Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: MacAttack on August 26, 2014, 08:58:46 AM

Title: I-594
Post by: MacAttack on August 26, 2014, 08:58:46 AM: We need to educate people and make sure this doesn't pass! here is the bill...It's 18 pages so its an "easy" read.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf (http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf)
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: timberfaller on August 26, 2014, 09:12:31 AM: The devil is in the details!! NEVER let the government write something up for the people to decide on!! :bdid:

To many LIV'S out there and TOO many gun owners who vote Democrat and are to dense :dunno: to wake up!
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: Jacque on August 26, 2014, 09:17:27 AM: I dont understand how this is going to take the guns out of criminals hands. Criminals will always skirt the laws no matter what they are, this law only makes it harder for law abiding citizens. Enforce the laws we have.
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: rim_runner on August 26, 2014, 09:54:03 AM: Actually this is an initiative and was so poorly written that the legislature wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. This goes far beyond background checks and sets up the ground work for a pistol registry. Its requirements for a non-sale transfer are a joke and will create criminals out of people who have no criminal intent. The requirement for background checks on face to face sales is only a stalking horse and is near impossible to enforce while all other sales already require a background check by federal law. There is also a requirement that local law enforcement approve the purchase of handguns.
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: MacAttack on August 26, 2014, 09:58:29 AM: WACOPS (Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs) appose this initiative, unfortunately they aren't too vocal about it.
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: Dhoey07 on August 26, 2014, 10:33:25 AM: If legislatures won't touch it with a ten foot poll, can't they block it from becoming law just llike the super majority needed for tax increases that has been passed 4 times and blocked?
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: MacAttack on August 26, 2014, 11:44:01 AM: Quote from: Dhoey07 on August 26, 2014, 10:33:25 AM
If legislatures won't touch it with a ten foot poll, can't they block it from becoming law just llike the super majority needed for tax increases that has been passed 4 times and blocked?

And just like they are building the tunnel on the waterfront in Seattle when we voted it down? Does our vote even matter in this state?
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: Stickerbush on August 27, 2014, 01:00:08 PM: Tag
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: luvmystang67 on August 27, 2014, 01:20:44 PM: This is a repost from a similar thread on the same topic... but (BTW this thing will pass in an instant, so start preparing).

Two things I wish we could look at:

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.
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: Curly on August 27, 2014, 01:27:47 PM: If when this thing passes, I suppose FFL's will be in very high demand. Might be a good time to get licensed...........although I think it is more difficult than it used to be, right?
Title: Re: I-594
Post by: rim_runner on August 27, 2014, 01:45:16 PM: I think this initiative can be beaten if the general public sees how flawed the wording is. I think it’s important to get people to read the initiative themselves rather that believe the descriptions the supporters are putting out. Even people who want background checks on private sales should see how flawed the wording is.