Now THIS is the $64 Billion Dollar Question. (With apologies to Hal March, who unlike Alan Gottlieb, was an honest man.)

Kit Lange, Washington state firearm rights activist, asks the pertinent question: Bill Drafted to Repeal 594, But Will WA Gun Rights Groups Back It?

Since the passing of I-594 in Washington State last November, there has been a growing divide between patriots and gun rights groups. The gun groups have cautioned folks not to defy the law, calling for legislators to stand up and repeal it. Rep. Matt Shea has confirmed a completed draft to repeal I-594 in its entirety, but we’ll get to that in a moment. In an article published just before the I Will Not Comply rally in December, Adina Hicks dismissed the rally and the patriots that chose to defy the law. . .

“What we need is action. What we need is people contacting their legislators and getting the Legislature involved to fix the nightmare that is 594.”

I’m glad that Ms. Hicks brought that up. You see, Rep. Matt Shea has confirmed to me that he has drafted a bill that will repeal I-594 in its entirety. In other words, everything that WAFLAG, Alan Gottlieb’s Second Amendment Foundation, and a list of other gun rights groups have been claiming they wanted is right here.

The real question is whether they’ll support a bill that repeals every single word of I-594. While Adina Hicks is on record as being anti-background checks, we all know that Alan Gottlieb loves them; even going so far as to support the Manchin-Toomey Agreement—which, by the way, was a lot like I-594 in that it forced universal background checks. And what about the rest of the gun rights groups jumping on the WAFLAG/SAF bandwagon for the so-called “Rally for Your Rights”, where you’re asked to leave your long guns at home so you don’t scare anyone? Will they be standing for liberty and supporting Rep. Shea’s bill? Or will they feed us yet another round of mealy-mouthed excuses why they don’t have the stones to stand up?

Jackie Juntti forwarded this article to her email list with the comments:

Alright Washington State folks, Time to put your time, money, and efforts forward to accomplish this. Gottlieb (GOT LIES) isn't going to do anything to repeal I-594 as that isn't his purpose. He is just another of the snake heads who will work to protect the SNAKE BODY.

The Hot line number for Washington residents is 1-800-562-6000 - Make sure your critter understands they better get behind Rep. Matt Shea and get this gun grabbing bill REPEALED. We have the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms - the opponents want us to PEEP AND BARE ARMS.

And for those of you who take exception to our characterization of Gottlieb as fundamentally dishonest, try this trip down memory lane:

Gun control pulls everyone's trigger, and Gottlieb is usually happy to be the media bull's-eye. But he wasn't so fond of that role in the 1980s, when some of his own employees turned on him. In a lawsuit, they claimed he was wrongly using SAF funds for his personal benefit, and tried to wrest control of the nonprofit. (The disagreement even came to blows in 1984, when police were called to break up a scuffle between Gottlieb family members—his wife is also an SAF employee—and the rebelling workers.)In a drawn-out court fight, Gottlieb countersued and ultimately prevailed: A judge dismissed the employees' suit and stuck them with $30,000 in damages. A contented Gottlieb said he used the money to buy himself a black Corvette. Adding to the spectacle, Gottlieb at the time had just finished serving a year-and-a-day prison term related to a tax-evasion investigation. He pled guilty to a federal charge of failing to pay a $29,396 tax debt (with penalties and interest) on his personal income five years earlier. As a convicted felon, the man who advocated unrestricted gun ownership couldn't own a gun. But as an ex-con (he did his time in a Spokane work-release facility), Gottlieb discovered a little-known program administered by the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. It allowed him to regain his gun rights in 1985, after an ATF review concluded he was a worthy nonviolent offender.