Lawmakers and Gov. Inslee push for more statewide gun measures

[Lucky1]

Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will.  Duh, right?  The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases.  Moreover, the state can't enforce this law.  In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.

However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime.  In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.

I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.

Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.

You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?

[pianoman9701]

This will hurt Inslee's credibility. He's so stupid and now, it's obvious to even his supporters. Maybe this will help us defeat these monstrosities.

It would be nice if this were true, but the brain-dead liberals will believe every word he says while they drink their Starbucks Kool-Aid.

I'm not so sure. Liberals are buying more guns now. They're not going to want to give that up with all us rednecks being already stocked up and all.

[wooltie]

Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will.  Duh, right?  The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases.  Moreover, the state can't enforce this law.  In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.

However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime.  In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.

I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.

Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.

You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?

I haven't read the law, so I can't say I support what is being proposed.  Obviously, you need to examine all aspects of the proposal to identify all the other crap that is rammed in there.  But in general, I would support requiring firearms to be secure to prevent access when not in use.

You are correct that the logic does hold, however, people are not stealing cars and running over groups of children.  Whereas, people are killing other people using guns that they had access to which were not their own.  Since this is a systemic problem, we need to try different solutions to correct and prevent the problem until the problem subsides.

I guarantee you if people were stealing cars and running over groups of people, children at bus stops, children walking home from skool, to point where it was a systemic problem, then society and industry would respond by creating ways to prevent people from stealing cars. 

But because stealing cares and running over people is not a systemic problem, we have not created laws to encourage people to change their behavior w/respect to locking their car doors or using club.

[fishngamereaper]

Once again focusing on a problem that simply does not exist. How about we focus on the real problmes and stop blaming the gun. If criminals feared punishment maybe they wouldn't commit the crime. Just a thought. But no...its easier to place blame on innocent people minding their own business.... Sir, I know you where the victim of burglary and they took all your possessions, but your under arrest cause your gun wasn't locked up....whatever.

[CP]

Hunters should be particularly interested in SB 5463, how many of us store firearms in our vehicles while we are in a restaurant, store, hunting, etc?  A jury may well rule that we “reasonably should know, that a prohibited person is likely to gain access”

[wooltie]

Hunters should be particularly interested in SB 5463, how many of us store firearms in our vehicles while we are in a restaurant, store, hunting, etc?  A jury may well rule that we “reasonably should know, that a prohibited person is likely to gain access”

Securing your firearm in a vehicle via a lock box, safe, or trigger/cable lock would absolve you of any liability in the event a prohibited person accesses your firearm and commits the crime, per this bill.

[lord grizzly]

you boys over there in north California are screwed. only one way that state goes and it isn't the right direction...

[huntnphool]

Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will.  Duh, right?  The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases.  Moreover, the state can't enforce this law.  In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.

However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime.  In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.

I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.

Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.

You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?

people are not stealing cars and running over groups of children.

But because stealing cares and running over people is not a systemic problem

[JBar]

Make sure that you comment on these bills.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1387&Year=2017

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5463&Year=2017

Comment on the companion bills also! Inslee is an idiot, last time I checked you fill out the same paperwork for an "assualt weapon" as you do any other gun. So to say there is no back ground check for assault weapons is a LIE!!

[KFhunter]

unless it's a 80% lower and assembled with mail order parts

[Lucky1]

Laws requiring firearm owners to secure their firearms when not in use (i.e. keep your guns in a safe) won't have the immediate effect people think it will.  Duh, right?  The law won't directly prevent people from accessing firearms because most people simply won't follow the law in all cases.  Moreover, the state can't enforce this law.  In this regard, the law sounds feel good ridiculous.

However, a law such as this would allow the state to punish people who did not safely stored their firearms when their firearms were used by another person to commit a crime.  In other words, the threat of punishment is what would/could prompt people to change their behavior and lock up their guns.

I'm okay with punishing people who are irresponsible in respect to firearm ownership when their irresponsibility enables someone else to commit horrendous crimes.

Did you read the proposed law? It does a lot more than require people to lock up their guns.
Also, by your logic if you leave your keys on your dresser and someone takes them, steals your car and runs over a bunch of little kids at a bus stop, you are responsible for the " horrendous crime and should be prosecuted.

You think we need to punish someone who had their gun stolen, do you think we should also punish the person who committed the " horrendous crime?

I haven't read the law, so I can't say I support what is being proposed.  Obviously, you need to examine all aspects of the proposal to identify all the other crap that is rammed in there.  But in general, I would support requiring firearms to be secure to prevent access when not in use.

You are correct that the logic does hold, however, people are not stealing cars and running over groups of children.  Whereas, people are killing other people using guns that they had access to which were not their own.  Since this is a systemic problem, we need to try different solutions to correct and prevent the problem until the problem subsides.

I guarantee you if people were stealing cars and running over groups of people, children at bus stops, children walking home from skool, to point where it was a systemic problem, then society and industry would respond by creating ways to prevent people from stealing cars. 

But because stealing cares and running over people is not a systemic problem, we have not created laws to encourage people to change their behavior w/respect to locking their car doors or using club.

I couldn't disagree with you more than I do. People stealing guns and using them in horrendous shootings is NOT a systemic problem. I am out.

[smittyJ]

I would ask, what defines secure? In a locked car? In a lock box in a locked car? Ina a locked house? In locked cabinet in a locked house! A gun lock? Gun safe? Anything can be breached given time!

[Fl0und3rz]

Melted down would render them secure, which is always the end goal.

[smittyJ]

Melted down would render them secure, which is always the end goal.

Yep!

[SpringerFan]

I call Inslee West coast Chuck. All he needs is tears....these liberal folks need to go.