I-1639 mega thread

[KFhunter]

The law is just a scare tatic, harassing law abiding guns owners to not buy "assault" rifles, and eventually not buy guns and destroy the ones they have.

They're playing the long game.

sent from the telephone

[Stein]

None of this is inforceable!!!  Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly.  It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington. 

At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted.  Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun.   It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere.  Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible.  What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible.  No differnece.

Unfortunately there is a difference, I-639 passed and it specifically does what you mentioned.  Congress had to pass a law to prevent the manufacturer from being held liable for making something they sold to someone who sold it to someone else, who used it in a crime.

[Bob33]

What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.

By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.

80% receivers.

Shhhhhhhhh. The idiots that wrote this bill didn't consider those.

80% receivers are semi-automatic assault rifles under this bill I believe.  I didn't see anything requiring the firearm to be complete - similar to the federal laws.

(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

[bobcat]

What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.

By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.

If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.

Except for the "reasonably should have known" part.  This is standard verbiage for imputing knowledge to you when you say "I did not know" of a fact.  It is called constructive knowledge and it is a standard process in law enforcement. 

People should not downplay that this could eviscerate any reporting safe-harbor that implies you could still report five days after you did actually discover the fact of the stolen firearm.  I forget the case, but there was a federal firearms prosecution where a guy was prosecuted for selling to a prohibited possessor (illegal alien, as I recall), because he "reasonably should have known" that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.

So this is not just in the realm of fantasy, as some would have you believe.  It is smack dab in the middle of reality.

Yeah, kind of what I was thinking. So say your handgun was stolen from your house and you don't even know it. A month later a crime is committed with the handgun. You never reported it stolen. Are they going to prosecute you because you SHOULD HAVE known it was stolen?

[konradcountry]

None of this is inforceable!!!  Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly.  It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington. 

At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted.  Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun.   It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere.  Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible.  What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible.  No differnece.

Not business as usual.

Read the full text. You sign over full access to your medical records if you buy a semi-automatic which includes a 10/22. There is no due process or even a set of conditions specified. So a state worker can just look at your medical records and say NOPE.

This is a nightmare.

[KFhunter]

What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.

By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.

If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.

Unless they arrest you first, better inventory everything you got and give a list to the state

sent from the telephone

[konradcountry]

So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?

What about the firearms already owned?

Not specified.

It's written for transfers.

[chiwawadan]

None of this is inforceable!!!  Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly.  It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington. 

At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted.  Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun.   It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere.  Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible.  What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible.  No differnece.

Not business as usual.

Read the full text. You sign over full access to your medical records if you buy a semi-automatic which includes a 10/22. There is no due process or even a set of conditions specified. So a state worker can just look at your medical records and say NOPE.

This is a nightmare.

Any chance you can copy-paste this medical record part of the full text? I can't find it. Just want to see it for myself. Thanks if you're able!

[jrebel]

None of this is inforceable!!!  Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly.  It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington. 

At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted.  Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun.   It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere.  Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible.  What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible.  No differnece.

Not business as usual.

Read the full text. You sign over full access to your medical records if you buy a semi-automatic which includes a 10/22. There is no due process or even a set of conditions specified. So a state worker can just look at your medical records and say NOPE.

This is a nightmare.

I clearly stated new purchases would be a pain in the arse.....I get it.  I don't agree with it, and am adimately against it.  With that said it will not be enforceable....it will not be enforceable.  It will be fought and won....just cost a lot of money to do so.

[Bofire]

Read it, not that hard. there a lot of incorrect posts here.
Carl

[Fl0und3rz]

What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.

By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.

If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.

Except for the "reasonably should have known" part.  This is standard verbiage for imputing knowledge to you when you say "I did not know" of a fact.  It is called constructive knowledge and it is a standard process in law enforcement. 

People should not downplay that this could eviscerate any reporting safe-harbor that implies you could still report five days after you did actually discover the fact of the stolen firearm.  I forget the case, but there was a federal firearms prosecution where a guy was prosecuted for selling to a prohibited possessor (illegal alien, as I recall), because he "reasonably should have known" that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.

So this is not just in the realm of fantasy, as some would have you believe.  It is smack dab in the middle of reality.

Yeah, kind of what I was thinking. So say your handgun was stolen from your house and you don't even know it. A month later a crime is committed with the handgun. You never reported it stolen. Are they going to prosecute you because you SHOULD HAVE known it was stolen?

We had a burglary.  It was reported.  We also thought another item was taken, and so we reported it.  We were mistaken and corrected the record.  The item was misplaced.  You make mistakes when dealing with the violation of a burglary.

The point is that the "reasonably should have known" appears in what appears to be affirmative defenses to the crime that you can be charged with, if you did not report within five days,  AND it appears to essentially eviscerate this reporting safe harbor, which you will find out at the cost of your liberty, time, and money to defend against the charge that you "reasonably should have known."


So you get the choice of risking liberty, time, and money, even if you late report, or locking them up.


It is written as a Hobson's choice, and it saddens me to see people deny this simple reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.

By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.

80% receivers.

Shhhhhhhhh. The idiots that wrote this bill didn't consider those.

80% receivers are semi-automatic assault rifles under this bill I believe.  I didn't see anything requiring the firearm to be complete - similar to the federal laws.

(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

The point is the buy action that implicates the I-1639 provisions, for an 80% receiver is that you are buying not a firearm.  Never was under WA and federal law.   I don't know if it is now defined as one in I-1639.  But I am sure that if it isn't we can expect an 80% receiver loophole initiative coming down the pike, for the children, because, the unifying theme is burdening lawful gun ownership.

[Oh Mah]

I did read,it goes back and forth a few times don't you agree?

If you understand it explain it to us shouldn't be too hard either.

[Fl0und3rz]

I-1639

[Kc_Kracker]

was looking around Booner whats that area like?

[konradcountry]

One easy way to do that would be to slightly amend 1639 to include semi-auto rifles "or other semi-auto firearms capable of being modified to fit the definition of assault weapon through the use of commercially available parts or components."  Most, if not virtually all semi-auto shotguns have factory or aftermarket rifled barrels available which I believe would qualify them as assault rifles.  If so, it isn't clear what happens if you have both barrels for a shotgun, is it only an assault rifle if the rifled barrel is installed, or by simply owning one do you have an assault rifle?

Don't give them any ideas.

Seriously. These people are so limited and unoriginal in their thinking. There is nothing to be gained by pointing out how it could be improved or amended.

Remember that 1639 will likely be used as a template for other states.