Initiatives 594 and 591

[woodswalker]

I would invite you to do the same Wood. You go back and show me where it says that if you hand a gun over to a buddy (while in your garage or whatever) to look at that that is breaking the law and an arrestable offense. To your other point about the prosecutors. I honestly cannot attest to King county as I have no experience with them. I can say that on this side of the state I don't believe there are many if any that would touch it unless it was a clear violation as described in the initiative. Don't get me wrong, I in no way support this. I just don't see it being so black and white as you do. 

Turkeyfeather, I DID before i posted.  That was what DROVE me to post.  When it comes to LAW (not (un)common sense) its VERY black and white...if it does not LIST the exemption there IS NO EXEMPTION.  It then comes down to you getting CAUGHT doing it. 

The devil is in the details, specifically the definition of TRANSFER....to whit:
Definitions:
"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 loans.

That "BUT NOT LIMITED TO" thing is what will BITE folks in the tail, if it does not LIST the exemption there IS NO EXEMPTION.

[woodswalker]

I bet you would be guilty on both. There is an exception if you are at an ESTABLISHED SHOOTING RANGE, which a gravel pit is not. And as far as loaning a gun to a friend their is no exemption listed for that. Guilty on both incidents.

Hughjorgan, Turkeyfeather, Bradslam et al

That is EXACTLY what I am getting at.  I'm CERTAIN that in King Co. with a VERY anti-gun prosecutorial staff, you would be at the very least CHARGED with. Do a VERY cold and calculating reading with an eye to WHAT YOU CAN, again CAN charge someone with.  Turkeyfeather...if you think for one cold second that certain prosecutors wouldnt charge you in the scenarios listed above, you have NOT been paying attention.  Seattle has more than once bucked ESTABLISHED law in trying to override both the state and national Constitution.  You want to take the ride on that bronco?

As i mentioned earlier...I sure as heck do not want to be the test case, as i think it will be LONG and UGLY...and what guns you DO have at the outset...will be LONG gone by the time its settled, along with your career, income and retirement.  THEN you can sue TPTB to try to have a life again.  No thank you.  I'd rather make you all a bit uncomfortable NOW when there is a ghost of a chance to NOT have to do it thorugh the courts. 

As an aside...looking at the Supreme Courts does not give me a warm fuzzy either.  In sum, the recent rulings seem to go the way that "if its NOT an EGREGIOUS 2nd A violation, but a paperwork/process violation, we will not step in or overturn.  2A is NOT on solid ground with this court and I'm not willing to bet my career, family heirlooms and the possibility of not being able to hunt/shoot/defend myself with a firearm to prove that some rich liberal are wrong.

Turkeyfeather...go back and re-read what i posted and find the the places where it is WRITTEN that the described scenarios are LEGAL or EXEMPTED.  If its not WRITTEN its not THERE.  Look again at the revised  definition of transfer and then look from a cold, legal standpoint...not the "they REALLY DONT MEAN THAT" standpoint, because I assure you that the deep pockets sponsors REALLY DO MEAN THAT.  Do your research.  See what Hanauer et all have supported in the past....read between the fine and high-minded lines and see what they really mean.  READ the regislation with a jaundiced and skeptical eye.

Since you mentioned my name, I thought I would respond.  All over this thread, I see people complaining how poorly written and full of flaws this initiative is.  That is exactly what I am talking about.  If you are not part of the process, this is what you will end up with.  I guess I'm a realist, but we are in the minority and as more and more of these shooting incidents happen, the public will want some kind of change.  I will say it again: I would rather be at the table and have some input on the changes that are inevitable, than have poorly written laws that are crammed down our throat and cause a greater inconvenience for gun owners.

Bradslam, there IS a decent proposal on the books, its I-591.  THAT initiative preserves our rights, does not infringe on our privacy as I-594 does, it DOES set forth standards and limitations.  Look back on the things that have not made it out of the legisature, such as the bill that would have encouraged and made statute, unannounced "Gun Inspections IN YOUR HOME"  Once the TRUTH of that got out, it was quickly killed.  THAT is what I am TRYING to do here.  This is the Education phase.  I591 KEEPS us at the table without penny-parceling away our rights.

The I-594 initiative is WRITTEN and being supported and driven by big-money liberals.  The "talking points" and diseminated information by the supporters leaves out HUGE issues with the bill.  Heck, just look at the proposed ballot definition.  Its education time.  Heck...even the POLICE UNIONS are NOT supporting I-594....and they seldom find a gun-control measure that they dont LOVE.

Makes ya think....I HOPE!

Lets get to educating, support I-591.

[pianoman9701]

I bet you would be guilty on both. There is an exception if you are at an ESTABLISHED SHOOTING RANGE, which a gravel pit is not. And as far as loaning a gun to a friend their is no exemption listed for that. Guilty on both incidents.

Hughjorgan, Turkeyfeather, Bradslam et al

That is EXACTLY what I am getting at.  I'm CERTAIN that in King Co. with a VERY anti-gun prosecutorial staff, you would be at the very least CHARGED with. Do a VERY cold and calculating reading with an eye to WHAT YOU CAN, again CAN charge someone with.  Turkeyfeather...if you think for one cold second that certain prosecutors wouldnt charge you in the scenarios listed above, you have NOT been paying attention.  Seattle has more than once bucked ESTABLISHED law in trying to override both the state and national Constitution.  You want to take the ride on that bronco?

As i mentioned earlier...I sure as heck do not want to be the test case, as i think it will be LONG and UGLY...and what guns you DO have at the outset...will be LONG gone by the time its settled, along with your career, income and retirement.  THEN you can sue TPTB to try to have a life again.  No thank you.  I'd rather make you all a bit uncomfortable NOW when there is a ghost of a chance to NOT have to do it thorugh the courts. 

As an aside...looking at the Supreme Courts does not give me a warm fuzzy either.  In sum, the recent rulings seem to go the way that "if its NOT an EGREGIOUS 2nd A violation, but a paperwork/process violation, we will not step in or overturn.  2A is NOT on solid ground with this court and I'm not willing to bet my career, family heirlooms and the possibility of not being able to hunt/shoot/defend myself with a firearm to prove that some rich liberal are wrong.

Turkeyfeather...go back and re-read what i posted and find the the places where it is WRITTEN that the described scenarios are LEGAL or EXEMPTED.  If its not WRITTEN its not THERE.  Look again at the revised  definition of transfer and then look from a cold, legal standpoint...not the "they REALLY DONT MEAN THAT" standpoint, because I assure you that the deep pockets sponsors REALLY DO MEAN THAT.  Do your research.  See what Hanauer et all have supported in the past....read between the fine and high-minded lines and see what they really mean.  READ the regislation with a jaundiced and skeptical eye.

Since you mentioned my name, I thought I would respond.  All over this thread, I see people complaining how poorly written and full of flaws this initiative is.  That is exactly what I am talking about.  If you are not part of the process, this is what you will end up with.  I guess I'm a realist, but we are in the minority and as more and more of these shooting incidents happen, the public will want some kind of change.  I will say it again: I would rather be at the table and have some input on the changes that are inevitable, than have poorly written laws that are crammed down our throat and cause a greater inconvenience for gun owners.

I don't recall being asked to the table on I-594, or I-591, for that matter.

[baldopepper]

I seem to recall a lot of celebrating when the legislature passed on handling this issue and many of us saw the handwriting on the wall.  At least with the legislators you would have some input with your locals to help write this type of bill. In the future when gun issues come up we're far better off lobbying and working with the legislators than we are forcing a referendum.  Latest info I've seen shows 594 passing comfortably and I suspect when the ads on TV/Newspaper are done 591 will get killed.  It's suicide to let these issues go to a referendum vote in the state of Washington.

[bradslam]

woodswalker and pianoman,

When I am referring to being at the table, I am talking about well before these initiatives came around.  I think that the attitude of digging your heels in and refusing to give an inch leads to initiatives like this.  Like I said, we are in the minority, and it places issues completely out of our control.  Sometimes the pendulum can swing pretty far.

[vandeman17]

I seem to recall a lot of celebrating when the legislature passed on handling this issue and many of us saw the handwriting on the wall.  At least with the legislators you would have some input with your locals to help write this type of bill. In the future when gun issues come up we're far better off lobbying and working with the legislators than we are forcing a referendum.  Latest info I've seen shows 594 passing comfortably and I suspect when the ads on TV/Newspaper are done 591 will get killed.  It's suicide to let these issues go to a referendum vote in the state of Washington.

I was doing two football drafts last night and had the westside news on in the background. I saw a pro I-594 commercial at least 3-4 times per newscast. My mom was at my house to pick up my dogs and we debated about it in between picks. I asked her if she understood the whole thing and all she talked about was the background checks and that is all the commercials talk about. We are hosed. I told her when it passes and other states follow suit, there will be a huge shift in power

[bradslam]

I seem to recall a lot of celebrating when the legislature passed on handling this issue and many of us saw the handwriting on the wall.  At least with the legislators you would have some input with your locals to help write this type of bill. In the future when gun issues come up we're far better off lobbying and working with the legislators than we are forcing a referendum.  Latest info I've seen shows 594 passing comfortably and I suspect when the ads on TV/Newspaper are done 591 will get killed.  It's suicide to let these issues go to a referendum vote in the state of Washington.

I agree completely.  I have never liked the initiative process because so many of them are poorly written and are voted on by people who don't even bother to read them.  I said on an earlier post that 594 will pass.  I'm not saying I want that, but I think we will be stuck with it.

[pianoman9701]

woodswalker and pianoman,

When I am referring to being at the table, I am talking about well before these initiatives came around.  I think that the attitude of digging your heels in and refusing to give an inch leads to initiatives like this.  Like I said, we are in the minority, and it places issues completely out of our control.  Sometimes the pendulum can swing pretty far.

Why go halfway when the changes proposed won't have the desired effect and both sides know it? No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that. Many of the people who are backing these bills aren't intending stopping at universal background checks. Their intent has always been dominoes. They want guns to be illegal and they want guns to be gone. It's like the pro-wolfers. Many of them don't give a crap about wolves. The HSUS is sworn to oppose hunting. If they can't stop hunting by legislating no hunting, they'll stop it by having wolves eat all the big game. The Defenders are the same way. When they backed the introduction of wolves into the GYA, they certainly weren't defending ungulates. They were working towards the end of ungulate hunting and they may achieve it yet.

[bradslam]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

[Special T]

While i may not use those words its true. I would make the statement that the 2 largets Cop unions do not support it saying it wont help deter crime.

[demontang]

Im willing to bet it may raise theft of firearms. I know it sure as hell wont stop felones from getting firearms

[vandeman17]

Im willing to bet it may raise theft of firearms. I know it sure as hell wont stop felones from getting firearms

I know it will make a boat load of "felons" including myself because if a buddy calls and needs to borrow my shotgun, I assure you we will not be meeting at the FFL 

[baldopepper]

I don't think you need to go half way on many of these issues.  594 is a perfect example of the people wanting something done, even if it was only "feel good, do nothing" legislation.  We seem to pass a lot of laws that make people feel like they've done something but, in reality, don't help.  They just want to go to bed at night thinking "ok, we voted a new law on such and such and I feel a lot better".  Somebody told them it would work, so they voted for it. In this case I think a background law could have been written that was far, far clearer and much more workable and would still have given people that "feel good" feeling.  As it is, we let the hard cores write a give away the ranch law.  To late to do much about it now, but maybe in the future we can stay ahead of these issues and help write more realistic legislation. Sorry to say it, and I'm sure I'll get burned, but the NRA stance of not giving an inch will eventually sink us, just a matter of time. 

[luvmystang67]

"No one's going to be safer with universal background checks. Even the proponents have admitted that."

Um, I think you are going to have to site your source on that one.  Making your arguments based on conspiracy theories does not help our cause.

This from the Seattle Times basically admits it wont make it any safer in code-speak.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/08/25/november-2014-election-endorsements/

I-594 provides a practical expansion of background checks on all gun sales — clarity and consistency to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I-594 is no protective panacea against the kinds of public assaults Seattle has suffered in recent years. But it is a step forward. Vote yes on I-594.

[demontang]

Im willing to bet it may raise theft of firearms. I know it sure as hell wont stop felones from getting firearms