know that the colonist had to deal with tyranny for hundreds of years before the Boston tea party. This is why they demanded representation. The sons of liberty finally had enough and they rebelled. The issue is irrelevant. Freedom is what was ultimately the factor.

            I gave you an example of Patriots who stood against tyranny and with your mentality you would have called them children for not complying. But your little brain could only focus on what the issue was that they were protesting. You cannot comprehend that FREEDOM is the ultimate reason.

            “The residents of Washington had a vote, and we passed the law. Every adult resident of Washington was sent a ballot, and we all had the chance to fill that ballot out, sign it, and send it back in, postage-free. WE voted for this law.”

            With this statement you have shown that you have absolutely no understanding of what a constitutional republic is. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

            Having to get a permit to peaceably assemble IS unconstitutional. I dont care if a majority of the people voted that you have to get a permit.

            Not being able to sell your gun without government approval IS unconstitutional. Having to get a permit to carry a gun IS unconstitutional. I DONT CARE IF THE MAJORITY VOTED FOR IT.

            Do you comprehend yet? Or, would you like to try and win an argument by name calling like Trump or Hillary does?

          • dave

            Wow, where to begin… your ignorance is truly astounding.

            Again, for the slow to learn, the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. Read up on it and learn something.

            You ignorantly compare the Boston Tea Party to a bunch of conservative gun nuts complaining about a law that was voted on by the residents of the state of Washington. There has been no stay of this law by any court.

            You do not understand the United States constitution. Your ignorance of it is clear. You are not free to do whatever you want in this country of laws.

            So, idiots, I will again state that you chose your username correctly. You are an idiot.

            What are you so afraid of?

          • idiots

            The reason why you will never comprehend what the Sons of Liberty was about is because you think Rights are fluid. That they can change as the tide changes.

            Forget the Boston Tea Party. Again, it was ultimately about FREEDOM! The Sons of Liberty secret society was created to help protect the rights of the colonist. To you they would have been called right wing terrorists.

            I only brought up one example in History where a group of people stood up for their rights and you somehow cannot get over the fact that they protested taxation without representation (i.e. Freedom, All rights) while these guys are protesting anti-gun policies (i.e. Freedom, All Rights). FREEDOM and RIGHTS, can you see the correlation yet? Or, are you still stuck on the tea party vs gun rights?

            Rights are absolute, they do not change. This is why we are a Constitutional Republic. The majority cannot vote away the minorities rights.

            You think they can. You think we are a Democracy, and we are not. You think rights can be changed under the guise of “safety”.

            “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin

            You think if we can pass more laws that restrict rights down to a minority of people that somehow criminals will follow them. They are criminals because they don’t care about laws.

            You cannot legislate morality. The founders knew this. That is why the Constitution was formed the way it was. Because humans are inherently evil and because we are an emotional creature. We tend to make decisions based on feelings rather than practicality. So the Constitution was formed to help control our “feelings” and remind us of what is reality.

            Again, we are not a Democracy, as you have stated.

            Rights cannot change. The government does not issue out rights. The voters do not issue out rights. Therefore your rights are absolute and cannot be changed or restricted.

            Because our rights come from Nature and Natures GOD. Only Nature or Natures GOD can take them from us. NOT YOU!

          • KiloWhiskey82nd

            Rights are changed by something called AMENDMENTS. The very word defines itself. If you can’t change an AMENDMENT, you obviously don’t know what the word means. Many of you need dictionaries more than you do constitutions.

          • Angela Perry

            idiots, thank you for so eloquently explaining the obvious stupidity, as well as unconstitutionality, of these and similar laws which have been established as a forethought of our Constitution.
            Your explanation can not be explained any clearer than your following statement “You think if we can pass more laws that restrict rights down to a minority of people that somehow criminals will follow them. They are criminals because they don’t care about laws.”
            For those that don’t understand….when laws are established which take rights away from all citizens, it is only the law-abiding citizens that will suffer. The criminals, for which these laws were created, will continue to obtain and use guns illegally, and thus be unaffected by such laws, because they do not care about laws nor do they abide by the law. This is why they are labeled criminals. Thus, it is only law abiding citizens who will in fact follow these new laws, leaving themselves unprotected from the criminals that will continue to possess and use guns. Anyone who really believes a criminal’s law breaking behavior will cease because a new law was created, is ignorant.

          • NunyaBusiness

            When there is an AMENDMENT PASSES that requires everyone that wants to own a gun get a permit and a background check and register those guns… THEN AND ONLY THEN will laws like those in Washington state be Constitutional.

          • idiots

            Rights cannot be changed. To do so would mean to say that our rights are granted to us by the government.

            By your logic we could add an amendment to the constitution that says, “all people’s whom are of the age of 60 must be euthanized in order to save on healthcare costs.” Thus violating your right to life. But as you have stated, your rights can be changed so that yes you do have a right to life, but only until your 60.

            Your lack of understanding the Constitution and Rights is remarkable.

            Perhaps you should look up the word “unalienable” in your fancy dictionary.

            Then read The Declaration of Independence. After that, you can you can move to the Constitution. After that, you can read the Bill of Rights. After that, you can read the Federalist papers. Then you just might be able to put two and two together.

            After you have read all that and you still feel a little spunky. I recommend you do alot of studying on The Laws of Nature and Natures God.

          • NunyaBusiness

            Any law that violates the Constitution is not legally a law.

          • dave

            Any any legal law obviously does not violate the constitution.

          • NunyaBusiness

            Well aren’t you an idiot savant when it comes to the Constitution… minus the savant part that is.

          • dave

            Prove me wrong, numbskull.

          • NunyaBusiness

            Since you do not, and apparently do not want to, understand plain English it will be difficult, but I will attempt to do so.
            Even if every single citizen in Washington state voted in favor of these laws they would still be unconstitutional. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This law clearly infringes that right, HENCE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
            I know you will continue to declare your idiocy for all to see, but the prior sentences are all that were needed to prove you wrong.

          • dave

            Yeah, see, we are communicating in plain English. Therefore we have proof of both our abilities with English and the fact that we are both literate.

            Until the SCOTUS says the law is unconstitutional, guess what, it IS constitutional. Amazing how that works. And why do you conservative ammosexuals always forget “well regulated”?

            You are an oblivious fool.

      • dave

        You seriously created an account just to make THAT comment?!?

    • Sounds like your politicians are the ones ruining things in your state.

      • dave

        No, the law is a good one.

        • Senya


          • dave

            Why? Because there are lots of people who should not own or handle firearms. This law helps prevent those who should not have firearms from having them.

          • Barkhorn

            Well yes. I get that principle; those who should not have firearms shouldn’t be able to get them.

            But the problem is that this law doesn’t target “those who should not have firearms” as people who own guns generally have their wits about them, and they won’t hand Drunkard McShitFaced a loaded 12-gauge. It’s a law that’s basically a “Oh, you owned a gun? We can claim that you handed a friend a gun at some point after this was passed, and then can throw you in jail for a felony.”

            It’s about a shuffle and an extended pinkie toe away from ‘break down your door and shoot your dog for attempting to overthrow the local government- because you own fertilizer, which while it has legitimate uses such as your tomato plants, could be used as a component in an explosive.” That’s an absurd law, as is this one.

            I didn’t see this ballot- I live in California, was born here after all the gun law bullshit got sent through so I’ve had no say in it. But I assure you, ‘It becomes a felony to hand a friend a firearm’ was not the text on the damned ballot. It was probably dressed up in an amendment to a bill related to school funding or something palatable.

            Once again, I don’t know for certain, correct me if I’m wrong on that (I couldn’t find the ballot online.)

          • dave

            You have a false premise – that gun owners generally have their wits about them. This is a nonsensical statement that can be proven wrong every day in the news.

            And no, there is no law stating that you are considered guilty before innocent when it comes to firearms (only rape victims in our society are considered guilty until proven innocent), so you can stop with your “slippery slope” analogy.

            Face it, firearms are NOT regulated in the US and they are the ONLY consumer product in the US that fit in that category. THAT is absurd! Not the laws to which you refer. Too many people with too many firearms is MUCH more dangerous than that same amount of people without firearms.

          • randomguy

            criminals and people that aren’t supposed to have guns acquire guns illegally most of the time anyway. More people with less guns makes more targets for the bad ones with guns. take this rally for example. they all had guns nothing bad happened.. that makes them.. responsible.. and i dont think anyone was going to be sticking up anyone in that area while that was going on..

          • dave

            And you know this how? Do you have proof? And do you think there are roving gangs out there looking for anyone who is not armed? And yes, they all had guns and something bad DID happen: they broke the law!

          • Yeah, it’s absurd because you’re wrong.

          • dave

            Sorry, david, but I am not wrong, and you are a fool for making such a comment.

          • “Face it, firearms are NOT regulated in the US…” So tell me genius, what’s the job of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives? I’ll give you a hint: to regulate __________. Who’s the wrong fool now? hehhe.

          • dave

            You DO NOT understand firearms regulations.

            Look up the number of safety regulations involved with automobiles or ANY other consumer product. Look at the lawsuits when someone gets injured by an automobile, or any other consumer product.

            How many regulations are there on the manufacture of firearms? How many safety regulations? How many lawsuits if a firearm malfunctions?

            Tell me why the BATF has to work with paperwork only? They are not ALLOWED to use computers or maintain a computer database of firearm data.

            You don’t know a damned thing. You operate at surface level. Your degree is bullshit.

          • Yeah, but firearms are still regulated, so you’re still wrong. LOL!

          • dave

            No, dumbass, they are NOT regulated. For a so called educated person, you are quite slow to learn.

          • From the ATF(dot)gov homepage, under the section “REGULATIONS.”

            “Federal Regulations

            Regulations are issued by federal agencies, boards, or commissions. They explain how the agency intends to carry out a law.

            The Rulemaking Process

            Federal regulations are created through a process known as rulemaking.

            By law, federal agencies such as ATF must consult the public when creating, modifying, or deleting rules in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is an annual publication that lists the official and complete text of federal agency regulations. Once ATF decides that a regulation needs to be added, changed, or deleted, it typically publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register to ask the public for comments. After ATF considers public feedback and makes changes where appropriate, we then publishe a final rule in the Federal Register with a specific date for when the rule will become effective and enforceable. When ATF issues a final rule for comment, we must describe and respond to the public comments we received.

            ATF makes documents associated with the rulemaking process available on this website. In each section you will find information relevant to the areas that ATF focuses on including firearms, explosives and arson.”

            Now, tell me again how firearms in America are not regulated, as you claim. Even a person with an IQ lower than dog $#@%, such as yourself, should know when his @$$ has been handed to him.

          • dave
          • My dot gov site trumps any of your dot org sites. Face it, firearms ARE regulated by the federal, state, and local government. This makes your airhead statement to contrary absolutely WRONG. It doesn’t get any simpler than that. One regulation is that you cannot buy a gun from a firearms dealer unless you are 18 years of age for long guns, or 21 for handguns. Another regulation is that when purchasing from a firearms dealer, you must pass a background check that you pay for. Another regulation is that “straw purchases” are not allowed. The list goes on and on. Try buying a gun at a gun store yourself to see just how regulated they are. They won’t just ring it up at the register and take your cash like buying bread. Look, I’ve burned you so bad already that talking to you is like kicking a pile of ash. There’s just nothing left. Have some dignity and know when you’ve been destroyed. So, enough of you. Go ahead and jabber on like a mental patient off his meds. I won’t be listening.

          • dave

            No, your site absolutely does not trump my site. Face it, you have no clue, think you do, and are making a fool of yourself.

            Why would I want to buy a firearm? I’m not afraid of anyone, and I don’t hunt.

            Look dumbo, I understand that you think you are correct. You are not. Goodbye.

          • dave

            You ARE wrong, and I am no fool.

          • dave

            You claim to have a PhD, and that is the best answer you can give? What did I write that was incorrect? Be specific.

          • RetiredSF

            If gun owners in general don’t have their wits about them, what makes you think that the political class and their enforcers have their wits about them? One nut with a gun is a problem, a government of nuts with all the guns is a recipe for mass murder.

  • Permits for guns. Permits to assemble. Screw all that! Freedom!

  • Phillip Hawley

    Merriam-Webster’s Full Definition of inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

    Did You Know?

    Alien, “alienable,” “inalienable” – it’s easy enough to see the Latin word alius, meaning “other,” at the root of these three words. “Alien” joined our language in the 14th century, and one of its earliest meanings was “belonging to another.” By the early 1600s that sense of “alien” had led to the development of “alienable,” an adjective describing something you could give away or transfer ownership of, and “unalienable,” its opposite. By about 1645, “inalienable” was also in use as a synonym of “unalienable.” “Inalienable” is the more common variant today, but it was “unalienable” that was used in the Declaration of Independence to describe rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given as examples of ‘inalienable rights’ in the Declaration of Independence. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power.

    • idiots

      Did you know that there is actually a slight difference between the two?

      The first drafts of the Declaration had “inalienable”. But it was changed to the word “unalienable”. Why is that? If we know them to be the same then why was it ultimately changed from one to the other? It should not make a difference, right?

      The reality is that “inalienable” rights are rights that are incapable of being surrendered “”unless one consents.”” The word inalienable permits the individual to divest his rights through contract.

      “Unalienable” means essentially the same, accept one thing. They can NEVER be given away even through a contract.

      So, the one vowel changes the entire definition and political outlook. An unalienable right is a right which is incapable (absolutely under no conditions) of sold or transferred.

  • ckblv

    I would ‘share’ this article but I won’t due to all the disgusting ads.