I-594: Just the beginning, more gun intiatives and legislation coming!

[bearpaw]

http://q13fox.com/2014/11/05/i-594-opponents-plan-to-file-lawsuit-to-stop-background-check-measure-video/

[timberfaller]

Well finally I now know WHO to support with any extra dollars 

[T Pearce]

So, if not Microsoft products........what to buy?
What are the "prefered" windows alternatives?
I understand it wont affect their bottom line by just me jumping ship but all should be aware when you own a business you leave the bumper stickers off the truck.

Ie Leatherman tools (left handed)
T

[huntrights]

Very sad.  Those who didn't believe I-594 was just the beginning were sadly mistaken; the anti-gun I-594 supporters clearly stated that I-594 is just the beginning of their anti-gun efforts.  Watch the video, it should send a freedom-crushing chill up your spine.

If gun-owners, hunters, and ALL freedom-loving Americans don't WAKE-UP and realize we are losing our rights and freedoms, we will lose those rights and freedoms.  The anti-gun billionaires showed they can purchase elections in pursuit of their anti-gun agendas with their money, lies, and propaganda.  Washington will become more of a Socialist-like state very much like California if people don't push back.

Hopefully all of you are ready to contribute $$$ to help pay for the lawsuits that must now be filed to protect our rights and freedoms from I-594.  Those that haven't been engaged in these political battles need to get off their rear-ends and get engaged.  Apathy is a destroyer of freedom.

JOIN and CONTRIBUTE:

National Rifle Association (NRA)
http://home.nra.org/
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp 

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
http://www.saf.org/
https://saf.org/?page_id=66

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=3252

Gun Owners of America (GOA)
http://gunowners.org/
http://gunowners.co/membership

[RG]

By definition 594 is pretty useless without universal gun registration. There is no way to know if a gun has been transferred or not since there's no record of who owns it. Handguns get registered when purchased from a state license holder but that info doesn't go with the gun. I have about a dozen on the record under my name. I only still own one of them.  Unless somebody says they gave the gun to another person there would be absolutely no way to know. 

They have to register every gun to make it work.

[wadu1]

Seattle Times saying this is just the start,
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024963246_backgroundcheckfoloxml.html

[swinters]

This is one of the most frightening laws I've ever seen and it was passed because of fear and deceit.  Much of it was a knee-jerk reaction to the Marysville school shooting, which reports say this law wouldn't have impacted since the "transfer" was a tribal reservation issue and would have been exempt from the law.  Most importantly though is that this law is just plain wrong and is truly the first giant step towards gun registration and eventual gun confiscation.  It's their stated goal.  If we don't stop it now then it's all over.  One question that I don't get answers to is what is being done about Hollywood's part in all of this?  There were several reports a few years ago that clearly linked gun violence incidents to the mass of gun violence portrayed on TV and in the movies.  Instead of fixing that, the innocent, law abiding citizens are being punished.  There are so many scenarios where I have done things in the past that I will now be arrested for.  For instance, my granddaughter and her husband visit from Alaska frequently and we like to go to the range and do some shooting.  He loves to try out my guns and usually brings one of his that I like to shoot.  The law says it's legal for me to let my granddaughter shoot my guns (handing it to her is a transfer under the new law) but that the first time I hand one to him I'm guilty of a misdemeanor and each time after that it's a felony.  It goes on and on.  We have to fight this and we have to win.

[tjthebest]

This is one of the most frightening laws I've ever seen and it was passed because of fear and deceit.  Much of it was a knee-jerk reaction to the Marysville school shooting, which reports say this law wouldn't have impacted since the "transfer" was a tribal reservation issue and would have been exempt from the law.  Most importantly though is that this law is just plain wrong and is truly the first giant step towards gun registration and eventual gun confiscation.  It's their stated goal.  If we don't stop it now then it's all over.  One question that I don't get answers to is what is being done about Hollywood's part in all of this?  There were several reports a few years ago that clearly linked gun violence incidents to the mass of gun violence portrayed on TV and in the movies.  Instead of fixing that, the innocent, law abiding citizens are being punished.  There are so many scenarios where I have done things in the past that I will now be arrested for.  For instance, my granddaughter and her husband visit from Alaska frequently and we like to go to the range and do some shooting.  He loves to try out my guns and usually brings one of his that I like to shoot.  The law says it's legal for me to let my granddaughter shoot my guns (handing it to her is a transfer under the new law) but that the first time I hand one to him I'm guilty of a misdemeanor and each time after that it's a felony.  It goes on and on.  We have to fight this and we have to win.

Actually, you cannot let your granddaughter shoot your guns either, unless of course you are giving it to her as a "bona fide gift"

[Bob33]

As is evident, I-594 was poorly written and largely unenforceable.

Don't be deceived and ascribe that to ignorance. The individuals and organizations supporting its passage don't care. They wanted a foot in the door/nose under the tent.

They got it. This is the first step. Take a look at California to see where they want to steer this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

The gun laws of California are some of the most restrictive in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases, although there are exemptions to this requirement. (This requirement was extended to long guns on January 1, 2014.) Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. This roster, which requires handgun manufacturers to pay a fee and submit specific models for safety testing, has become progressively more stringent over time and is currently the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit on the basis that it is a de facto ban on new handgun models. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the Second Amendment applies to all states within the Union, and many of California's gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.
 
Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.
 
California is a "may-issue" state for permits to carry concealed guns. The willingness of issuing authorities in California ranges from No-Issue in most urban areas to Shall-Issue in rural counties. Additionally, the issuing authority can also impose restrictions on the CCW permit-holder, such as limiting concealed carry only to the purposes listed on the approved CCW permit application. However, concealed carry permits are valid statewide, regardless of where they were issued. This creates a situation where residents in presumptively No-Issue locations such as Los Angeles and San Francisco cannot lawfully carry a concealed firearm, but residents from other counties with more permissive CCW issuance policies can lawfully carry within these same jurisdictions. California does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and non-residents are generally forbidden from obtaining a California concealed carry permit.
 
California has state preemption for many, but not all, firearms laws. Actual enforcement of California's firearms laws also varies widely across the state. Urban areas, such as the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas strictly enforce firearms laws, and some communities within these areas have passed local ordinances that make legally owning a firearm difficult. Meanwhile, some rural jurisdictions narrowly enforce the same firearms laws by prosecuting only those who demonstrate malicious intent, or not enforcing portions of the state's firearms laws at all.

[Netminder01]

I'm a NW native and have professed my love for this state for some 40+ years. I'm ex military and have seen corners of the world but always have wanted to remain in WA state. That is until the passing of I-594. I've never been so sick to my stomach and for the first time in my life I think it's time to move.

Without a serious commitment by corporate sponsors we will lose any future legislation through media dollars, marketing and video this will absolutely be the beginning.  The NRA and other organizations were a no-show in combating the pro I-594 messaging I heard on radio and endless TV spots. The only counter I saw was a hilariously poor, cheaply produced spot that sounded like a robot.

[swinters]

Actually, you cannot let your granddaughter shoot your guns either, unless of course you are giving it to her as a "bona fide gift"
[/quote]

That's a concern for sure.  A law enforcement officer may see it as an illegal transfer or, since no money had changed hands, a bona fide gift.  Their likely approach would be to arrest us and let the courts sort it out.  At our personal expense.  Everyone I talk to that voted for it thought the law just required a background check for purchases that would result in permanent ownership.  They say they wouldn't have voted for it if they'd have known how far it went (too many people vote without knowing the details).   

[vandeman17]

I love where I live and it would be sad to leave. With that being said, I am keeping a close eye on this and future "initiatives and legislation" If it continues to progress as I foresee it will, my house will go on the market and I will be looking to put down roots in another state. As much as I hate 594, I don't see how they can truly enforce the majority of it. Just have to make sure that anybody you loan or transfer a weapon too is fully aware that if ever questioned, the firearms is theirs and they have owned it for years. No way to prove otherwise then the person's word...   

[lamrith]

I do not believe nor have I seen reports that the shooter @ Marysville was GIVEN the gun, he TOOK the gun, big difference.  But as you said 594 would have done NOTHING to stop this tragedy, above and beyond the ttribal aspect.  Nor would it have stopped ANY of the other past mass shootings.  In fact they have yet to prove any claims in their advertizing.  That is what is the most infuriating, along with the fact that the NRA honestly did nothing to help counter all the blantantly fraudulent advertising by WAGR and others.

I think that is what makes me the most sick, the fact that these rich antigun people and  controllists bought this election.  These are the same clowns that tried to ban sugary drinks bigger than 16oz in New York.  They passed that law and the supreme court had to stop it..  They straight up bought it this election thru a media blitz of false claims and data which the NRA after years of people donating did nothing to actively counter.

This state IS becoming northern california with all the transplants moving up here and bring their pipe-dream ideals with them.

Not many people have realized that the way the law is written even legally affects FIREWORKS.  Per the definition in 594, Fireworks will require a background check.  Some think it is because it is poorly written, but I believe it was written intentionally the way it was to be much more far reaching than they openly told the public it was.  The mass public as always blindly believed what the TV told them without doing any research to know what they were really voting on.

[swinters]

I'm a NW native and have professed my love for this state for some 40+ years. I'm ex military and have seen corners of the world but always have wanted to remain in WA state. That is until the passing of I-594. I've never been so sick to my stomach and for the first time in my life I think it's time to move.

Without a serious commitment by corporate sponsors we will lose any future legislation through media dollars, marketing and video this will absolutely be the beginning.  The NRA and other organizations were a no-show in combating the pro I-594 messaging I heard on radio and endless TV spots. The only counter I saw was a hilariously poor, cheaply produced spot that sounded like a robot.

Me too!  My family homesteaded here.  I was a gunners mate in the Navy and spent my career supporting the military in combat, including three tours in Iraq, and looked forward to the day I could retire here and enjoy the fishing and hunting I grew up with.  I'm shocked at how little attention is being given to this whole thing.  People don't realize yet how deep it goes and people are going to suffer who shouldn't.  Why are they making me a criminal when the person who is buying a gun knows full well that they are breaking the law?  They're the one who is doing something they shouldn't and are the ones who should be held accountable, not us.

[labsetters]

Sorry about the length of this post.
Not to hijack or run off the rails about 594, but as mentioned, this is not the only subject the loonies to the left are planning to change. Had a discussion with a lawyer friend who specializes in estate planning recently. This doesn't affect most of us, but many small business/farm familes etc are affected by the estate planning laws. Fed exemption for the estate tax is a little over $5 million per spouse. Interestingly enough, Washington changed their estate tax laws to about $2 million per spouse. In my limited understanding, this means if you are a small business owner, owner of a farm or other property or have an estate of over $2 million, when you die, your portion of the estate can pass to your spouse or heirs. Example, the value of your estate and your wife can together be $4 million. When you die, your "$2 million" passes to your wife without estate tax bill to be paid. However, when the surviving spouse dies, anything over the individual $2 million mark will be taxed, with up to 20% going to the state (for "education" purposes, I believe).
Our friend said to hope for the Republicans to retain control of the state senate, because if the Democrats gained control, there is a plan in place to change the state exemption to $1 million. When you add up the value of houses/property, businesses/farms, retirement accounts and so on, this could affect a lot of people. His dead serious suggestion if the Democrats in concert with our current governor gained uncontrolled power, was for us to consider changing our state of residence. Fortunately, it appears the good guys will retain control of the senate, for the time being.
If you doubt the serious nature of this discussion, the KING 5 Seattle evening news tonight dropped the bomb that the socialists in Seattle are considering a "tax" on "rich" people. The idea is to redistribute income to the lower class in Seattle, (with pictures showing Pioneer Square, if you catch my drift). The amount of income per year ($1 million), and the location-Seattle or King County-both were mentioned.
I realize this likely doesn't affect any/many of us, but the fact that this came out the day after the election, on the heels of 594, shows that some of these people have serious plans which will affect most of us in some form or fashion. The socialist council member and others interviewed had the same mind set as the 594 people who were interviewed last night and today. They are rabid in their belief that they are going to make these changes (sounds a lot like the wolf people which was confirmed in my eyes when I attended a wolf "information" meeting in Olympia several months ago. I hadn't seen that great a percentage of crazy people in one room in a long time!).
This is long winded, and take if for what it is worth. The time to fight for our rights is now, not later, as it may become too late. There are some seriously misguided and self entitled (in my opinion) people who want to control some of the results of your hard earned career and want to do all they can to limit gun ownership and hunting. (Don't even get me started about what the EPA wants to do to the farming and dairy industries, and the great job the state is doing with sport fishing).