Post by: protect2ndamd on May 27, 2014, 11:39:50 PM
VOTE NO on INITIATIVE-594
I-594 would NOT ensure “Universal Background Checks” - criminals would ignore, but I-594 would ensure “Universal Handgun Registration” because ALL law-abiding handgun owners will be registered!
-WOULDN’T STOP CRIMINALS –
…Only law-abiding gun owners would comply
…Most criminals get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family and friends
…Straw purchasers already pass background checks and provide firearms to criminals
-BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
…Increased registration on handgun transfers
…If the buyer did not pass the background check, the dealer would be required to perform a second background check on the seller to return the firearm
…Would require virtually all transfers of firearms to be brokered through a licensed dealer (including most family transfers!)
-I want to sell a firearm to my brother…go through a dealer.
-I want to loan a firearm to my son…go through a dealer.
-I am out shooting with my 21 year old son…can’t let him handle my firearm without going through a dealer. (…but I can let my 16 year old son handle my firearm without dealer intervention – if supervised)
-My 17 year old daughter is on the high school trapshooting team…she can no longer use my shotgun.
-I am a rancher in Eastern WA and my 17 year old son takes my truck across the family property with my ranch rifle in the gun rack…I have just committed a gross misdemeanor.
…CPL holders NOT exempt
…Law enforcement officers not exempt when off-duty
…Would prohibit hunting by youth under age 18 without direct supervision and control
…Would double the waiting period on handgun sales from 5 days to 10 days and extend it to all private transfers
…Would extend the federal waiting period from 3 days to 10 days when checks are not approved immediately
-UNENFORCEABLE
…Only way to enforce this concept: Set up widespread sting operations which would disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens and would be prohibitively expensive, furthering the DIVERSION of SCARCE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES .
-MASSIVE GOVERNMENT DATABASE OF LAW-ABIDING HANDGUN OWNERS
…Data on law-abiding handgun owners maintained by Washington State (Department of Licensing)
-UNFAIR
…The records created by these dealer transfers will give the government the necessary tool to single out and collect more tax (“Use” Tax) from law-abiding firearm owners!
…The transfer fee payable to firearm dealers is essentially an additional “firearm transfer tax.”
This information supplied by NRA-ILA.
******************************************************************************************
ALSO - VOTE YES on INITIATIVE-591!
I-591 Requires that background checks must be implemented by the federal government, not the state. If I-594 passes I-591 overrides it.
Post by: mfswallace on May 28, 2014, 12:37:43 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on May 28, 2014, 01:35:11 AM
Post by: timberfaller on May 28, 2014, 09:34:58 AM
We kicked Jay out of office over the Brady bill, he tucked his tail between his legs and moved to the west side.
Now he runs the state, DID anyone think for a minute he would act different!!??
Your stuck on stupid, if you vote for a Democrat/RINO, YOUR part of the problem NOT the solution!
Post by: Atroxus on May 28, 2014, 12:30:42 PM
"Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques."
It also says nothing about having to do background check to let someone handle your firearm. It does state "loans" are not exempt though, so I suppose it could be interpreted that loaning a gun to a family member would not be exempt, but that gifting it would? :dunno:
All around a worthless and poorly written initiative, but I think we can fight it better with the truth than we can with lies. :twocents:
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf (http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf)
Post by: Special T on May 28, 2014, 01:13:34 PM
Post by: csaaphill on May 30, 2014, 03:14:01 PM
Problem is I read in the paper a Majority favor both and a slight majority favor the universal background check when selling a gun.
So if both passed it would go to the Courts! :yike: :bdid:
Can you imagine all the crap you will have to go through if 594 passes?
I wouldn't abide anyhows and hope most wouldnt either!
Can't enforce something they can't get a hold of Just like CT and NY not registering their assault rifles and saying nuts to your law.
If more people don't abide with this then they can't do nothing.
Post by: Windwalker on May 30, 2014, 09:50:40 PM
Someone needs to come up with a crafty slogan so folks don't screw up and vote for the wrong bill-
591 is #1 :tup: and 594 :nono: opens hells door.. or some...better ...WAY better slogan...
This is where they are headed if we are not careful- read through some of this http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs)
Anyone voting for 594 needs to reconsider.
HI 594
Brief Summary of Bill
Provides that all firearms sales or transfers in whole or in part in Washington are subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by federal or state law.
Requires firearm sales or transfers between unlicensed persons to be completed by a licensed dealer according to specified procedures.
Establishes penalties and exemptions, and makes other changes to provisions governing firearms transactions.
All firearms sales or transfers are subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by federal or state law. This requirement applies to all sales or transfers in whole or in part in Washington, including sales and transfers through a dealer, at gun shows, on line, and between unlicensed persons. "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment, including gifts and loans.
HI 591
Brief Summary of Bill
Provides that it is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.
Provides that it is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.
Under state and federal laws, firearms dealers (dealers) are required to have licenses in order to sell firearms. Under state law, a dealer includes anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms who has or is required to have a federal dealer's license. A person is not required to have a dealer's license in order to sell firearms if the person makes only occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or sells all or part of his or her personal collection of firearms.
State and federal law require dealers to conduct backgrounds checks on sales or transfers of firearms to unlicensed persons. Neither state nor federal law requires background checks for firearms sales or transfers by persons who are not dealers. However, it is unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm to another person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible to possess a firearm.
Post by: huntrights on June 02, 2014, 09:55:27 PM
YES on I-591: Protect Our Gun Rights
I-594 just feeds into the anti-gun agenda.
NO on I-594: the anti-gun initiative
Post by: Wacenturion on June 02, 2014, 11:29:44 PM
591 is #1 :tup: and 594 :nono: opens hells door.. or some...better ...WAY better slogan...
Totally agree....as a lot of people are going to be confused or uninformed.
591....You Keep Your Gun.....594...They'll Kick Down Your Door
Post by: Fl0und3rz on June 02, 2014, 11:59:49 PM
No, of course not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting)
Quote
Preparations
Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske alleged that the suspect, Naveed Afzal Haq, had selected his target by researching "something Jewish" on the Internet. Haq is said to have legally purchased two semiautomatic handguns in Tri-Cities area stores, receiving the weapons on July 27, 2006, after the mandatory waiting period had expired. Haq allegedly received a traffic ticket on the way to the shooting, but did nothing to arouse the officer's suspicions.[3]
But that does not matter to these liberty hating fools, until the crocodile comes to eat them last.
Post by: sakoshooter on June 09, 2014, 10:53:08 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on June 09, 2014, 11:12:41 AM
If I am correct he put some money on the table for 594.
Post by: smittyJ on June 15, 2014, 08:00:53 AM
Maybe some leverage for 591 can be had by portraying 594 as a big money Bloomberg and he knows better than you do.So did Hanour!
If I am correct he put some money on the table for 594.
Post by: Dave Workman on June 27, 2014, 11:38:22 AM
Why not vote no on both :dunno:
It won't work that way. To beat 594, you MUST pass 591, and vote against 594.
That's the ONLY way to deliver the message that gun rights are not for sale around here.
Post by: PNW_Hunter on July 12, 2014, 03:14:22 PM
Why not vote no on both :dunno:
It won't work that way. To beat 594, you MUST pass 591, and vote against 594.
That's the ONLY way to deliver the message that gun rights are not for sale around here.
:yeah:
Keep up the fight. Got my Yes on 591 and No on 594 bumper sticker the other day. Protect our rights!
Post by: huntnphool on July 12, 2014, 03:23:08 PM
Quote
591....You Keep Your Gun.....594...They Kick Down Your Door
Works for me :tup:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 13, 2014, 12:53:40 PM
could they be worried?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garlin Gilchrist II, MoveOn.org Political Actio
Dear Jim,
I'm Lauren Hipp of MomsRising.org, and I started a petition to Governor Jay Inslee , which says:
"I pledge to vote YES on I-594 for universal background checks on gun sales in our state!"
Sign Lauren's petition
The shootings at Seattle Pacific University and Reynolds Arthur Academy in Oregon just a few weeks ago broke our hearts. Washington State moms and dads have never been more concerned about gun safety, and never more ready for common sense reform of our gun laws to protect our kids and communities.
This Spring, the gun lobby killed a bill in our state legislature ensuring that all gun sales go through the same criminal background check system. Initiative 594 takes this simple, commonsense, life-saving reform directly to the voters – US!
We need 126,380 Washingtonians to pledge their votes by the end of August to make Washington safer – that's 10 percent of the votes we need to win on Initiative 594. Pledging now shows your commitment and helps encourage others to pledge as well so we can build momentum and exceed the number of votes we need by Election Day!
Initiative 594 won't completely eliminate gun violence – but it's a simple and effective step that we can take this year to make our children and families safer, and together, we can make it happen.
Pledge now!
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 28, 2014, 09:37:40 AM
Then let's say the background check is denied. Before the FFL returns the gun to the original owner, he must pass his own background check. If he fails, the FFL will be required by law to retain the firearm and hand it over to authorities, effectively making FFLs an arm of LE for both state and federal jurisdiction. This, along with what is an unreasonably long waiting period for someone to exercise a Constitutional right, may be the undoing of the law Constitutionally. To deny someone access to a firearm for this amount of time is unreasonable.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 28, 2014, 09:45:06 AM
Why not vote no on both :dunno:
It won't work that way. To beat 594, you MUST pass 591, and vote against 594.
That's the ONLY way to deliver the message that gun rights are not for sale around here.
If both pass, the state supreme court will have to sort out the background check issue since they both have different requirements.
Post by: huntrights on August 03, 2014, 10:23:53 PM
I-594 is an attack on our rights and freedoms.
The Devil is in the Details:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,156040.0.html
The Scam Artist
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/17946/the-scam-artist/
VOTE NO on I-594 - The ANTI-GUN Initiative
VOTE YES on I-591 - Protect Our Gun Rights
http://wagunrights.org/
Post by: poopooheaddad on August 05, 2014, 08:22:43 AM
It is our duty, no itching later if you dont vote
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 26, 2014, 12:17:21 PM
Post by: Bob33 on August 26, 2014, 12:29:15 PM
One of the huge pitfalls of 594 are the waiting times of up to 60 days before a sale is approved. And, that's 60 days after the FFL submits for the background check. Where this bill passed, the strain on our state's FFLs, which is already creating gridlock, would increase exponentially and it may be 3-6 months before the application is even submitted. There is no language in the bill for a time requirement for submission.Does that interpretation conflict with this?
Then let's say the background check is denied. Before the FFL returns the gun to the original owner, he must pass his own background check. If he fails, the FFL will be required by law to retain the firearm and hand it over to authorities, effectively making FFLs an arm of LE for both state and federal jurisdiction. This, along with what is an unreasonably long waiting period for someone to exercise a Constitutional right, may be the undoing of the law Constitutionally. To deny someone access to a firearm for this amount of time is unreasonable.
(a) The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted. If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 26, 2014, 12:33:18 PM
Also, what if you loan your gun to a buddy to sight in and shoot for a while before the season opens? That appears to be illegal under this.
These are some exemptions (where a transfer is legal):
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 26, 2014, 12:37:17 PM
Below are a couple of exemptions (where its okay to loan), looks like it is still okay to loan a gun to your buddy for hunting. One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be. Regardless, it looks like here, while its legal to hunt alone at 14, if you can't buy a gun or own a gun and you can't possess a gun without direct supervision... then they've pretty much made it so you can't hunt alone until you're 18 unless you're packing bow. Anybody else see this?I also noticed the age discrepency. As far as your buddy scenario, he can sight it in at a range as long as you are there. At least that is how I read it.
Also, what if you loan your gun to a buddy to sight in and shoot for a while before the season opens? That appears to be illegal under this.
These are some exemptions (where a transfer is legal):
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 26, 2014, 12:40:32 PM
Post by: snowpack on August 26, 2014, 12:42:06 PM
I thought it had to be a range with approved supervisors? What about sharing a rifle at a gravel pit?Below are a couple of exemptions (where its okay to loan), looks like it is still okay to loan a gun to your buddy for hunting. One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be. Regardless, it looks like here, while its legal to hunt alone at 14, if you can't buy a gun or own a gun and you can't possess a gun without direct supervision... then they've pretty much made it so you can't hunt alone until you're 18 unless you're packing bow. Anybody else see this?I also noticed the age discrepency. As far as your buddy scenario, he can sight it in at a range as long as you are there. At least that is how I read it.
Also, what if you loan your gun to a buddy to sight in and shoot for a while before the season opens? That appears to be illegal under this.
These are some exemptions (where a transfer is legal):
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 26, 2014, 12:52:28 PM
That is the question. I have not seen a definition of a so called state authorized range.I thought it had to be a range with approved supervisors? What about sharing a rifle at a gravel pit?Below are a couple of exemptions (where its okay to loan), looks like it is still okay to loan a gun to your buddy for hunting. One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be. Regardless, it looks like here, while its legal to hunt alone at 14, if you can't buy a gun or own a gun and you can't possess a gun without direct supervision... then they've pretty much made it so you can't hunt alone until you're 18 unless you're packing bow. Anybody else see this?I also noticed the age discrepency. As far as your buddy scenario, he can sight it in at a range as long as you are there. At least that is how I read it.
Also, what if you loan your gun to a buddy to sight in and shoot for a while before the season opens? That appears to be illegal under this.
These are some exemptions (where a transfer is legal):
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
Post by: Bob33 on August 26, 2014, 01:04:26 PM
One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be.There is no minimum hunting age in Washington state. As long as you have passed hunter education and are otherwise legal, you can hunt at any age, alone or accompanied.
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 26, 2014, 01:07:22 PM
One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be.There is no minimum hunting age in Washington state. As long as you have passed hunter education and are otherwise legal, you can hunt at any age, alone or accompanied.
Thanks for the clarification. Given that the age to hunt alone is under 18, this will all but ensure that there will be no gun hunting alone/unaccompanied by anyone under the age of 18, at least the way I read it.
Post by: bobcat on August 26, 2014, 01:10:06 PM
My dad gives me guns all the time, either to clean, install a scope, or sight in. If asked, I would lie. Yes, lie, and say the gun is mine. It's really nobody's business anyway.
My feeling is the anti's bit off more than they can chew with this one. It's simply too extreme. No reasonable person will vote for it.
Post by: Bob33 on August 26, 2014, 01:10:51 PM
Why wouldn't the second "or" allow it?One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be.There is no minimum hunting age in Washington state. As long as you have passed hunter education and are otherwise legal, you can hunt at any age, alone or accompanied.
Thanks for the clarification. Given that the age to hunt alone is under 18, this will all but ensure that there will be no gun hunting alone/unaccompanied by anyone under the age of 18, at least the way I read it.
or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law.
Post by: Curly on August 26, 2014, 01:14:07 PM
It sounds like under this law if you were in possession of a gun that wasn't yours, for whatever reason, you would simply have to tell the authorities that it IS your gun, if questioned. How could they prove it was not?
My dad gives me guns all the time, either to clean, install a scope, or sight in. If asked, I would lie. Yes, lie, and say the gun is mine. It's really nobody's business anyway.
My feeling is the anti's bit off more than they can chew with this one. It's simply too extreme. No reasonable person will vote for it.
Problem is that there are a lot of unreasonable people that will be voting. No reasonable person should have voted for Obama or Inslee.......but here we sit with them. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on August 26, 2014, 01:19:48 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 26, 2014, 01:21:24 PM
Why wouldn't the second "or" allow it?One place I get caught up though... For a minor to hunt alone, I believe the minimum age is 14 or at least it used to be.There is no minimum hunting age in Washington state. As long as you have passed hunter education and are otherwise legal, you can hunt at any age, alone or accompanied.
Thanks for the clarification. Given that the age to hunt alone is under 18, this will all but ensure that there will be no gun hunting alone/unaccompanied by anyone under the age of 18, at least the way I read it.
or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law.
Well, reading the one before it pertaining to minors, it specifically mentions hunting. I would think a minor who was hunting with a borrowed gun would fall into exemption (iv) and not exemption (v), however if they are hunting then I suppose that could be one of the arguments (somewhat contradictory). Basically this is an area of interpretation left open. I would say the more specific law would apply when a person falls into that category. Either way, if your kid gets caught with a gun hunting under 18, who wants to pay to fight it in court...?
The second part of this, about hunting season... I think this would prohibit loaning a gun to a friend for the fall, prior to the season opening (so they could get comfortable with the gun and sight it in). Again, unless they're "coyote hunting" or you just lie.
Post by: Bob33 on August 26, 2014, 01:29:09 PM
Well, reasonable or not, there are a LOT of people who own guns. Hunters are a very small minority, but gun owners are not. I would think that almost everyone who owns a gun or knows someone who owns a gun, would be smart enough to vote against any new restrictions on the transfer of guns from one person to another.I hope you are right but fear it will pass. The pro 594 ads don't mention "transfers"; only the sale of guns to thugs who should have undergone a background check to prevent tragedies from happening.
Sadly, there are too many well meaning voters who are simply ignorant of what their vote may mean.
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 26, 2014, 01:31:13 PM
Well, reasonable or not, there are a LOT of people who own guns. Hunters are a very small minority, but gun owners are not. I would think that almost everyone who owns a gun or knows someone who owns a gun, would be smart enough to vote against any new restrictions on the transfer of guns from one person to another.
You must not have visited King county in a while. If the democrat ads say vote for it, they will. Honestly, I'm already planning on it being law. Maybe it is because I'm younger and know how the city vibe goes.
If you know any gun owners that are generally careless about voting, PLEASE encourage them to vote on this. We need everyone who had an opinion against this to get their vote in. Otherwise, I think its basically as good as law.
Post by: bobcat on August 26, 2014, 01:32:14 PM
Post by: bradslam on August 26, 2014, 01:32:41 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on August 26, 2014, 01:35:24 PM
Plus Paul Allen, Nick Haunhauer and your good buddy that owns the Hawks just donated some serious money to get this initiative to pass.
I see in some other forums people are voting "NO" on both. Too bad that more cannot be done to educated people about the initiative.
Post by: Bob33 on August 26, 2014, 01:40:09 PM
It's simply wishful thinking on my part. I have no idea if it will pass or not. I just hope that most people are smart enough to actually read and research the true repercussions of this instead of only going by what the ad on TV says.http://www.king5.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/18/14029370/ (http://www.king5.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/18/14029370/)
The Elway Poll found that 70 percent of people were inclined to vote for Initiative 594. The same poll showed that 46 percent of people were inclined to vote for a competing measure, Initiative 591, which would prevent Washington state from adopting background-check laws stricter than the national standard.
Thirty-two percent of respondents said they were inclined to vote for both initiatives in November.
Post by: woodswalker on August 26, 2014, 02:29:31 PM
I am going to vote no on i-594, but to the OP, you really should fact-check before posting. The following is from the full text of the initiative which I am including a link to as well.
"Background checks would not be required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques."
It also says nothing about having to do background check to let someone handle your firearm. It does state "loans" are not exempt though, so I suppose it could be interpreted that loaning a gun to a family member would not be exempt, but that gifting it would? :dunno:
All around a worthless and poorly written initiative, but I think we can fight it better with the truth than we can with lies. :twocents:
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf (http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf)
Its not poorly written, its written EXACTLY AS THE PROVIDERS WANT IT...its GOAL is to CRIMINALIZE GUNOWNERS. A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill. Makes a pair of felons at a time.
COME ON FOLKS WAKE THE HELL UP. See that gun rights are under HARD attack...the rich Libs (Hanauer, Bloomers, Gates etc) are POURING money into this in CUBIC loads.
Post by: woodswalker on August 26, 2014, 02:33:41 PM
I know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls. If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.
Brad, Brad, Brad....do you NOT READ HISTORY!????? Nor LEARN from it???
"Reasonable" is just another word in the Anti's lexicon for "Some for me and none for you".
Do you REALLY want to give away your RIGHTS in penny packets?
COME ON FOLKS>>>WAKE THE HELL UP---Divide and conquer? heard of that?
Stop quibbling about degrees and get with the program....if we dont hang together...we most certainly will hang separately...one at a time.
Post by: huntrights on August 26, 2014, 02:46:52 PM
I-591 is PRO-Gun
I-594 is ANTI-Gun
Please get the word out to:
VOTE YES on I-591 (The PRO-Gun Initiative)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The ANTI-Gun Initiative)
It's the grassroots effort that will defeat I-594. If ALL hunters and gun owners are not on board, we will have several unnecessary, menacing, overbearing, GUN-CONTROL laws and regulations shoved into our lives that take away the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens and doesn't do anything to stop crime or criminals. I-594 is GUN-CONTROL that will burden only law-abiding citizens.
Please review the attachments (PDF files below)
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 26, 2014, 03:08:47 PM
This... is just infuriating.
For anyone watching this thread that thinks this won't pass, you're wrong. I'm sorry, but this is going to pass with flying colors.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: npaull on August 26, 2014, 03:31:29 PM
Quote
I know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls. If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.
BINGO. The NRA's idiot policy of "no regulations on anything!" CREATES these kinds of problems, which in turn enrages gun owners, who then given money to the NRA as they surrender their minds to its fear tactics. It's almost like they are using fear to make $....
Also, the "only law abiding citizens will comply!" argument is ludicrous - it applies to EVERY law. Should we not have laws against speeding because only the non-speeders won't speed? How about murder?
It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, when better arguments exist.
Post by: vandeman17 on August 26, 2014, 03:42:06 PM
QuoteI know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls. If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.
BINGO. The NRA's idiot policy of "no regulations on anything!" CREATES these kinds of problems, which in turn enrages gun owners, who then given money to the NRA as they surrender their minds to its fear tactics. It's almost like they are using fear to make $....
Also, the "only law abiding citizens will comply!" argument is ludicrous - it applies to EVERY law. Should we not have laws against speeding because only the non-speeders won't speed? How about murder?
It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, when better arguments exist.
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
- St. Augustine
Post by: Bob33 on August 26, 2014, 06:51:58 PM
BINGO. The NRA's idiot policy of "no regulations on anything!" CREATES these kinds of problems, which in turn enrages gun owners, who then given money to the NRA as they surrender their minds to its fear tactics. It's almost like they are using fear to make $....1. Please educate me what the NRA did to create a problem of people buying guns without background checks.
Also, the "only law abiding citizens will comply!" argument is ludicrous - it applies to EVERY law. Should we not have laws against speeding because only the non-speeders won't speed? How about murder?
It's an absolutely ridiculous argument, when better arguments exist.
2. The data I've read indicates that the vast majority of firearm related crime is committed with illegally obtained guns. What data do you have that refutes this?
3. What is your better argument?
Post by: SCRUBS on August 26, 2014, 07:24:45 PM
It's simply wishful thinking on my part. I have no idea if it will pass or not. I just hope that most people are smart enough to actually read and research the true repercussions of this instead of only going by what the ad on TV says.
I wouldn`t hold your breath on it, sure hate to lose you....
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 26, 2014, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: woodswalker link=topic=154010.msg2107794#msg2107794
A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill. Makes a pair of felons at a time.See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.
Post by: bradslam on August 26, 2014, 09:46:56 PM
I know this will upset a bunch of people, but this is why I don't agree with the mentality of many gun rights advocates who won't budge an inch on reasonable controls. If you have your head in the sand and are not at the table working on productive solutions to the problems that exist, someone else will be coming up with the solutions and you may not like the result.
Brad, Brad, Brad....do you NOT READ HISTORY!????? Nor LEARN from it???
"Reasonable" is just another word in the Anti's lexicon for "Some for me and none for you".
Do you REALLY want to give away your RIGHTS in penny packets?
COME ON FOLKS>>>WAKE THE HELL UP---Divide and conquer? heard of that?
Stop quibbling about degrees and get with the program....if we dont hang together...we most certainly will hang separately...one at a time.
Sorry, but I stand by what I said. I'm all for gun rights, but there are obviously some controls that need to be in place. With all the shootings that have happened by people who slipped through the mental health system cracks in recent history, the general public is getting very tired of the NRA's stance. I would rather gun rights groups be at the table assisting in finding solutions that have minimal effect on legal gun owners, than have antis coming up with the laws without our involvement. Yes, I learn from history and I will tell you now that, like it or not, I-594 will pass.
Post by: Special T on August 27, 2014, 07:51:32 AM
Post by: bradslam on August 27, 2014, 08:18:38 AM
Post by: woodswalker on August 27, 2014, 10:38:19 AM
It's funny that I never defined reasonable or said anything about the state taking anything away from anybody, but you are making assumptions. One of the solutions I think needs to be worked on is fixing our broken mental health system and has nothing to do with gun control itself. In my profession I see people everyday that shouldn't be out among the general public in their current condition.
I will agree with you on the HOPELESSLY broken mental health system. I too see folks who REALLY need to be somewhere that their needs can be attended to, NOT wandering about on the streets.
Not the rest.
Post by: woodswalker on August 27, 2014, 10:39:07 AM
Quote from: woodswalker link=topic=154010.msg2107794#msg2107794A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill. Makes a pair of felons at a time.See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.
Here is the text from the bill...
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.
the Act provides:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.
The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a
licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the
sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer. Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete
This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)). If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG. the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)
Maybe you want to be the test case? I dont.
Post by: woodswalker on August 27, 2014, 10:49:33 AM
My gunsmith's comment: Based on this I would have to raise the cost of doing background checks to $100.00 per firearm due to all the work that a dealer would be required to do to run one and the paperwork I would have to keep and submit
And it would not stop one bad sale from happening
Again, read the whole bill, CAREFULLY and in a 'what could be done with the unmentioned bits" view and see where this could come off the rails really fast..
Post by: snowpack on August 27, 2014, 11:05:51 AM
Post by: rim_runner on August 27, 2014, 11:14:53 AM
Post by: bobcat on August 27, 2014, 11:26:00 AM
Just a sample:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F08%2F28%2F5u7ehuvu.jpg&hash=6f09c26171f3f4bca576884ae7bd809ae6453117)
Post by: Jacque on August 27, 2014, 11:34:49 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on August 27, 2014, 11:45:52 AM
I was just reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. From reading this, I'd guess most people who live in the major cities and are afraid of guns, will surely vote in favor of Initiative 594. For those who have guns you might want to eventually sell, you might want to do it before initiate 594 passes.
Just a sample:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F08%2F28%2F5u7ehuvu.jpg&hash=6f09c26171f3f4bca576884ae7bd809ae6453117)
(25) "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
Their definition of what constitutes a transfer sure seems to contradict whether you would have to get a background check to shoot a friends gun....
Post by: woodswalker on August 27, 2014, 12:40:34 PM
I was just reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. From reading this, I'd guess most people who live in the major cities and are afraid of guns, will surely vote in favor of Initiative 594. For those who have guns you might want to eventually sell, you might want to do it before initiate 594 passes.
(25) "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
Their definition of what constitutes a transfer sure seems to contradict whether you would have to get a background check to shoot a friends gun....
BINGO....you are hitting the point i was trying to make...TRANSFER is a LOADED word in this use...AND there is no guarantee that the "talking points" are either Complete OR correct.
Tts up to you to CAREFULLY READ the bill. MOST folks wont.
Post by: Stickerbush on August 27, 2014, 12:58:55 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 27, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
1) In an effort to convince people not to vote for this, can ANYONE find me a crime that was committed, that would have been prevented had this law been in place earlier. I cannot find a single instance of a "gun show purchase" by someone who was not legal to own guns, who then went on and committed a crime with it.
2) I now wish the law posed last year would have passed, which at least would have allowed free transfer of arms between people with concealed weapons permits. Does anyone have any idea how hard that would be to pass after this thing passes.
I'm just pssd, this won't change anything, this WOULDN'T have changed anything in the past, and really is only an effort for the gov to track gun sales. I've never considered myself a civil disobedient...but its starting to be something I'm considering.
Post by: rim_runner on August 27, 2014, 01:35:37 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 27, 2014, 01:43:06 PM
The so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place.
The so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. However, people will still vote for it. I'm already trying to decide what can be done to alter it in the future to make it easier to deal with, or trying to cope with it internally now. I always am discouraged when people are willing to vote away their rights so that the government can take care of them and expect nothing less from our sheep-like people in Wa, but I still get discouraged when I see it right in the face.
This will pass (the law), and we'll have to figure out how we'll live in the crime free :chuckle: future after it.
Some things I'm thinking:
1) When it passes, since every gun will be owned by someone who is background checked, why not expand concealed carry onto college campuses, bars, churches, etc. How can you deny a legal gun owner who is 100% checked out, the right to protect themselves in these areas?
2) Eliminate need for concealed carry permit, since everyone will have been checked, a concealed carry permit now does nothing to protect anyone. We're all in the same boat.
Post by: Curly on August 27, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 27, 2014, 01:59:50 PM
How will everyone be background checked? I have a big enough supply of guns now that I will not ever need to buy another, so how will the government know what guns I have? :dunno:
I was being a little bit sarcastic... and of course they'll never go for any of that, even if everyone was checked.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 27, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
Post by: woodswalker on August 27, 2014, 02:01:04 PM
The so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place.The so called gun show loophole is highly exaggerated. Dealers at a gun show are still required to do a background check. Many shows require all sales have a background check. The only legal sale that doesn’t require a background check is a transaction between to residents of the state that the sale takes place in. This is federal law and applies to all states. Some states have expanded the background check to include face to face sales and some states don’t have this requirement. What the supporters of I 594 keep saying is they want Washington to require background checks for all sales but the wording of I 594 goes far beyond that, as the confusion about transfers shows. The supporters are being misleading and dishonest about this initiative. That in itself is reason enough to oppose this bill. Why accept a flawed law when it should have been better written in the first place.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree. However, people will still vote for it. I'm already trying to decide what can be done to alter it in the future to make it easier to deal with, or trying to cope with it internally now. I always am discouraged when people are willing to vote away their rights so that the government can take care of them and expect nothing less from our sheep-like people in Wa, but I still get discouraged when I see it right in the face.
This will pass (the law), and we'll have to figure out how we'll live in the crime free :chuckle: future after it.
Some things I'm thinking:
1) When it passes, since every gun will be owned by someone who is background checked, why not expand concealed carry onto college campuses, bars, churches, etc. How can you deny a legal gun owner who is 100% checked out, the right to protect themselves in these areas?
2) Eliminate need for concealed carry permit, since everyone will have been checked, a concealed carry permit now does nothing to protect anyone. We're all in the same boat.
EXCEPT for ONE SMALL DETAIL....there will now be a fairly complete registry of all firearms transactions.
WHO IS TO SAY..that when/if the "Turn them all IN" comes...that the linkages wont be made, look at facebook friends suggestions, between those who SOLD one, and who BOUGHT one as well as others at the same addresses....If you SOLD one you might have others that you didnt register...If you bought one you might have more that you didnt register...and your friends on the social sites (that is what this is after all) might ALSO have firearms. You can see that familial relations would be linked...and those folks checked.
Using those tools its very possible to link those folks with buying habits....See there, Juan Doe buys ammo online and at Cabelas, Hmmm No gun registered...Lets go see Juan (here comes your doorknocker raid). See Also Curly, he doesnt have any transactions...but buys powder and primers...and lead, and bullets.
For those of you who think that this is tinfoil-hatter stuff, see what is being done in CA and NY.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 27, 2014, 02:05:12 PM
Post by: Curly on August 27, 2014, 02:06:36 PM
They just have to ask the UPS guy or Fedex guy and they will figure out that I get bullets, primers, etc delivered. :o
Post by: Curly on August 27, 2014, 02:08:08 PM
Post by: woodswalker on August 27, 2014, 02:22:05 PM
http://wagunrights.org/gottlieb-challenges-gates-put-mouth-money/ (http://wagunrights.org/gottlieb-challenges-gates-put-mouth-money/)
Read what the CCRKBA has to say. Gottlieb calls out the facts of I-594...as well as the facts on I-591.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 27, 2014, 08:55:39 PM
Your wrong because a transfer by definition is a change of ownership. What you are referring to is borrowing, not a transfer. Secondly, even if you were right a first offense does not make you a felon. Again, inform people of the truths and problems with the bill. There is no need to exaggerate to make it sound worse, it's already bad enough.Quote from: woodswalker link=topic=154010.msg2107794#msg2107794A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill. Makes a pair of felons at a time.See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.
Here is the text from the bill...
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.
the Act provides:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.
The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a
licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the
sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer. Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete
This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)). If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG. the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)
Maybe you want to be the test case? I dont.
Post by: ghosthunter on August 27, 2014, 09:14:30 PM
Your wrong because a transfer by definition is a change of ownership. What you are referring to is borrowing, not a transfer. Secondly, even if you were right a first offense does not make you a felon. Again, inform people of the truths and problems with the bill. There is no need to exaggerate to make it sound worse, it's already bad enough.Quote from: woodswalker link=topic=154010.msg2107794#msg2107794A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill. Makes a pair of felons at a time.See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.
Here is the text from the bill...
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.
the Act provides:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.
The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a
licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the
sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer. Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete
This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)). If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG. the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)
Maybe you want to be the test case? I dont.
Soooo in your opinion,
If my buddy stops by work and picks up my shotgun for two days from me.
Am I guilty.
Or
If I am in a gravel pit shooting and hand my buddy my gun to shoot.
Am I guilty ?
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 27, 2014, 09:23:33 PM
No idea, I was addressing a different issue. The whole problem with this whole initative is that it is open to way to much gray area interpretation. Even if it passes it will be held up in the courts for clarification for years probably.Your wrong because a transfer by definition is a change of ownership. What you are referring to is borrowing, not a transfer. Secondly, even if you were right a first offense does not make you a felon. Again, inform people of the truths and problems with the bill. There is no need to exaggerate to make it sound worse, it's already bad enough.Quote from: woodswalker link=topic=154010.msg2107794#msg2107794A CAREFUL READING yeilds that its does EXACTLY AS INDICATED...that Letting someone handle your firearm is defined as a TRANSFER in the bill. Makes a pair of felons at a time.See this is what I was talking about. We need people to actually fight what is written into the initiative. Not just spewing what they have read or heard from someone. This statement above is completely false. We have to fight intelligently not emotionally.
Here is the text from the bill...
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.
the Act provides:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law.
The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a
licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the
sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory (requires logging it in to my bound book and logging it out)to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted.
If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer. Once the gun is in my bound book it cannot leave until the transfer is complete
This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
<snip (b)-(e); (b) deals with antiques; (c) Deals with immediate danger; (d)Law enforcement while on duty and (e) the recieval and return by a federally licensed gunsmith.
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
If you note there is NO - repeat NO - exemption for the loan of a gun to a friend while NOT at an established range (s/s (ii)) or competition (s/s(iii)). If you think that a lack of mention means it wont be tagged, you are DEAD WRONG. the term "transfer" is left VERY open (defined as but not limited to gifts and loans)
Maybe you want to be the test case? I dont.
Soooo in your opinion,
If my buddy stops by work and picks up my shotgun for two days from me.
Am I guilty.
Or
If I am in a gravel pit shooting and hand my buddy my gun to shoot.
Am I guilty ?
Post by: hughjorgan on August 27, 2014, 09:33:49 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on August 27, 2014, 09:35:11 PM
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 27, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
Post by: snowpack on August 27, 2014, 09:45:50 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on August 27, 2014, 09:55:55 PM
I got the impression it was for the indoor ranges or the outdoor ones that have staff members.
:yeah: what comes to my mind is brick and mortar. They probably didn't even consider people shooting in the woods.
Post by: Jacque on August 28, 2014, 06:53:58 AM
Post by: woodswalker on August 28, 2014, 09:43:56 AM
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.
Post by: woodswalker on August 28, 2014, 09:45:05 AM
The biggest issue with this bill (I-594) is it's trying tie every background checked ower with a registered gun. Not at all what the tile implies. Again look at NY and see where that leads. Next thing you know you get a map of all gun owners posted on the local news.
Exactly what i posted earlier about lists, social networks and finding WHO has the guns.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 28, 2014, 09:57:22 AM
Post by: snowpack on August 28, 2014, 09:57:54 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 10:05:38 AM
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 10:12:54 AM
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.
Post by: woodswalker on August 28, 2014, 10:28:00 AM
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. :tup:
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.
Post by: woodswalker on August 28, 2014, 10:35:54 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 10:39:37 AM
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.
Post by: baldopepper on August 28, 2014, 10:51:33 AM
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 11:17:35 AM
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.
Post by: vandeman17 on August 28, 2014, 11:21:21 AM
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
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 11:23:11 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 11:36:41 AM
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.
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 11:49:08 AM
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.
Post by: Special T on August 28, 2014, 11:52:41 AM
Post by: demontang on August 28, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on August 28, 2014, 11:58:36 AM
Im willing to bet it may raise theft of firearms. I know it sure as hell wont stop felones from getting firearms :twocents:
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 :o
Post by: baldopepper on August 28, 2014, 12:01:44 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 28, 2014, 12:06:36 PM
"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/ (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.
Post by: demontang on August 28, 2014, 12:08:16 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 28, 2014, 12:11:16 PM
I just did, I hope they choose to support.
First offense of loaning a gun to your kid to hunt alone at age 16... is a misdemeanor, second offense is a Class C Felony where you don't get to vote or own firearms anymore. But hey, why worry about it?
Post by: Bob33 on August 28, 2014, 12:14:57 PM
Polls also suggest that I-591 has a good chance of passing.
The best reasonable hope that gun rights individuals have is to support I-591 with money, time, and spreading the word.
If both intitiatives pass, the law will need to be decided in court, not by an initiative approved by ignorant voters.
Post by: snowpack on August 28, 2014, 12:16:08 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 01:26:44 PM
"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.
"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"
http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/ (http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 01:29:38 PM
"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.
And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either. :twocents: They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 01:37:05 PM
"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.
And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either. :twocents: They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.
And let's give this a little context. How about if we just change the 4th Amendment, just a little? Let's say we take out the part about seizures:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
The people who don't like guns want to see the government have more power in grabbing them, so they change the 4th this way. Wouldn't a reasonable person say "that's OK, they're not taking all of the 4th Amendment away. We should make this compromise." How would you feel about that? Or how about taking away the right to assemble from the 1st. People shouldn't be gathering and causing trouble for the government.
The Constitution is non-negotiable and should remain that way. You can't make deals for the parts you want to keep and let others go. It's a document that works as a whole and none of the Bill of Rights have changed since its creation.
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
"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.
"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"
http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/ (http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/)
That is one person who was referencing a single incident. That is a far cry from saying that the proponents have admitted that no one is going to be safer. Using arguments that are not based in fact make us look foolish.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 01:47:41 PM
"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.
"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"
http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/ (http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/)
That is one person who was referencing a single incident. That is a far cry from saying that the proponents have admitted that no one is going to be safer. Using arguments that are not based in fact make us look foolish.
So, you tell us how anyone will be made safer by universal background checks. Tells us how the background checks will dissuade someone intent on committing murder not to murder. And tell us that, because of how the law is written and that it could take 6 months or more to procure a firearm, it's not possible that some people will actually be put in more danger by having to wait an unreasonable amount of time to get a firearm to protect themselves and their family. Please. I'm all ears.
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 01:52:00 PM
"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.
And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either. :twocents: They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.
No one said anything about grabbing our ankles. A problem I see with the stance many gun rights advocates take is that their whole outlook is based on what the extremists on the other side want. On any issue, there is an extreme viewpoint on each side and the vast majority of voters fall somewhere in the middle. It is the battle over the middle that is important. I happen to think that due to our lack of pro-activeness and cooperation, we are losing that battle and it will cost us more in the end.
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 01:56:34 PM
"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.
And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either. :twocents: They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.
And let's give this a little context. How about if we just change the 4th Amendment, just a little? Let's say we take out the part about seizures:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchesand seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and thepersons or things to be seizedpeople."
The people who don't like guns want to see the government have more power in grabbing them, so they change the 4th this way. Wouldn't a reasonable person say "that's OK, they're not taking all of the 4th Amendment away. We should make this compromise." How would you feel about that? Or how about taking away the right to assemble from the 1st. People shouldn't be gathering and causing trouble for the government.
The Constitution is non-negotiable and should remain that way. You can't make deals for the parts you want to keep and let others go. It's a document that works as a whole and none of the Bill of Rights have changed since its creation.
Did I say anything about changing the Constitution? Obviously, there are constraints put on the rights contained within the Constitution that are not mentioned and are perfectly reasonable. For instance, a felon or someone who is deemed mentally ill cannot possess a firearm.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 01:57:47 PM
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
There is no half way. For the people like Feinkenstein, of which there are hordes, nothing but complete prohibition of firearms is acceptable.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 02:04:04 PM
"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.
And, you thinking we should grab our ankles for the anti-gunners doesn't help our cause, either. :twocents: They're not going to stop at background checks. You can't meet someone halfway unless you know what halfway is. When they keep changing the goal post, halfway changes, as well.
And let's give this a little context. How about if we just change the 4th Amendment, just a little? Let's say we take out the part about seizures:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchesand seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and thepersons or things to be seizedpeople."
The people who don't like guns want to see the government have more power in grabbing them, so they change the 4th this way. Wouldn't a reasonable person say "that's OK, they're not taking all of the 4th Amendment away. We should make this compromise." How would you feel about that? Or how about taking away the right to assemble from the 1st. People shouldn't be gathering and causing trouble for the government.
The Constitution is non-negotiable and should remain that way. You can't make deals for the parts you want to keep and let others go. It's a document that works as a whole and none of the Bill of Rights have changed since its creation.
Did I say anything about changing the Constitution? Obviously, there are constraints put on the rights contained within the Constitution that are not mentioned and are perfectly reasonable. For instance, a felon or someone who is deemed mentally ill cannot possess a firearm.
Some people feel that felons who have served their time and paid their penalties should have their rights restored. I'm not in complete disagreement with that.
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 02:05:52 PM
"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.
"Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, admitted to KVI’s John Carlson that, “California has some of the strictest laws in the country on gun violence. I don’t think that there’s any law that would have prevented the tragedy in Santa Barbara.”"
http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/ (http://www.thegunmag.com/wa-state-anti-gunner-admits-gun-control-laws-prevented-isla-vista-murder-spree/)
That is one person who was referencing a single incident. That is a far cry from saying that the proponents have admitted that no one is going to be safer. Using arguments that are not based in fact make us look foolish.
So, you tell us how anyone will be made safer by universal background checks. Tells us how the background checks will dissuade someone intent on committing murder not to murder. And tell us that, because of how the law is written and that it could take 6 months or more to procure a firearm, it's not possible that some people will actually be put in more danger by having to wait an unreasonable amount of time to get a firearm to protect themselves and their family. Please. I'm all ears.
You just don't get it. I never said that I was in favor of anything specific contained in I-594. My whole argument has been trying to prevent bad laws from taking effect by participating in coming up with solutions that minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners. As I said on an earlier post, part of that has to do with fixing the broken mental health system and how those people are not reported in the system. How many times do we have to find out that the people responsible for these shootings were sending out massive red flags, but none of that is reported to the proper authority that could possibly prevent the incidents from taking place?
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 02:08:25 PM
This is from a senator who proposed and passed the federal gun control bill in 1996. Apparently, a waiting period and a moritorium on "assault weapons" isn't all she aims for.
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
There is no half way. For the people like Feinkenstein, of which there are hordes, nothing but complete prohibition of firearms is acceptable.
I understand that and I would place Feinstein in the extreme category, not the middle I was talking about.
Post by: baldopepper on August 28, 2014, 02:20:26 PM
Post by: bradslam on August 28, 2014, 02:27:40 PM
Pianoman I agree that there are a lot of hard core "no gun" advocates out there, but I believe there are a lot more moderates who would like to come up with some solution short of total bans that would keep guns out of the hands of hard core criminals. I think all of us would, but for the life of me, I honestly don't know of any law that would do that. Somehow we have to come up with legislation that would appeal to that large segment of moderates who don't want a total ban, but might go that way if given no alternative. Personally I kind of go with legislation that requires very long term sentences for anyone committing a crime with a gun. The only way I see to keep guns out of the hands of some is to keep them in prison. In the mean time, the real test is how do we keep from being backed into an all or nothing battle over gun control. That's kind of what's happened with I 594 and I think we all are pretty sure what the results of that are going to be. Geeze, I'm beginning to hear more comments about amending the 2nd amendment and as far fetched as that might seem, nothing surprises me anymore. We're just preaching to the choir on this forum, it's those moderates out there who are actually willing to listen that we need to get to and work with.
Amen! Thank you. That is another thing I advocate. Spend the money, build the prisons and keep these people locked up! You would not believe the amount of criminals and crazies that I see in my job that have multiple warrants and are out amongst the general population. The city I work for also has an unbelievable amount of sexual predators that are released in spite of the fact that they refused treatment while incarcerated.
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 28, 2014, 03:05:17 PM
https://www.voteno594.com/ (https://www.voteno594.com/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 03:39:40 PM
Pianoman I agree that there are a lot of hard core "no gun" advocates out there, but I believe there are a lot more moderates who would like to come up with some solution short of total bans that would keep guns out of the hands of hard core criminals. I think all of us would, but for the life of me, I honestly don't know of any law that would do that. Somehow we have to come up with legislation that would appeal to that large segment of moderates who don't want a total ban, but might go that way if given no alternative. Personally I kind of go with legislation that requires very long term sentences for anyone committing a crime with a gun. The only way I see to keep guns out of the hands of some is to keep them in prison. In the mean time, the real test is how do we keep from being backed into an all or nothing battle over gun control. That's kind of what's happened with I 594 and I think we all are pretty sure what the results of that are going to be. Geeze, I'm beginning to hear more comments about amending the 2nd amendment and as far fetched as that might seem, nothing surprises me anymore. We're just preaching to the choir on this forum, it's those moderates out there who are actually willing to listen that we need to get to and work with.
Without somehow magically getting rid of all 300 million guns in this country, you'll never get guns out of the hands of hardcore criminals, ever. Stiffer penalties will deter the less career criminals and keep bad guys put away longer. That's the best solution to gun crime. Hit them where it hurts. But hardcore criminals don't care about laws, ever, ever, ever. That's why they're called criminals. And they dance with glee every time a new law is passed restricting gun ownership because they know that means fewer armed law-abiding citizens. They still have the black market and still have access to guns. We just have fewer options. It's mind-blowingly screwed up to believe that a law, any law, will stop a hardcore criminal from doing exactly what they want. The best we can hope for is to stop them and put them away or kill them. That's it.
Post by: Special T on August 28, 2014, 03:41:31 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on August 28, 2014, 03:43:28 PM
Pianoman I agree that there are a lot of hard core "no gun" advocates out there, but I believe there are a lot more moderates who would like to come up with some solution short of total bans that would keep guns out of the hands of hard core criminals. I think all of us would, but for the life of me, I honestly don't know of any law that would do that. Somehow we have to come up with legislation that would appeal to that large segment of moderates who don't want a total ban, but might go that way if given no alternative. Personally I kind of go with legislation that requires very long term sentences for anyone committing a crime with a gun. The only way I see to keep guns out of the hands of some is to keep them in prison. In the mean time, the real test is how do we keep from being backed into an all or nothing battle over gun control. That's kind of what's happened with I 594 and I think we all are pretty sure what the results of that are going to be. Geeze, I'm beginning to hear more comments about amending the 2nd amendment and as far fetched as that might seem, nothing surprises me anymore. We're just preaching to the choir on this forum, it's those moderates out there who are actually willing to listen that we need to get to and work with.
Without somehow magically getting rid of all 300 million guns in this country, you'll never get guns out of the hands of hardcore criminals, ever. Stiffer penalties will deter the less career criminals and keep bad guys put away longer. That's the best solution to gun crime. Hit them where it hurts. But hardcore criminals don't care about laws, ever, ever, ever. That's why they're called criminals. And they dance with glee every time a new law is passed restricting gun ownership because they know that means fewer armed law-abiding citizens. They still have the black market and still have access to guns. We just have fewer options. It's mind-blowingly screwed up to believe that a law, any law, will stop a hardcore criminal from doing exactly what they want. The best we can hope for is to stop them and put them away or kill them. That's it.
That was EXACTLY what I told my mom in our debate about this last night. She brought up the Sandy Hook guy and asked if I think he would have been able to get a gun to carry out the massacre if his mom didn't have them in the house and I said a definitive "Eff Yes" I told her to tell me what kind of gun she wanted and I could have it for her within a day or two. If someone wants to get a gun, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from getting it but themselves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2014, 03:55:23 PM
I think the only way to change so called "Moderates" is to educate them. They suffer from the do something disease and need to be put on the correct track instead of the wrong one. :twocents:
I get it. I really do. Children are dying in schools and we need to do something, anything we can to stop it. But, they (the moderates and do-gooders and the raving mommies) need to know why children are dying in schools: they're dying because we made schools a safe place for crazies to kill kids by naively passing a law that says no one can carry a gun on school grounds. And, it never once crossed our minds that criminals and crazies would eventually see this as an opportunity. Well, they have finally recognized it as an opportunity, one that they'll continue to exploit until it goes away. A universal background check will not change the fact that this opportunity exists, nor will it diminish it.
Post by: snowpack on August 28, 2014, 04:00:46 PM
There's villages around Pakistan and the Phillipines where guys make functional guns, that look like anything in a store, from scrap steel and hand tools. Imagine what could be made with the advanced tooling here.
The Gun Markets of Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE#ws)
Vice Season 1: Episode 1 Extra - Backyard Gunshop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE#ws)
Post by: huntrights on August 28, 2014, 11:03:37 PM
Why on earth would any gun owner in Washington State agree to impose stricter gun controls on Washington citizens than exist at the federal level?
Why would any gun owner that cherishes and respects our rights and freedoms consider voting for gun control laws that are on the slippery slope toward the ominous and authoritarian gun control laws being imposed in California and New York?
Wake up folks. If we don’t pull together as a unified group of voters, we all lose.
A respectful request to those that are even remotely considering voting for the anti-gun initiative (I-594) - please reconsider. Please DO NOT vote away our rights and freedoms just because a few billionaires can afford to spread their anti-gun propaganda to impose their anti-gun ideologies. People need to realize they are using Washington as a test market for their anti-gun initiatives. If they can get this garbage to pass here, they will move on to the next state, then the next. These are NOT pro-Second Amendment people pushing this initiative; they are anti-gun zealots. Please see through their smoke screens of propaganda and efforts to divide gun owners.
Post by: rim_runner on August 29, 2014, 09:48:50 AM
Quote
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws.
Post by: Curly on August 29, 2014, 09:58:51 AM
what is this part about. is there a requirement to have pistols licensed in this state?Quote(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws.
:yeah: WTH is DOL going to do when you notify them? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 29, 2014, 10:06:30 AM
This is a really good section to point out to people who say this is a common sense bill. There's nothing common sense about this paragraph. Thanks for highlighting it. I missed that one completely.
Post by: rim_runner on August 29, 2014, 01:25:54 PM
Post by: woodswalker on August 29, 2014, 01:33:00 PM
Read http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/bracken-democide/ (http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/bracken-democide/), its educational, might be uncomfortable to read and perfectly illustrates what i meant in an earlier post about History.
See Also the new Islamist Caliphate in the Mideast and their tender treatments of those who dont already believe. There is video of forced conversions followed by execution anyhow.
Post by: sakoshooter on September 19, 2014, 01:37:22 AM
Reply: Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA.
We have full-time lobbyists that work specifically for Washington. We have election coordinators, campaign field reps, and volunteers on the ground. We have formed a separate PAC specifically for the defeat of Initiative 594. We have ad buys that will start appearing very soon, and we have mailings going out informing Washington voters of the dangers of I-594.
Best Regards,
Alex
NRA-ILA Grassroots
800-392-8683
www.NRAILA.org (http://www.NRAILA.org)
ILA-Contact@NRAHQ.org
Post by: luvmystang67 on September 19, 2014, 08:19:15 AM
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA.
We have full-time lobbyists working specifically for Washington. We have election coordinators, campaign field reps, and volunteers on the ground. We have formed a separate PAC specifically for the defeat of Initiative 594. We have ad buys that have already started appearing, and we have mailings going out informing voters of the ballot initiatives.
https://www.voteno594.com/ (https://www.voteno594.com/)
For information about what you can do to help, visit https://www.nrapvf.org/take-action/. (https://www.nrapvf.org/take-action/.)
While I-591 is a good initiative which we hope passes, our full resources are going into defeating I-594.
Best Regards,
Alex
NRA-ILA Grassroots
800-392-8683
www.NRAILA.org (http://www.NRAILA.org)
ILA-Contact@NRAHQ.org
Post by: Bob33 on September 19, 2014, 03:49:25 PM
While I-591 is a good initiative which we hope passes, our full resources are going into defeating I-594.They're really missing the boat. Very disappointing.
https://washingtonarmscollectors.org/2014/09/vote-for-i591/
A vote for I591 is critical. Recent public polling reveals that about 73% of Washington voters will vote “yes” on 594.
...
Initiative 591 is our only opportunity to stop 594 from becoming law in Washington
Early in the year polling indicated that 591 was also likely to pass, but more recent data shows 591 losing ground. It is now possible that 591 will not receive the votes necessary to become law. The millions of dollars spent by 594 supporters have had in impact. The superficial presentation by our major media has served to promote the idea that 594 is the better of the two initiatives.
I’ll put it bluntly—our only hope at this point is the passage of 591. If both 591 and 594 pass then two voter-approved initiatives with completely incompatible legal requirements have been made law. 591 mandates that, “It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.” This 591 provision would prohibit the private transfer requirements within 594 from becoming law because they are not part of any current Federal or national standard. 591 has the potential to stop 594 in its tracks.
Post by: huntrights on September 19, 2014, 06:31:22 PM
We need the grassroots effort to defeat I-594 and to pass I-591.
Educate the public.
Make sure ALL people you know are registered to VOTE and that they
VOTE YES on I-591 (Protect Our Gun Rights)
and
VOTE NO on I-594 (the ANTI-GUN Initiative)
Post by: Greenhorn on September 19, 2014, 09:01:56 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 25, 2014, 12:13:57 PM
Quote
NY Billionaire Wants to Buy out the Second Amendment in WA State
-- I-594 would result in 1 out of 16 gun buyers being illegitimately denied
Former Mayor Michael “Big Gulp” Bloomberg is trying to buy another state -- and this time the state is Washington.
The Bloomberg-backed proposal is I-594. This initiative will be voted on in the November election, and it’s 18 pages long. Eighteen pages!
So the only thing most Washingtonians will know about it is the lies Bloomberg is paying to spew over the airwaves.
Gun background checks: A repeated record of failure
Bloomberg claims that universal background checks -- and the inevitable universal gun registries -- will make Americans safer.
But Jared Loughner (who shot Gabrielle Giffords) passed a background check. James Holmes (the Aurora shooter) passed a background check. Ditto, Elliot Rodger in Santa Barbara and Naveed Afzal Haq in Seattle. Adam Lanza in Newtown stole his guns from his mom, who passed lots of background checks.
This, incidentally, even though the Brady Law was sold in the early 90’s as “the gun control which would stop crime and end the call for more gun control.”
The reality is that background checks are more of a burden to law-abiding citizens, than to criminals. Consider that more than 175,000 military veterans have been denied firearms because of PTSD-related symptoms.
And researcher John Lott has reported that roughly 95% of gun buyers who are initially denied by the FBI are actually “false positives.” It’s no wonder then that, as reported by the Department of Justice in 2012, the DOJ only prosecuted 44 criminals for illegally attempting to purchase a firearm -- and only 13 were convicted!
Background checks have utterly failed to take criminals off the street, which is the ONLY way to keep guns out of their hands.
But then again, the name of the game isn’t safety. It’s exploiting the victims of horrible tragedies in order to score political gain.
Detroit and Baltimore have background checks, gun bans and gun registries -- and yet both cities have murder rates that are amongst the highest in the nation.
But, if Bloomberg’s aim is not public safety, it’s making gun ownership such a trap-laden labyrinth that people throw up their hands and give up their guns.
After all, if Bloomberg has his way, one in sixteen law-abiding Washingtonians will be illegitimately banned from owning guns -- for no justifiable reason.
I-594 will create an illegitimate gun ban for 1 in 16 gun buyers
The dirty little secret of the Brady system is that 6.2% of law-abiding gun purchasers -- or one out of sixteen -- are illegally prevented from buying firearms.
This is, in large part, because the Brady InstantCheck system seldom indicates that a purchaser is a “prohibited person.” But it frequently provides a non-committal “yellow light” which never changes to green or red -- normally because the person’s name is similar to someone else’s.
Most gun dealers will not sell a gun subject to a “yellow light,” even if the law allows them to after three, ten, or sixty days.
And, while the FBI is legally required to correct these errors, more often than not, it simply tells the aggrieved party to “sue us” if unhappy with the erroneously imposed gun ban. Most people just give up -- or they simply buy a gun from a private individual.
But under Bloomberg’s initiative, private citizens buying from other private citizens will now have a one out of sixteen chance of being subject to an erroneous lifetime gun ban.
What if one out of sixteen lawful voters was illegally turned away from the polls? What if one out of sixteen innocent men was illegally sent to prison? What if one out of sixteen newspapers was shut down? None of these would be acceptable to anti-gun zealots who, with relish, deny the right of legitimate gun purchasers to exercise their Second Amendment rights one out of every sixteen times.
GET THE REST OF THE STORY. These problems with I-594 are just the tip of the iceberg. You can read GOA’s entire Fact Sheet on I-594 -- and get all of the sources and footnotes -- at http://gunowners.org/fact9252014.htm (http://gunowners.org/fact9252014.htm)
ACTION: Send this alert to everyone you know. Ask them to re-send it to everyone they know. Let every gun owner in Washington State -- or friend of a gun owner -- know that the Bloomberg initiative (I-594) must be defeated
Post by: andytoshif on September 25, 2014, 04:03:07 PM
It isn't about having a place in the conversation and negotiating a common sense arrangement. That would mean that the antis don't have disarmament as a long term goal and that they follow statistics and reason.
They want to take our guns, and they are content to slow walk laws, one at a time, till the Second Amendment is a punch line. They do that with lies and emotional manipulation--not statistics and reason.
Folks, it's about two things: Winning at the ballot box and uniformly supporting effective messaging.
Democrats can't win or WA could end up like Maryland, where Dems cram idiotic bills through that make less sense than I-594.
As far as messaging, the NRA is failing--terribly--and needs to use its clout or we will continue to lose the public's support.
Anyhow, keep fighting this law--it all starts with one.
Post by: timberfaller on September 30, 2014, 11:42:51 AM
It is quite the propaganda piece! anything requiring a FFL HAS to be shipped to a FFL holder. There are a few exceptions but only involving "In-state sales".
Will post what ever answer I get.
Others might want to do the same.
Post by: huntnphool on September 30, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
The commercial with the two clown prosecutors has Bownell's logo being used! I just email them to find out if they knew one of their trademarks are being used in a anti gun campaign.
It is quite the propaganda piece! anything requiring a FFL HAS to be shipped to a FFL holder. There are a few exceptions but only involving "In-state sales".
Will post what ever answer I get.
Others might want to do the same.
Do you mean Brownells?
Post by: DP on September 30, 2014, 12:10:39 PM
It sounds like under this law if you were in possession of a gun that wasn't yours, for whatever reason, you would simply have to tell the authorities that it IS your gun, if questioned. How could they prove it was not?
My dad gives me guns all the time, either to clean, install a scope, or sight in. If asked, I would lie. Yes, lie, and say the gun is mine. It's really nobody's business anyway.
My feeling is the anti's bit off more than they can chew with this one. It's simply too extreme. No reasonable person will vote for it.
Unfortunately, plenty of unreasonable people qualify for a ballot(s).
Post by: birddogdad on September 30, 2014, 12:30:11 PM
It sounds like under this law if you were in possession of a gun that wasn't yours, for whatever reason, you would simply have to tell the authorities that it IS your gun, if questioned. How could they prove it was not?
My dad gives me guns all the time, either to clean, install a scope, or sight in. If asked, I would lie. Yes, lie, and say the gun is mine. It's really nobody's business anyway.
My feeling is the anti's bit off more than they can chew with this one. It's simply too extreme. No reasonable person will vote for it.
Unfortunately, plenty of unreasonable people qualify for a ballot(s).
This is what is NOT being published and IS one hidden problem with this BS agenda.
Post by: bigbds61 on September 30, 2014, 01:17:24 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 30, 2014, 04:09:43 PM
Post by: Greenhorn on September 30, 2014, 07:58:45 PM
Post by: huntrights on September 30, 2014, 09:53:19 PM
VOTE NO on both I-594 AND I-591. I-591 will open the door for the UN to come in via a National Standard and place controls that violate the 2nd Amendment. Please do not be fooled. No new laws. Leave the 2nd Amendment alone. Period.
There is a chance that I-594 will pass because of all the anti-gun and other socialist types in the urban areas west of the Cascades. I-591 is the best chance we have to counter I-594 if it passes because they say two very different things.
If both pass, the initiatives would go to the courts or most likely the legislature to fix the conflicts; I-591 would effectively negate much of I-594.
If I-594 passes and I-591 does not, we are screwed.
If I-591 passes and I-594 does not, then we are OK; we keep our gun rights unless a new national system is passed which we would have to abide by anyway.
The message here is:
VOTE YES on I-591 (Protect Our Gun Rights)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The Anti-Gun Initiative)
Post by: gfull on October 01, 2014, 09:49:56 AM
Embarrassing to watch the I594 representatives. They are completely illiterate on their own initiative.
http://www.komonews.com/home/video/KOMO-to-host-Town-Hall-Special-Guns-in-America-274134031.html?tab=video&c=y (http://www.komonews.com/home/video/KOMO-to-host-Town-Hall-Special-Guns-in-America-274134031.html?tab=video&c=y)
Thoughts on some of the highlights of the law:
“’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.” Loans: So, letting you shoot my AR would be against the law without a background check first.
You have to sell/transfer through a licensed dealer (FFL licensed), which will cost $$$. The dealers will make out like bandits on this thing (not that they want to). Also puts the licensed dealer in a bad position should the buyer/transferee subsequently commits a crime with the firearm.
Also adds a layer of work for the licensed dealer, in that they have to keep records of the sale of the firearm as if it was in inventory. Sounds like they have to enter the firearm into inventory and then sell it out of inventory. Will this not add B&O (paid by the licensed dealer) to the transaction, if the licensed dealer adds the firearm to its inventory?
You can’t let your spouse borrow your firearm except in very limited circumstances and at approved locations.
You can let someone borrow your firearm to hunt, BUT they can only possess the firearm where it is legal to hunt, so unless the transfer takes place on legal hunting ground, you can’t let someone borrow your firearm to hunt (ie: they can’t take the firearm from your home in Issaquah and drive to Colville, since that is not legal hunting ground).
Incredibly restrictive law…
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 01, 2014, 10:00:31 AM
Post by: huntrights on October 02, 2014, 11:32:48 AM
It is amazing that there is any debate at all in this forum regarding these initiatives.
I-594 is BAD; it is ANTI-GUN to its core. I-594 attacks our rights and freedoms. I-594 is being pushed and funded by rabid Anti-Gun organizations and individuals. I-594 has been broadly written in such a way that it can turn any law-abiding gun-owner into an instant criminal. For example, temporarily transfer/loan your gun to your over-18 family member or friend while target shooting on public land just to let them try it, you have violated the law. There is NO valid debate regarding I-594; it is ANTI-GUN, and it will have dramatic negative effects on our rights and freedoms. Washington is a test market for this type extreme ANTI-GUN initiative. If they can shove it down our throats here, they will continue to do it state-by-state.
VOTE YES ON I-591 (Protect our Gun Rights)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The Anti-Gun Initiative)
ANTI-GUN billionaires are pitching in millions of dollars to fund I-594 and their ANTI-GUN agendas. Don't let them buy this election.
I-591 needs our support. It's time to put our money where our Second Amendment mouth is.
Make a donation now to support I-591.
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/AOaM4TFe/Protect-Our-Gun-Rights-YES-on-I-591/
This is a cause so great that every person in this forum should be donating; our rights and freedoms are truly at risk. Think about what you pay for a few gallons of gas, a few beers, or a few boxes of shells. Come on folks! Belly up to the I-591 donation bar and give a donation to fight for your rights and freedoms. Encourage your family and friends to donate as well.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on October 02, 2014, 12:05:20 PM
It is amazing that there is any debate at all in this forum regarding these initiatives.
I-594 is BAD; it is ANTI-GUN to its core. I-594 attacks our rights and freedoms. I-594 is being pushed and funded by rabid Anti-Gun organizations and individuals. I-594 has been broadly written in such a way that it can turn any law-abiding gun-owner into an instant criminal. For example, temporarily transfer/loan your gun to your over-18 family member or friend while target shooting on public land just to let them try it, you have violated the law. There is NO valid debate regarding I-594; it is ANTI-GUN, and it will have dramatic negative effects on our rights and freedoms. Washington is a test market for this type extreme ANTI-GUN initiative. If they can shove it down our throats here, they will continue to do it state-by-state.
VOTE YES ON I-591 (Protect our Gun Rights)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The Anti-Gun Initiative)
ANTI-GUN billionaires are pitching in millions of dollars to fund I-594 and their ANTI-GUN agendas. Don't let them buy this election.
I-591 needs our support. It's time to put our money where our Second Amendment mouth is.
Make a donation now to support I-591.
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/AOaM4TFe/Protect-Our-Gun-Rights-YES-on-I-591/
This is a cause so great that every person in this forum should be donating; our rights and freedoms are truly at risk. Think about what you pay for a few gallons of gas, a few beers, or a few boxes of shells. Come on folks! Belly up to the I-591 donation bar and give a donation to fight for your rights and freedoms. Encourage your family and friends to donate as well.
Thanks for the clarification! :tup:
Post by: splitshot on October 02, 2014, 12:24:15 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 02, 2014, 01:38:54 PM
Post by: blackdog on October 02, 2014, 04:03:44 PM
On this November’s ballot, Washington voters will be asked to approve or reject ballot measure Initiative 594, which calls for expanded background checks on most firearms transfers, including loans and gifts.
We are voting “No,” and we want to share our reasons with our constituents.
In 1997, voters were asked to approve a similar measure, Initiative 676, and rejected it by nearly a 71 percent to 29 percent margin. We view the intent of the current effort behind I-594 in much the same way that voters did 14 years ago.
I-594 is not designed to reduce gun violence, but was drafted to take advantage of recent tragedies where (in all but one case) the perpetrators passed one or more of the background checks offered as a solution to gun-related violence in I-594. In our opinion more of what is already not working is not a solution.
As state legislators familiar with how legislation is crafted, we believe that I-594 is poorly drafted and creates criminals out of innocent citizens while burdening our law enforcement community with unfunded mandates that will take police off our streets and do nothing to reduce the violence we all abhor. As evidence of this we note that the several thousand men and women represented by the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS) oppose I-594 and we have yet to talk with a sheriff in the 19th District or the state who does not also oppose I-594.
Additionally, the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) is also opposed to I-594. Together with WACOPS, this represents significant law enforcement opposition to a measure that rank-and-file police and sheriffs deputies would be expected to implement and enforce.
We stand ready to work with those legislators and community members who desire actual solutions to the problem of violence in our communities. The vote this November is yours and we ask that you carefully read the 18 pages of I-594 and vote no.
State Sen. Brian Hatfield and Reps. Dean Takko and Brian Blake
I-594 is so bad even democratic legislators are opposing it!
Post by: huntrights on October 02, 2014, 10:35:03 PM
:tup:
Thank you.
We all need to continue getting the truth out about this terrible initiative (I-594).
Post by: Greenhorn on October 03, 2014, 11:28:35 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2014, 12:00:49 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 03, 2014, 12:02:24 PM
PMan
"I-594 isn't about online sales and gun show loophole, or the bill could have been written on one page. Instead, it's 18 pages which outline taking away the public's ability to legally obtain, or even hold a firearm. I-594 will do nothing to stop a single felon from procuring a gun. That's why it's opposed by almost every law enforcement official in the state. In addition, the creation of the additional paperwork alone will take police off the streets to desk positions to meet the demand of these checks. Are we safer with fewer police on the streets?
Do you realize that this bill would criminalize a widow for not going through the background check process within 60 days of her husband's death if he owned guns at the time of his death? Who's being protected by that? Do you realize that under this bill, if you hand an unloaded gun to another law-abiding citizen just to show it to them without performing a background check, you're guilty of a gross misdemeanor? If you hand it to two people, you're a felon. Are we trying to create more felons in this state or trying to be safer?
Instead of creating criminals, why don't we go after the real ones? We have a larger problem in this state and that is that we're not prosecuting the felons for attempting to buy firearms. Since 1996, over 40,000 felons have attempted to buy firearms in WA through the background check process. That in itself is a felony charge. Almost none of them have even been charged with that felony for doing so, let alone prosecuted. Why? These are dangerous criminals trying to buy guns and we don't even go after them. One more thing: one of the few law enforcement officials in this state who does back I-594 is King Co. Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterburg. Two years ago, when Leland Russell fired off a gun during a traffic altercation, Satterberg later reduced his charges, dropping the gun charges completely. As a result, Russell was able to legally purchase a firearm and murdered two citizens in Kent this past April. He went through a background check to purchase it. WE AREN'T PROSECUTING CRIMINALS NOW.
I-594 stinks. It seeks to make criminals out of good citizens and does nothing for our safety. If it had been a simple bill which said "All gun show and online gun purchases require background check", then even I would have supported it. But it doesn't do that. Use your brain and read this horrible piece of garbage here: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf (http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf) This is a bad bill for our citizens."
Post by: blackdog on October 03, 2014, 12:25:18 PM
Post by: Special T on October 03, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
Post by: huntrights on October 04, 2014, 09:35:18 AM
We all need to be asking where our Sheriffs and legislators stand on I-594!
These are our rights and freedoms we are talking about here. I-594 is BAD and we need our Sheriffs and legislators to take a stand against it or show their true colors if they are ANTI-GUN. Even people that usually sit on the fence with these issues should be able to see I-594 is BAD if they are exposed to the truth. Don't let a few ANTI-GUN billionaires buy an election by spewing their misleading propaganda via every type of media they can buy.
Take this very important action to protect your rights and freedoms by asking our elected Sheriffs and legislators to tell us and the public where they stand on I-594. Be sure to tell them why I-594 is BAD when you write them so they fully understand just how ominous and onerous I-594 truly is.
Here are the links to take this important action that is very easy and will take very little time.
Washington State Sheriffs' Association (WSSA)
http://www.washeriffs.org/counties.htm
Washington State Legislature
Find Your Legislator
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Please encourage your family, friends, and colleagues to register to VOTE, and to:
VOTE YES ON I-591 (Protect our Gun Rights)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The Anti-Gun Initiative)
Post by: rim_runner on October 04, 2014, 10:05:10 AM
Here's my response to a pro I-594 letter in the Seattle Times this AM. Feel free to use it whether or not you give me credit - I don't care as long as people get a chance to read it.good letter
PMan
Post by: huntrights on October 07, 2014, 10:06:52 AM
Please take a few minutes to view this very compelling video; then please forward this message to your family, friends and fellow firearm owners and make sure they
VOTE NO ON I-594!
ACTION ALERT from the NRA-ILA
"WASHINGTONIANS NEED TO KNOW WHY IT'S CRITICAL TO VOTE NO ON INITIATIVE 594
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW. SHARE IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. FORWARD IT TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. VOTE NO ON INITIATIVE 594 ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT!
NRA.Org | Vote No on I-594
NRA.Org | Vote No on I-594 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcEWomwiwds#ws)
YOUR VOICE, YOUR VOTE, OUR FREEDOM — VOTE NO ON INITIATIVE 594
Attention Washington Second Amendment Supporter:
As you are aware, Initiative 594 (https://www.voteno594.com/) is the latest and most comprehensive and well-funded attempt to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Washington State. Although proponents describe it as a “universal background check” measure, in reality, this 18 page initiative is a universal handgun registration (https://www.voteno594.com/initiative-594/) scheme being pushed by a very wealthy group of anti-gun elitists. That is not hyperbole, it is fact.
Under I-594, every time a handgun is transferred, the person receiving the handgun will have their name added to the government database being maintained by the state Department of Licensing. In other words, I-594 would create a government record of all lawfully transferred firearms in Washington, which would facilitate their future confiscation.
To ensure Second Amendment supporters in Washington are fully aware of the impact of I-594 and vote against it, NRA-ILA has deployed two Campaign Field Representatives (https://www.voteno594.com/take-action/#4) (CFRs--contact information below). Our CFRs need your help as they continue to recruit volunteers; attend events; distribute stickers, literature, door hangers, buttons, and yard signs; oversee phone banks; visit target households; and recruit supportive businesses to serve as Second Amendment Activist Centers (http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/second-amendment-centers/washington.aspx) and distribute our materials to their customers. All of these activities are being supplemented by our Election Volunteer Coordinators (https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/forms/secure/evc.aspx?state=WA#evcContacts), who live in Washington State.
Our volunteer team needs your help on the ground! Contact your Washington CFR:
Keely Hopkins
Keely@NRAILAfrontlines.com
(541) 910-3395
Mill Creek, WA
Adina Atwood
Adina@NRAILAfrontlines.com
(425) 351-4088
Lakewood, WA
For more information about what you can do to help, visit VoteNo594.com/TakeAction (https://www.voteno594.com/take-action/).
Please forward this email and our latest I-594 video to your family, friends and fellow firearm owners and make sure they VOTE NO ON I-594!"
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 07, 2014, 10:58:54 AM
Post by: blackdog on October 07, 2014, 07:06:03 PM
Post by: blackdog on October 07, 2014, 07:46:21 PM
Post by: huntrights on October 08, 2014, 12:46:49 AM
Do you support or oppose expanding background checks on gun sales?
Even though there may not be much credibility in these types of Polls, they can have a psychological effect. Don't let the anti's come out ahead. This is another opportunity to speak up.
Let's turn the numbers around ASAP. VOTE "Oppose" to expanded background checks; I-594 is a BAD initiative.
http://tdn.com/
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 09, 2014, 09:59:46 AM
http://tdn.com/ (http://tdn.com/)
Post by: Scvette on October 09, 2014, 10:24:31 AM
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 09, 2014, 10:42:50 AM
Also, if you go to the Vote No! 594 website, there's a place to do some simple grassroots work to assist them. Just follow these steps:
1. Click on https://www.voteno594.com/ (https://www.voteno594.com/)
2. Click on the "TAKE ACTION" link (https://www.voteno594.com/take-action/ (https://www.voteno594.com/take-action/))
3. Click on "Volunteer" and choose the ways you're willing to volunteer.
4. Fill out your contact info and viola!
I asked my neighbors if they'd post signs and they said "Sure! Fill up my yard!" If each of us asked our neighbors, we'd make a huge impact.
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 09, 2014, 02:19:06 PM
Voted - Oppose!
http://tdn.com/ (http://tdn.com/)
What will be sad is this jackwagon 594 initiative will likely be decided in King and Pierce county. But, my hopes are up and Vote NO 594!
Post by: elkoholic1 on October 09, 2014, 03:14:47 PM
Post by: Greenhorn on October 09, 2014, 05:18:46 PM
Post by: huntrights on October 10, 2014, 10:53:55 AM
It looks like they removed the POLL. The question now reads, "Have you ever seen a ghost?".
:twocents:
I guess the POLL wasn't going in the direction they wanted so they removed it. Watch for these things as the anti-gun zealots try to slip them in under the radar to gain a psychological edge.
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 10, 2014, 12:11:42 PM
http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf (http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 10, 2014, 12:26:22 PM
Post by: silverdalesauer on October 10, 2014, 01:21:35 PM
http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_(2014) (http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Universal_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Initiative_594_(2014))
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 10, 2014, 10:40:48 PM
It's an initiative, which is made law by a simple majority Vote. i believe a referendum would be an "R" bill on the ballot. If the majority votes for I-594, it becomes law until such time as another Initiative overrides it OR the state Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.
Mostly right.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/statistics.aspx (http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/statistics.aspx)
Initiative to the people.
Post by: blackdog on October 12, 2014, 09:03:16 PM
:yeah:
Post by: huntrights on October 13, 2014, 07:29:16 PM
"I-594 unenforceable"
http://www.sanjuanislander.com/letters-to-the-editor/17301
We tend to preach to the choir in this forum; please get the VOTE NO on I-594 message out to those that are sitting on the fence regarding this issue. Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers. Comment on editorials and other letters to the editors of your local newspapers.
Please make sure ALL of your freedom-loving American family, friends, and colleagues are registered to VOTE and that they VOTE NO on I-594 (The Anti-Gun Initiative) regardless of whether they own guns or not. I-594 is BAD for all of us!
VOTE YES on I-591 (Protect Our Gun Rights)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The Anti-Gun Initiative)
Post by: daddysprad on October 14, 2014, 10:56:11 AM
"I am on record as being opposed to 594, and have allowed my name to be used by the NRA on their list of Sheriffs against 594. I don’t believe that it solves any problem that it’s authors intended it to. 591 is troubling as well. Therefore, I do not support either initiative. "
Sincerely,
Kendle Allen
Stevens County Sheriff
Post by: Stein on October 14, 2014, 11:17:45 AM
They didn't mention whether they read it or not, that's the problem with buying elections these days. You put out what message you want people to hear and they take your word for it.
Post by: sakoshooter on October 15, 2014, 12:11:37 AM
I went to the Bremerton Gun Show on Saturday and picked up a couple "Yes! on 591" signs and put them in my yard. Then, yesterday the UPS man delivered about 10 signs to my house. I've got far too many. If anyone wants some free signage to post, please send me a PM and I'll get them to you.
Got all those signs passed out and displayed. Thanx Silverdalesauer. Hopefully they'll garner a few more votes for 591 and against 594.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 15, 2014, 09:24:39 AM
Posted this on another thread but this isn't good.
Post by: daddysprad on October 15, 2014, 09:33:23 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 15, 2014, 09:49:51 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 16, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
Gabby Giffords has a mental issue stemming from being shot in the face. It's called traumatic liberalism. It affects people who are exposed to whining liberals after being shot in the face while they recover in the hospital.
I really like how she and her husband like to tell the news that they are going to the firing range to shoot their guns, BS. Pot calling the kettle black imo.
It just like the president skeet/trap shooting....
All this is, is a tax increase for the state. Our state can legalize drugs but take away your guns? go figure.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2014, 10:46:56 AM
Gabby Giffords has a mental issue stemming from being shot in the face. It's called traumatic liberalism. It affects people who are exposed to whining liberals after being shot in the face while they recover in the hospital.
I really like how she and her husband like to tell the news that they are going to the firing range to shoot their guns, BS. Pot calling the kettle black imo.
It just like the president skeet/trap shooting....
All this is, is a tax increase for the state. Our state can legalize drugs but take away your guns? go figure.
She and her husband are as two-faced as people can be. They both have sworn to uphold the Constitution during their careers. When it hits close to home, it's time to forget those pledges, apparently. She's Michael Bloomberg's sweet girl and poster child. "Look at poor Gabby. See what guns do all by themselves?"
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 16, 2014, 11:00:48 AM
Gabby Giffords has a mental issue stemming from being shot in the face. It's called traumatic liberalism. It affects people who are exposed to whining liberals after being shot in the face while they recover in the hospital.
I really like how she and her husband like to tell the news that they are going to the firing range to shoot their guns, BS. Pot calling the kettle black imo.
It just like the president skeet/trap shooting....
All this is, is a tax increase for the state. Our state can legalize drugs but take away your guns? go figure.
She and her husband are as two-faced as people can be. They both have sworn to uphold the Constitution during their careers. When it hits close to home, it's time to forget those pledges, apparently. She's Michael Bloomberg's sweet girl and poster child. "Look at poor Gabby. See what guns do all by themselves?"
The NRA needs to get their head out of their..... and start focusing more on state initiatives along with federal anti-gun issues. I would donate money if they would help more in localized and state issues like this. This is the new anti-gun wave to attack at of a more "local" level. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that this initiative will win. I have not saw one commercial against this initiative 594.
Post by: huntrights on October 16, 2014, 11:04:22 AM
Just heard on the radio that a majority of gun owners polled support 594, I don't remember the percentage.
They didn't mention whether they read it or not, that's the problem with buying elections these days. You put out what message you want people to hear and they take your word for it.
POLLS aren't worth anything unless they are statistically valid. It is likely that this POLL is just another manipulated lie devised to mislead the undecided voters.
Post by: Stein on October 16, 2014, 11:16:09 AM
Just heard on the radio that a majority of gun owners polled support 594, I don't remember the percentage.
They didn't mention whether they read it or not, that's the problem with buying elections these days. You put out what message you want people to hear and they take your word for it.
POLLS aren't worth anything unless they are statistically valid. It is likely that this POLL is just another manipulated lie devised to mislead the undecided voters.
I see no reason to doubt it. They tell lies and nobody calls them on it. Big money, many advertisements and a bunch of people that don't think for themselves.
Post by: Special T on October 16, 2014, 11:57:23 AM
Our politics are divided into 2 catagories. Right brain (logic) and Left brain (emotion).
There has been a lot of pushing/selling that our country is failing because of the 1%ers... And by golly who is pushing this? a bunch of 1%ers that have armed gaurds and are buying tanks!
Try talking to your more emotional friends from thier point of view and you will likely get more traction. (I know its difficult however arguing the same way isnt working) :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2014, 11:58:30 AM
I think a good pitch on this is to stress the cronie 1% angle. (Im not moved by this argument but bear with me its a sals pitch)
Our politics are divided into 2 catagories. Right brain (logic) and Left brain (emotion).
There has been a lot of pushing/selling that our country is failing because of the 1%ers... And by golly who is pushing this? a bunch of 1%ers that have armed gaurds and are buying tanks!
Try talking to your more emotional friends from thier point of view and you will likely get more traction. (I know its difficult however arguing the same way isnt working) :twocents:
Great point.
Post by: huntrights on October 16, 2014, 12:23:51 PM
The NRA needs to get their head out of their..... and start focusing more on state initiatives along with federal anti-gun issues. I would donate money if they would help more in localized and state issues like this. This is the new anti-gun wave to attack at of a more "local" level. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that this initiative will win. I have not saw one commercial against this initiative 594.
In defense of the NRA:
The NRA is a leader in the battle against I-594.
Brian Judy – Washington State liaison for the NRA has been fighting against I-594 on our behalf.
Watch the video:
Senate Law & Justice Committee; Public: SI 591, SI 594; Wednesday January 29th 2014, 1:30PM
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014010154#start=729&stop=1043
Watch the video:
Thursday June 26th 2014, 1:00PM
The Seattle Times Editorial Board interviews proponents and opponents of Initiative 594 (concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers).
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014060083
NRA-ILA Field Representatives are in Washington
Keely Hopkins
Keely@NRAILAFrontlines.com
(541) 910-3395
Mill Creek, WA
Adina Hicks
Adina@NRAILAFrontlines.com
(425) 351-4088
Lakewood, WA
The NRA has set up a special website to inform people about I-594:
VOTE NO Initiative 594
https://www.voteno594.com/
The NRA sends out many ALERTS:
Many of the ALERTs they send out have actions and articles related to fighting against I-594.
If you are not already signed up for their ALERTS, please consider signing up.
https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/secure/stay-informed.aspx
Washington measure to increase gun background checks bleeds support
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/washington-measure-to-increase-gun-background-checks-bleeds-support.aspx
NRA donates $150K more in fight against I-594
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/washington-nra-donates-$150k-more-in-fight-against-i-594.aspxl
I-594 Unenforceable
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/i-594-unenforceable.aspx
Washington: Washington State Republican Party Opposes Anti-Gun Initiative 594
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/10/washington-washington-state-republican-party-opposes-anti-gun-initiative-594.aspx
Attention Washington Second Amendment Supporters: You Need to Know Why It's Critical to Vote No on Initiative 594 (Watch the video)
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/10/washington-attention-washington-second-amendment-supporters.aspx
Washington Gun Control Ballot Measure Would Criminalize Common Common Firing Range Occurrence
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/9/washington-gun-control-ballot-measure-would-criminalize-common-common-firing-range-occurance.aspx
Washington: Voters in the Evergreen State are Urged to Visit VoteNo594.com
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/9/washington-voters-in-the-evergreen-state-are-urged-to-visit-voteno594.aspx
Washington: Money starts to flow in for gun initiatives
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/8/washington-money-starts-to-flow-in-for-gun-initiatives.aspx
Post by: Hi-Liter on October 16, 2014, 02:06:58 PM
The NRA needs to get their head out of their..... and start focusing more on state initiatives along with federal anti-gun issues. I would donate money if they would help more in localized and state issues like this. This is the new anti-gun wave to attack at of a more "local" level. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that this initiative will win. I have not saw one commercial against this initiative 594.
In defense of the NRA:
The NRA is a leader in the battle against I-594.
Brian Judy – Washington State liaison for the NRA has been fighting against I-594 on our behalf.
Watch the video:
Senate Law & Justice Committee; Public: SI 591, SI 594; Wednesday January 29th 2014, 1:30PM
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014010154#start=729&stop=1043
Watch the video:
Thursday June 26th 2014, 1:00PM
The Seattle Times Editorial Board interviews proponents and opponents of Initiative 594 (concerns background checks for firearm sales and transfers).
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014060083
NRA-ILA Field Representatives are in Washington
Keely Hopkins
Keely@NRAILAFrontlines.com
(541) 910-3395
Mill Creek, WA
Adina Hicks
Adina@NRAILAFrontlines.com
(425) 351-4088
Lakewood, WA
The NRA has set up a special website to inform people about I-594:
VOTE NO Initiative 594
https://www.voteno594.com/
The NRA sends out many ALERTS:
Many of the ALERTs they send out have actions and articles related to fighting against I-594.
If you are not already signed up for their ALERTS, please consider signing up.
https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/secure/stay-informed.aspx
Washington measure to increase gun background checks bleeds support
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/washington-measure-to-increase-gun-background-checks-bleeds-support.aspx
NRA donates $150K more in fight against I-594
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/washington-nra-donates-$150k-more-in-fight-against-i-594.aspxl
I-594 Unenforceable
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/i-594-unenforceable.aspx
Washington: Washington State Republican Party Opposes Anti-Gun Initiative 594
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/10/washington-washington-state-republican-party-opposes-anti-gun-initiative-594.aspx
Attention Washington Second Amendment Supporters: You Need to Know Why It's Critical to Vote No on Initiative 594 (Watch the video)
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/10/washington-attention-washington-second-amendment-supporters.aspx
Washington Gun Control Ballot Measure Would Criminalize Common Common Firing Range Occurrence
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/9/washington-gun-control-ballot-measure-would-criminalize-common-common-firing-range-occurance.aspx
Washington: Voters in the Evergreen State are Urged to Visit VoteNo594.com
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/9/washington-voters-in-the-evergreen-state-are-urged-to-visit-voteno594.aspx
Washington: Money starts to flow in for gun initiatives
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/8/washington-money-starts-to-flow-in-for-gun-initiatives.aspx
I understand the NRA's position, I am an NRA member. However, the NRA needs to put the money in TV advertisement against 594. 594 is deceptive and the ads for it (on TV) are confusing because people believe imo that what is on TV is the truth, therefore it must be right. Just look at the new commercial where the little girl is crying about her convicted DV dad killed or hurt her mom and this initiative if passed would limit his access to firearms. I would like to see some support against it on TV. I think that there has been some comments on here where members of NRA or hunt wa have written to NRA and it seems that yes NRA is in the fight but limiting resources to oppose it, because NRA is focused at the national level. It is really too bad that some big name people against it would come out and dump some money into the campaign to help the fight. I have told at least 10 people that I know to vote NO and they agree.
VOTE NO 594.
Post by: huntrights on October 16, 2014, 03:04:48 PM
Thanks for spreading the word to
VOTE NO on I-594
This is a grassroots effort folks. The NRA doesn't have billions like Bloomberg and the other billionaires that are trying to buy this election. Hopefully the voters will realize the billionaires are using their money to mislead them with lies and propaganda.
Keep spreading the word.
Post by: rim_runner on October 18, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
Just heard on the radio that a majority of gun owners polled support 594, I don't remember the percentage.if it's the claim that 54% of gun owners support I-594 it could be from a poll that asked 500 people. In that poll 1/3 of the people said they were gun owners. Of that 1/3 a little over half said they approve of I-594 so that's roughly 85 people.
They didn't mention whether they read it or not, that's the problem with buying elections these days. You put out what message you want people to hear and they take your word for it.
Post by: sakoshooter on October 18, 2014, 08:59:43 PM
591 competing against 594 is a bad strategy in my opinion. It's simply confusing to most folks. I'd sonner see us spend money on "No on 594" vs "Yes on 591".
594 needs to be defeated, not confused by 591. What I see is many folks voting for 594 because they don't fully understand it and think it's basically good and a few folks voting for and against 591. Either way my gut tells me 594 is going to pass.
I contacted the NRA asking for help but I think they're going about all wrong also and it's going to be too late very soon to change strategies.
Post by: JJD on October 19, 2014, 01:27:27 PM
I would like to remind people that this state currently keeps a pistol registry for all Pistols bought at a dealer.
I know this has been in existance for some time, do you know about what year this started?
Post by: Special T on October 20, 2014, 08:19:54 AM
Recordkeeping requirements.
The department of licensing may keep copies or records of applications for concealed pistol licenses provided for in RCW 9.41.070, copies or records of applications for alien firearm licenses, copies or records of applications to purchase pistols provided for in RCW 9.41.090, and copies or records of pistol transfers provided for in RCW 9.41.110. The copies and records shall not be disclosed except as provided in RCW 42.56.240(4).
[2005 c 274 § 203; 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 417.]
RCW 9.41.110
Dealer's licenses, by whom granted, conditions, fees — Employees, fingerprinting and background checks — Wholesale sales excepted — Permits prohibited.
(9)(a) A true record in triplicate shall be made of every pistol sold, in a book kept for the purpose, the form of which may be prescribed by the director of licensing and shall be personally signed by the purchaser and by the person effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other, and shall contain the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer's number of the weapon, the name, address, occupation, and place of birth of the purchaser and a statement signed by the purchaser that he or she is not ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
(b) One copy shall within six hours be sent by certified mail to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county of which the purchaser is a resident; the duplicate the dealer shall within seven days send to the director of licensing; the triplicate the dealer shall retain for six years.
Post by: Special T on October 20, 2014, 08:21:08 AM
Post by: Stein on October 21, 2014, 08:19:38 PM
I would like to remind people that this state currently keeps a pistol registry for all Pistols bought at a dealer.
I know this has been in existance for some time, do you know about what year this started?
Sometime before 1998.
Post by: Bob33 on October 21, 2014, 08:43:26 PM
I'm scared cuz I think 594 is gonna pass. I DO NOT want it to but it's being sold as a "good' thing and most folks are not in the know so they're buying into it hook, line and sinker.594 will pass. The only hope is that 591 will also.
591 competing against 594 is a bad strategy in my opinion. It's simply confusing to most folks. I'd sonner see us spend money on "No on 594" vs "Yes on 591".
594 needs to be defeated, not confused by 591. What I see is many folks voting for 594 because they don't fully understand it and think it's basically good and a few folks voting for and against 591. Either way my gut tells me 594 is going to pass.
I contacted the NRA asking for help but I think they're going about all wrong also and it's going to be too late very soon to change strategies.
Post by: blackdog on October 21, 2014, 08:53:27 PM
Post by: blackdog on October 21, 2014, 08:54:37 PM
Post by: huntrights on October 21, 2014, 11:59:45 PM
http://www.washeriffs.org/counties.htm
Mason County
Sheriff Casey Salisbury
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_mason.htm
Email: caseys@co.mason.wa.us
Note: the original email was not valid, this is the new one.
Kittitas County
Sheriff Gene Dana
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_kittitas.htm
Email: gene.dana@co.kittitas.wa.us
Clark County
Sheriff Garry E. Lucas
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_clark.htm
Email: sheriff@clark.wa.gov
Please respectfully ask them to publicly state their opposition to I-594. All of the reasons have been listed multiple times. I-594 is unenforceable, it only burdens law-abiding citizens, it does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms or keep them from committing their malevolent acts, the law is so broadly written that law-abiding citizens will be caught in the net of breaking the I-594 law (i.e. simply loaning a gun to a friend while target shooting on public land), etc. They should oppose I-594 because it will create a BAD law; they should know this.
Please take a few minutes of your time to write these County Sheriffs.
Thank you.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 06:07:03 AM
Also the Clark County Sheriff is not joining the opposition to 594.
I thought he had. I wrote to him last week and haven't received a response. Not running for re-election, so he probably doesn't want the drama.
Post by: JJD on October 22, 2014, 06:29:42 AM
Im guessing from the dates on the RCW that this happened in 1994ish.Figured about mid 90's, I believe it was sometime in the late 90's that one of my neighbors had the then county sheriff (and friend) print out a copy of what the state had on record that he owned.
Some of the firearms listed, he did not own and never did own. He testified before a committee in Olympia regarding the issue.
Firearm registration is alive and well in WA state.
Post by: Stein on October 22, 2014, 09:15:37 AM
Say the police and prosecutor decide to charge you for an unlawful transfer. Would you have to prove when you sold it or would the prosecutor? With whom does the burden of proof lie?
I'm guessing I am not alone not having any records or even recollection of when I sold some of my guns.
Post by: lamrith on October 22, 2014, 10:18:48 AM
Say you bought a gun at an FFL and then end up selling it to a guy today. The gun is then used in a crime and the police come knocking at the last known owner (you). Between your selling and the knock, I594 passes.Great point and another reason this law is a nightmare. The only way they could truly prove that you sold it after the law passed would be if YOU bought it thru an FFL after the law was passed so there is a record of it being in your possession when the law was active...
Say the police and prosecutor decide to charge you for an unlawful transfer. Would you have to prove when you sold it or would the prosecutor? With whom does the burden of proof lie?
I'm guessing I am not alone not having any records or even recollection of when I sold some of my guns.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 22, 2014, 10:39:19 AM
Also the Clark County Sheriff is not joining the opposition to 594.
I received a response this morning from Sheriff Lucas that he personally opposes the initiative, but has made no public statement of opposition. I made an appeal to him to change his mind. I understand a lame duck not wanting to take on unneeded flack by supporting or opposing voter initiatives. He's been a good sheriff. I hope he considers my points.
"Thank you so much for your response, Sheriff.
I appreciate that you're not up for re-election, so opposing I-594 would certainly subject you to criticism that you could do without on your final months as our Sheriff. However, without even mentioning the infringement of our Constitutional rights, this initiative is so poorly written and restrictive that it will tie up the Sheriff's Department with the increased pressure to perform an exponentially bigger number of background checks without the needed funding to keep from stretching your department's resources. Your respected opinion may be just enough to defeat this poorly written initiative because the race is getting so close. I humbly request that you reconsider making your opposition public.
Thanks for your service to our county and state. I very much appreciate our Sheriff's department and what you've done for us. I wish you the best of luck for a great and well-deserved retirement.
Most Sincerely,"
PMan
Post by: blackdog on October 23, 2014, 05:53:19 AM
Post by: blackdog on October 23, 2014, 07:47:07 AM
Post by: huntrights on October 23, 2014, 09:38:26 AM
http://www.washeriffs.org/counties.htm
Mason County
Sheriff Casey Salisbury
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_mason.htm
Email: caseys@co.mason.wa.us
Note: the original email was not valid, this is the new one.
Clark County
Sheriff Garry E. Lucas
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_clark.htm
Email: sheriff@clark.wa.gov
Jefferson County
Joe Nole, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office Chief Criminal Deputy is the interim Sheriff.
jnole@co.jefferson.wa.us
Pierce County
Sheriff Paul Pastor
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_pierce.htm
ppastor@co.pierce.wa.us
Please respectfully ask them to publicly state their opposition to I-594. All of the reasons have been listed multiple times. I-594 is unenforceable, it only burdens law-abiding citizens, it does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms or keep them from committing their malevolent acts, the law is so broadly written that law-abiding citizens will be caught in the net of breaking the I-594 law (i.e. simply loaning a gun to a friend while target shooting on public land), etc. They should oppose I-594 because it will create a BAD law; they should know this.
Please take a few minutes of your time to write these County Sheriffs.
Thank you.
Post by: blackdog on October 23, 2014, 11:15:05 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 23, 2014, 11:23:51 AM
The list of County Sheriffs not publically opposing 594 is: Jefferson, Mason, Pierce, King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Asotin, Yakima, Kitsap, Island, San Juan and Clark. :bash:Jefferson is having a close sheriff's election. And probably 75% or more of the votes are located in Port Townsend, there might be someplace else in the state that is more left leaning and Obama supporting but not that I've seen.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 23, 2014, 11:27:15 AM
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg (Republican) - Running Unopposed! - It's time to toss this guy out! Any viable write-in candidates?
Snohomish County Prosecutor Mark Roe (Democrat). - Running Unopposed! - It's time to toss this guy out! Any viable write-in candidates? There was a recall petition in the works.
http://wagunresponsibility.org/law-enforcement/ (http://wagunresponsibility.org/law-enforcement/)
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 23, 2014, 11:52:09 AM
The shooting of course has been cited many times as one of the reasons to promote gun control, more specifically, I-594. Much less reported by Seattle and Tacoma papers is the part that prosecutor Satterberg played in Russell's freedom to purchase a gun. Satterberg is not only a proponent of I-594, he helped write it.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 23, 2014, 11:56:34 AM
Post by: huntrights on October 23, 2014, 09:21:09 PM
The list of County Sheriffs not publically opposing 594 is: Jefferson, Mason, Pierce, King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Asotin, Yakima, Kitsap, Island, San Juan and Clark. :bash:
Washington Sheriff's Association
http://www.washeriffs.org/counties.htm
Mason County
Sheriff Casey Salisbury
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_mason.htm
Email: caseys@co.mason.wa.us
Note: the original email was not valid, this is the new one.
Clark County
Sheriff Garry E. Lucas
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_clark.htm
Email: sheriff@clark.wa.gov
Jefferson County
Joe Nole, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office Chief Criminal Deputy is the interim Sheriff.
jnole@co.jefferson.wa.us
Pierce County
Sheriff Paul Pastor
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_pierce.htm
Email: ppastor@co.pierce.wa.us
King County
Sheriff John Urquhart
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_king.htm
http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/sheriff.aspx
Email: sheriff@kingcounty.gov
Snohomish County
Sheriff Ty Trenary
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_snohomish.htm
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/210/Sheriff
Email: contact.sheriff@snoco.org
Skagit County
Sheriff Will Reichardt
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_skagit.htm
http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/Sheriff/main.htm
Email: sheriff@co.skagit.wa.us
Whatcom County
Sheriff Bill Elfo
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_whatcom.htm
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/sheriff
Email: Sheriff@co.whatcom.wa.us or belfo@co.whatcom.wa.us
Asotin County
Interim Sheriff Jim Smith
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_asotin.htm
http://199.68.131.25/index.php/sheriff/
Email: Unknown
Phone: (509) 243-4717
Yakima County
Sheriff Ken Irwin
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_yakima.htm
http://www.yakimacounty.us/sheriff/
Email: kenneth.irwin@co.yakima.wa.us
Kitsap County
Sheriff Steve Boyer
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_kitsap.htm
http://www.kitsapgov.com/sheriff/default.htm
Email: sboyer@co.kitsap.wa.us
Island County
Sheriff Mark Brown
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_island.htm
http://www.islandcounty.net/sheriff/
Email: markb@co.island.wa.us
San Juan County
Sheriff Rob Nou
http://www.washeriffs.org/so_san%20juan.htm
http://www.co.san-juan.wa.us/Sheriff/Default.aspx
Email: robn@sanjuanco.com
Please respectfully ask them to publicly state their opposition to I-594. All of the reasons have been listed multiple times in other posts. I-594 is unenforceable, it only burdens law-abiding citizens, it does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms or keep them from committing their malevolent acts, the law is so badly written that honest law-abiding citizens will be caught in the net of breaking the I-594 law (i.e. simply loaning a gun to a friend while target shooting on public land), etc. They should oppose I-594 because it will create a BAD law; they should know this.
Please take a few minutes of your time to write these County Sheriffs. Write a short paragraph in your own words and just copy and paste it in an email to each of the sheriffs individually or send it to all of them at the same time - your choice. Their opposition to one of the worse initiatives (I-594) ever to hit this state is important since they are the ones that will be tasked with enforcement of this unenforceable infringement on our rights. The email addresses are those that could be found; hopefully they are all valid.
Thank you.
P.S. If people don't stand up for their rights and freedoms, they will most definitely lose them.
Please VOTE!
VOTE for your rights and freedoms.
It is very obvious who the BAD players are; VOTE them out of office. It is also very obvious that I-594 is an extremely BAD initiative.
VOTE YES on I-591 (Protect Our Gun Rights)
VOTE NO on I-594 (The ANTI-GUN Initiative)
Read This:
NRA-ILA
Majority of Washington State Sheriffs Oppose I-594
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/10/majority-of-washington-state-sheriffs-oppose-i-594.aspx
GONE HUNTING while it is still legal.
Post by: blackdog on October 27, 2014, 05:55:19 AM
Post by: sakoshooter on October 30, 2014, 08:42:29 PM
I wrote the NRA about my concerns a month or more ago. They insisted it'd be Ok because they had 2 people on it. I think the NRA dropped the ball so far as the only advertizing they're doing is to gun owners, hunting show watchers and NRA members. Money needed to be spent to advertize on other TV channels so the non-hunting public could hear the truth.
Post by: Mrninninnin on November 09, 2014, 08:44:35 AM
TO: All media organizations and groups.
FROM: Gavin Seim, lead organizer of the “I WILL NOT Comply Rally”.
Initiative 594 just passed in Washington State, bringing on residents mandatory gun background checks and making it a felony to privately purchase or even hand a gun to a friend without government permission. We the people of Washington State will not comply with this lawless legislation. The highest law is that of liberty and our Constitution. Our rights will be upheld.
On Dec 13th 2014, just after the law is legally in effect, we stand and disobey the illegal restrictions of i594. We must not wait for our rights to be decided but act swiftly to affirm them. In under 72 hours over 5000 have RSVP’d to this stand on Capital grounds in Olympia and assert their God given rights.
Learn more about this peaceful civil rebellion here: http://callmegav.com/ral/ (http://callmegav.com/ral/)
View the event page here: https://www.facebook.com/events/788109621237033 (https://www.facebook.com/events/788109621237033)
Joining in the event will be speakers, patriots and families from across the State to remind our legislators that lawless legislation will not be obeyed and to teach others about their rights.
Will you bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, or will you stand for the liberty of your children? We are not asking permission, we are not standing silent. Our birthright is not theirs to take. We stand peaceful, principled, firm and resolute for the liberty so many have perished for. We stand to uphold law and we will not comply with lawlessness from government.
We Stand! Stand with us.
In Liberty – Gavin Seim.
gavinforliberty@gmail.com
Post by: Greenhorn on November 09, 2014, 08:48:32 PM