Free: Contests & Raffles.
I was just reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. From reading this, I'd guess most people who live in the major cities and are afraid of guns, will surely vote in favor of Initiative 594. For those who have guns you might want to eventually sell, you might want to do it before initiate 594 passes.Just a sample:
Quote from: bobcat on August 27, 2014, 11:26:00 AMI was just reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. From reading this, I'd guess most people who live in the major cities and are afraid of guns, will surely vote in favor of Initiative 594. For those who have guns you might want to eventually sell, you might want to do it before initiate 594 passes.(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loansTheir definition of what constitutes a transfer sure seems to contradict whether you would have to get a background check to shoot a friends gun....
I was just reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. From reading this, I'd guess most people who live in the major cities and are afraid of guns, will surely vote in favor of Initiative 594. For those who have guns you might want to eventually sell, you might want to do it before initiate 594 passes.
The so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place.
How will everyone be background checked? I have a big enough supply of guns now that I will not ever need to buy another, so how will the government know what guns I have?
Quote from: rim_runner on August 27, 2014, 01:35:37 PMThe so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place. Quote from: rim_runner on August 27, 2014, 01:35:37 PMThe so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. However, people will still vote for it. I'm already trying to decide what can be done to alter it in the future to make it easier to deal with, or trying to cope with it internally now. I always am discouraged when people are willing to vote away their rights so that the government can take care of them and expect nothing less from our sheep-like people in Wa, but I still get discouraged when I see it right in the face.This will pass (the law), and we'll have to figure out how we'll live in the crime free future after it. Some things I'm thinking:1) When it passes, since every gun will be owned by someone who is background checked, why not expand concealed carry onto college campuses, bars, churches, etc. How can you deny a legal gun owner who is 100% checked out, the right to protect themselves in these areas?2) Eliminate need for concealed carry permit, since everyone will have been checked, a concealed carry permit now does nothing to protect anyone. We're all in the same boat.
