Paul Allen, most influential anti-gun advocate in Washington

[Bob33]

Paul Allen donates $1M to Washington gun initiative

SEATTLE (AP) -- Microsoft co-founder and Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen has donated $1 million to a campaign seeking to raise the age to purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 in Washington state.

Allen made the announcement on Twitter Monday.

The Alliance for Gun Responsibility says Initiative 1639 also would create a background check system similar to the one required for handguns, require completion of a firearms safety course and create standards for safe gun storage.

The group's initiative effort comes after lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Statehouse declined to bump the minimum age to buy semi-automatic weapons after the February mass shooting at a Florida high school.

The alliance needs roughly 260,000 petition signatures before the initiative can qualify for the 2018 ballot.

In 2014, Allen donated $500,000 to a successful campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales in the state.

http://komonews.com/news/local/paul-allen-donates-1m-to-washington-gun-initiative

[DOUBLELUNG]

Too bad he didn't give his 1.5 million to mental health. 

The gun rights guy in me says $%^& him, the libertarian in me says he can do whatever he wants with his $.

[Special T]

And yet he has a tank collection at Pane Feild...Heritage museum that hosts tank fest... grrrr

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[timberfaller]

Just because someone can acquire $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ doesn't make one "Smart".    Paul Allen is a dis-grace to society in general!  Just like the Clinton's!

[JimmyHoffa]

It'll be a virtue signal beacon to the other control freak billionaires.  I'm guessing a few more will send some funds to the initiative now to further the Californication of the fizzling state of Washington.

[npaull]

I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it.

I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm.

Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.

[mburrows]

Just read the initiative and its beyond ridiculous in my opinion in a few ways; specifically this section makes me laugh and angry at once;

"In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser
thereof until:
(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and
talking to children about gun safety;
(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(v) Safe handling of firearms; and
(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited
firearms transfers.
The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or
municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a
nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms
training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified
by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers
firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a
certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training
included the minimum requirements; and
(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under
RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
chief of police or sheriff; or (ii) the state that the purchaser is
eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040, as provided in
subsection (3)(b) of this section;"

Where does the encroachment on the 2nd amendment stop if this is passed?  Glad I live in Montana now.

[mossy8352]

Maybe Seattle should become the communist state it wants to be and totally separate from the rest of the state problem solved in more ways than just gun control!

[hughjorgan]

I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it.

I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm.

Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.

Hunters ed doesn’t make you an ethical hunter nor do any laws legislated make people moral. Your also comparing privileges to a right but from the sounds of it that is what you think of the 2nd amendment, a privilege.

[full choke]

Go Seahawks!

[hunter399]

I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it.

I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm.

Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.

Hunters ed doesn’t make you an ethical hunter nor do any laws legislated make people moral. Your also comparing privileges to a rift but from the sounds of it that is what you think of the 2nd amendment.

At which law or tax does freedom really exist.
FREEDOM!

[Bob33]

How well did Allen's last initiative I-594 do? Besides making it impossible for law abiding citizens to legally hand a firearm to someone else without paying a fee, has it reduced crime in any meaningful way?

[mdbuck5x5]

I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it.

I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm.

Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.

Respect your opinion but I see more mindless diatribe! The problem IS criminals don't obey laws. Mental health is a much bigger concern than more restrictions on law abiding citizens. You give an inch and they'll take a mile then pretty soon confiscation will be at your front door!

[pianoman9701]

I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it.

I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm.

Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.

You're extremely naive, at best. You're talking about making a law to keep people from breaking laws when they're already willing to break laws. This will have zero positive result because they don't care what the law is. Which of the proposed laws do you think will make criminals and insane people follow the law now? And as far as the anti-gun crowd is concerned, if you believe they're going to stop with an age limit law, you haven't been paying attention at all. Look around the country. Gun confiscation is now happening in NY, CT, CA, and HI. They're not stopping at age limits or gun registration or magazine capacity. That's not the end game.

You mention that you need licenses for hunting and driving. Hunting and driving are privileges. Constitutional rights are not. They're sacrosanct. Should you need to take a course on how to be secure in your person and possessions to be able to take advantage of the 4th Amendment? No. Do you need a course to voice your opinion publicly to take advantage of your rights under the 1st Amendment? No. Should we also restrict the rental of trucks, the sale of gasoline? The tool is not the problem. As far as the schools are concerned, well-meaning liberals helped to create this atmosphere of killing opportunity when the gun free zones law was established in the 90s. Another law being completely ignored by criminals and only observed by those who aren't a threat.

By the way, Australia has basically the same murder rate today as it had before they passed their sweeping gun laws. The only thing their gun ban achieved was to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. If you want to save lives, improve security at schools, improve public reporting and reaction by law enforcement, improve education of students AND parents, and improve access to mental healthcare. Disarming me will not make anyone except the criminals more safe.

Look, if your guns or your mental state scare you, by all means, give up your firearms. Let me know and I'll help. But don't bugger me and tell me I'm getting a colonoscopy for my own good.

[mossy8352]

I support it. These are reasonable changes to a disjointed system. If gun owners and hunters continue to try and block literally anything that society tries to do to improve gun safety, we'll be left by the side of the road. The problem IS the easy access to firearms for people who shouldn't have it.

I had to take a course to hunt. I have to have a license to drive. I got NO problem with both being imposed on people who want to own a firearm.

Not gonna be a popular opinion, but there it is.

You're extremely naive, at best. You're talking about making a law to keep people from breaking laws when they're already willing to break laws. This will have zero positive result because they don't care what the law is. Which of the proposed laws do you think will make criminals and insane people follow the law now? And as far as the anti-gun crowd is concerned, if you believe they're going to stop with an age limit law, you haven't been paying attention at all. Look around the country. Gun confiscation is now happening in NY, CT, CA, and HI. They're not stopping at age limits or gun registration or magazine capacity. That's not the end game.

You mention that you need licenses for hunting and driving. Hunting and driving are privileges. Constitutional rights are not. They're sacrosanct. Should you need to take a course on how to be secure in your person and possessions to be able to take advantage of the 4th Amendment? No. Do you need a course to voice your opinion publicly to take advantage of your rights under the 1st Amendment? No. Should we also restrict the rental of trucks, the sale of gasoline? The tool is not the problem. As far as the schools are concerned, well-meaning liberals helped to create this atmosphere of killing opportunity when the gun free zones law was established in the 90s. Another law being completely ignored by criminals and only observed by those who aren't a threat.

By the way, Australia has basically the same murder rate today as it had before they passed their sweeping gun laws. The only thing their gun ban achieved was to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. If you want to save lives, improve security at schools, improve public reporting and reaction by law enforcement, improve education of students AND parents, and improve access to mental healthcare. Disarming me will not make anyone except the criminals more safe.

Look, if your guns or your mental state scare you, by all means, give up your firearms. Let me know and I'll help. But don't bugger me and tell me I'm getting a colonoscopy for my own good.

About as true as it gets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!