State-level gun control can be insidious, but there’s one upside to it over federal gun control. You can leave a state for one that respects your gun rights.

Following both the passage of I-1639 in Washington plus the recent slew of new measures being seriously considered in the state, some Washingtonians are considering making a run for friendlier climates. Others aren’t considering it anymore. They’re doing it.

A slippery-slope, that’s how a veteran describes efforts to restrict who, what and where gun-owners can carry.

With more than 20 gun-related bills in Olympia this session, Second Amendment advocates say they’re starting to feel cornered.

They’re voicing their disapproval with rallies, signs and shouting into megaphones.

Closer to home, two-time combat veteran Steve Krause says he doesn’t think lawmakers respect, or even understand why people like him are upset.

“Laws like this are dividing the country,” he said. “A lot of the people who voted for these gun laws don’t even own guns, they don’t care, it doesn’t affect them.”

But for Krause and his customers, that’s all about to change.

He’s selling the store and moving his young family to Arizona, somewhere he says they take the Second-Amendment seriously.

“I have a choice to either stay here and abide by the law, or move somewhere that better suits what I feel is right,” he said. “The deciding factor truly was the law (Washington initiative 1639) passing.

Krause said that he’s not necessarily disgusted with his state, just sad. I get that.

I’ve got friends in Washington, at least one of which would leave the state if he could but is tied down to his job right now. I suspect he’ll make a run for the border just as soon as he’s able to as well.

Honestly, if you can do that, I encourage it.

There are clear signals that can be sent to anti-gun states as they lose revenue and voting density, which will hurt them come census time. However, it will also help shore up pro-gun states.

You see, many anti-gun states are also high-tax states. Because of that, many are fleeing for lower tax states like Texas. Then, when they get there, they immediately start bucking for the same policies that required the high taxes they just left.

There’s a technical name for these people. They’re called “morons.”

Anyway, among the ideas they try to import is the wrongheaded notion that guns should be controlled. As a result, you have a state like Georgia who almost elected a radical anti-gunner as governor despite a long history as being relatively pro-gun.

If pro-gun people leave anti-gun states, they can shore up these states, thus helping balance out the anti-gunners relocating and helping to keep those states solidly behind the Second Amendment.

Further, the impact on the political landscape could be interesting. While anti-gun states are already anti-gun and tend to elect anti-gun senators to Congress, the shift in population could create a more pro-gun representation in the House, thus making federal gun control even less likely.

So I think anyone who can do what Krause and his family are doing should do it. Not just for them, but the nation as a whole.