Post by: Hi-Liter on November 05, 2018, 03:09:07 PM
Thank you HI-Liter
Post by: wolfbait on November 05, 2018, 05:06:09 PM
Post by: Billy74 on November 06, 2018, 11:33:08 AM
At least we’ll all be safe 🙄
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2018, 11:36:46 AM
Post by: Seahawk12 on November 06, 2018, 12:25:23 PM
The media told me that poor people and minorities are way too stupid to figure out how to get a state issued id in order to vote, so how in the heck are they going to figure this mess out?
Post by: Bob33 on November 06, 2018, 12:29:55 PM
Any info on the details of the requirements if this passes. Do those cheap stack-on cabinets count as safe storage.Deductive reasoning. If someone gets a firearm from somewhere in your house and shoots someone he wasn't supposed to, it obviously wasn't safe storage. :bash:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 06, 2018, 12:33:07 PM
When the left supports blaming victims.....Any info on the details of the requirements if this passes. Do those cheap stack-on cabinets count as safe storage.Deductive reasoning. If someone gets a firearm from somewhere in your house and shoots someone he wasn't supposed to, it obviously wasn't safe storage. :bash:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: gaddy on November 06, 2018, 12:33:33 PM
Mandatory training every 5 years ? How much will that cost to be allowed permission to own a firearm ?
And they don't even have a designation of what safe storage is. so I guess it's at their discretion at the time they want to check to see if you are in compliance ? And I do foresee a time when checks will be made.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on November 06, 2018, 12:43:04 PM
If 940 passes WDFW will have to pay for it.
Post by: Billy74 on November 06, 2018, 01:07:04 PM
Perhaps there’ll be a tax right off for firearm safety related expenses somewhere in the future. Who knows, maybe they’ll tax everyone to provide funds for a 1000$ voucher for a new safe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: quarterstaff on November 06, 2018, 07:10:17 PM
Post by: Stein on November 06, 2018, 07:11:24 PM
Post by: getreal711 on November 06, 2018, 07:16:37 PM
Post by: Little Dave on November 06, 2018, 07:41:54 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 08:23:14 PM
It’s going to create a lot of criminals. :bash:
Post by: Twispriver on November 06, 2018, 08:24:33 PM
Post by: 724wd on November 06, 2018, 08:35:10 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 08:35:31 PM
NRA better get their lawyers warmed up! >:(
:yeah:
Post by: bhawley76 on November 06, 2018, 08:37:23 PM
Post by: Wolfdog2314 on November 06, 2018, 08:39:14 PM
Looks like it passed...
Post by: lokidog on November 06, 2018, 08:42:05 PM
Post by: JeffRaines on November 06, 2018, 08:43:39 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 08:45:38 PM
This does actually surprise me, a teeny tiny bit, since ALL law enforcement agencies opposed this. However, WHERE WERE THE ADDS OPPOSING IT STATING THAT FACT?
I heard it on the radio several times, but it needed to be on the tv.😤
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 08:47:14 PM
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
Post by: shorthair15 on November 06, 2018, 08:49:50 PM
Post by: bhawley76 on November 06, 2018, 08:50:40 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 08:50:43 PM
We law abiding gun owners pay not criminals
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2018, 08:51:37 PM
Post by: JWEBB on November 06, 2018, 08:51:59 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 08:53:00 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 08:53:34 PM
So what state do y'all recommend I move to? I'm thinking Arizona? Maybe Colorado? Wyoming would be my preference but I'd be going there without the wife. Don't even think I could talk her into Arizona but I think Colorado is a possibility.Definitely not Colorado. Getting "bluer" every year.
Post by: Naches Sportsman on November 06, 2018, 08:54:19 PM
:chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2018, 08:54:42 PM
So what state do y'all recommend I move to? I'm thinking Arizona? Maybe Colorado? Wyoming would be my preference but I'd be going there without the wife. Don't even think I could talk her into Arizona but I think Colorado is a possibility.Definitely not Colorado. Getting "bluer" every year.
I was thinking that too. Doesn't leave many options. Nevada?
Post by: bhawley76 on November 06, 2018, 08:55:37 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 08:56:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2018, 08:56:50 PM
Idaho is full. Don't move here.
Nah, Idaho's got plenty of room but I think it's too far north for the wife. However I might be moving there by myself, if I don't go to Wyoming.
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 08:57:26 PM
I hate King County our governor and The AG
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20181106/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-concerns-firearms_ByCounty.html
Currently passing in King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Thurston, Jefferson, Clallam, Kitsap, Island, Clark, Spokane, and Whitman Counties.
Post by: ribka on November 06, 2018, 08:58:33 PM
NRA better get their lawyers warmed up! >:(
:yeah:
It’s funny when anti gun trolls come on hunt wa to push their left wing anti freedom agenda
Who is buying this?? :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 08:58:40 PM
Nevada is getting bluer as well. Population hubs of Reno and Vegas control the state.I was thinking that too. Doesn't leave many options. Nevada?So what state do y'all recommend I move to? I'm thinking Arizona? Maybe Colorado? Wyoming would be my preference but I'd be going there without the wife. Don't even think I could talk her into Arizona but I think Colorado is a possibility.Definitely not Colorado. Getting "bluer" every year.
Post by: elkrack on November 06, 2018, 08:59:17 PM
Post by: bhawley76 on November 06, 2018, 09:01:18 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 09:01:41 PM
I hate King County our governor and The AG
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20181106/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-concerns-firearms_ByCounty.html
Currently passing in King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Thurston, Jefferson, Clallam, Kitsap, Island, Clark, Spokane, and Whitman Counties.
500,000 plus yes votes on 1639 came from king county
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 09:03:54 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:09:02 PM
Unconstitutional
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
:yeah:
Don’t think it would pass muster in the Supreme Court.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:09:55 PM
500,000 plus yes votes on 1639 came from king county
:bash:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:13:25 PM
I like the language of “prohibited person” in the storage requirement what the heck does that mean? Way to vague against 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments
We law abiding gun owners pay not criminals
Right, like a gun registered to you, but the wife has access for self protection. :o
Think I-594. :dunno:
Post by: wadu1 on November 06, 2018, 09:13:48 PM
Very true, but the Seattle Supreme court would not agreeUnconstitutional
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
:yeah:
Don’t think it would pass muster in the Supreme Court.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 06, 2018, 09:20:38 PM
I hate King County our governor and The AG
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20181106/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-concerns-firearms_ByCounty.html
Currently passing in King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Thurston, Jefferson, Clallam, Kitsap, Island, Clark, Spokane, and Whitman Counties.
Lost big time in Garfield County though.
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 06, 2018, 09:21:05 PM
Very true, but the Seattle Supreme court would not agreeUnconstitutional
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
:yeah:
Don’t think it would pass muster in the Supreme Court.
That’s fine. But it has to go thru the courts for a ruling and appeals and on to to the appellate courts. This law could back fire on anti gun groups because the courts may rule that anyone over 18 can legally purchase a firearm including a pistol because it is commonly used for self defense
Post by: Naches Sportsman on November 06, 2018, 09:23:32 PM
Post by: shorthair15 on November 06, 2018, 09:34:48 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:35:56 PM
Even though I'm not a resident of WA, I have some reading to do on this initiative since the majority of my guns are still in WA :yike:.
Get’em out. :twocents:
Post by: bornhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:38:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 09:39:54 PM
I like the language of “prohibited person” in the storage requirement what the heck does that mean? Way to vague against 2nd, 4th and 5th amendmentsNot vague at all.
Per the initiative, "prohibited person" means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:40:58 PM
I hate King County our governor and The AG
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20181106/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-concerns-firearms_ByCounty.html
Currently passing in King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Thurston, Jefferson, Clallam, Kitsap, Island, Clark, Spokane, and Whitman Counties.
Lisa Brown (communist) won Spokane by 7% Thankfully the rest of the district 5 region has some brains and put Cathy McMorris Rogers back in.
see the speck of blue for Spokane :rolleyes:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:41:53 PM
I like the language of “prohibited person” in the storage requirement what the heck does that mean? Way to vague against 2nd, 4th and 5th amendmentsNot vague at all.
Per the initiative, "prohibited person" means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
What about 594? Registered to one person, but someone else has access?
Post by: bornhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
Post by: bornhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:43:35 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 09:44:13 PM
Even though I'm not a resident of WA, I have some reading to do on this initiative since the majority of my guns are still in WA :yike:.
Get’em out. :twocents:
Get me out.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:45:38 PM
Dont make light of this folks. Ita all about money. Yours! Make an innocent mistake and bang you are a felon and no gins can you posses. See where this is going!
Yeah I know, confiscating thru initiatives.🤯
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 09:47:05 PM
Prohibited person is any person who can't possess a firearm whether it be because their a felon, underage, etc. Not a person who can't possess your firearm because you haven't legally transferred it to them yet (assuming they can legally possess a gun).What about 594? Registered to one person, but someone else has access?I like the language of “prohibited person” in the storage requirement what the heck does that mean? Way to vague against 2nd, 4th and 5th amendmentsNot vague at all.
Per the initiative, "prohibited person" means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:48:02 PM
I lost more faith in humanity today, if that were possible.
Post by: lokidog on November 06, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
:bash:
I lost more faith in humanity today, if that were possible.
Not possible in this state.... :puke:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:52:11 PM
Being in a safe criminal can still break it open and steal it if they are savvy enough, so whose guilty then?
Post by: bornhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:53:33 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 06, 2018, 09:53:37 PM
Aren't initiatives only supposed to cover one subject? This one is training, age, storage, etc.Very true, but the Seattle Supreme court would not agreeUnconstitutional
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
:yeah:
Don’t think it would pass muster in the Supreme Court.
That’s fine. But it has to go thru the courts for a ruling and appeals and on to to the appellate courts. This law could back fire on anti gun groups because the courts may rule that anyone over 18 can legally purchase a firearm including a pistol because it is commonly used for self defense
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:54:04 PM
Aren't initiatives only supposed to cover one subject? This one is training, age, storage, etc.Very true, but the Seattle Supreme court would not agreeUnconstitutional
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
:yeah:
Don’t think it would pass muster in the Supreme Court.
That’s fine. But it has to go thru the courts for a ruling and appeals and on to to the appellate courts. This law could back fire on anti gun groups because the courts may rule that anyone over 18 can legally purchase a firearm including a pistol because it is commonly used for self defense
:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 09:54:54 PM
So my gun is locked up in my house behind a locked door, criminal breaks in steals gun, it was locked up. Is that a crime by me, or criminal?
Being in a safe criminal can still break it open and steal it if they are savvy enough, so whose guilty then?
Your describing "limited access" vs "secure storage"
a locked office (bedroom) is limited access and *should* fall short of secure storage.
Post by: r67968 on November 06, 2018, 09:56:37 PM
Post by: builtfordtough on November 06, 2018, 09:56:50 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:57:07 PM
So my gun is locked up in my house behind a locked door, criminal breaks in steals gun, it was locked up. Is that a crime by me, or criminal?
Being in a safe criminal can still break it open and steal it if they are savvy enough, so whose guilty then?
Your describing "limited access" vs "secure storage"
a locked office (bedroom) is limited access and *should* fall short of secure storage.
What’s the difference between the locks, both can be broken into. :dunno:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 06, 2018, 09:58:05 PM
Lost for words. If anybody with half a brain read the ENTIRE initiative, they would vote NO. Thanks Paul Allen.
Yeah what a legacy that *censored* left.😤
Post by: bobcat on November 06, 2018, 10:00:30 PM
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 10:03:57 PM
So my gun is locked up in my house behind a locked door, criminal breaks in steals gun, it was locked up. Is that a crime by me, or criminal?No crime was committed by your if you report that someone stole your gun within 5 days of YOU noticing the gun is gone OR the gun was in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm; and The act of keeping an unloaded firearm stored by such means.
Being in a safe criminal can still break it open and steal it if they are savvy enough, so whose guilty then?
Post by: lokidog on November 06, 2018, 10:04:37 PM
Lost for words. If anybody with half a brain read the ENTIRE initiative, they would vote NO. Thanks Paul Allen.
Yeah what a legacy that *censored* left.😤
:yeah: I didn't celebrate his passing, but sure didn't shed any tears either....
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 10:05:12 PM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
nice :o
which would you fear more, a 10/22 or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=ejy58DCoYKE
Post by: lokidog on November 06, 2018, 10:06:24 PM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
They will be added, after all, you can put a rifled barrel on a shotgun action and now it is a "rifle", mark my words..... :bash:
Post by: lokidog on November 06, 2018, 10:09:06 PM
So my gun is locked up in my house behind a locked door, criminal breaks in steals gun, it was locked up. Is that a crime by me, or criminal?No crime was committed by your if you report that someone stole your gun within 5 days of YOU noticing the gun is gone OR the gun was in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm; and The act of keeping an unloaded firearm stored by such means.
Being in a safe criminal can still break it open and steal it if they are savvy enough, so whose guilty then?
WHy is my house not a "secured locked storage space" when the doors and windows are locked?
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 10:09:39 PM
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 10:12:38 PM
Did I say the guns have to be locked up?WHy is my house not a "secured locked storage space" when the doors and windows are locked?So my gun is locked up in my house behind a locked door, criminal breaks in steals gun, it was locked up. Is that a crime by me, or criminal?No crime was committed by your if you report that someone stole your gun within 5 days of YOU noticing the gun is gone OR the gun was in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm; and The act of keeping an unloaded firearm stored by such means.
Being in a safe criminal can still break it open and steal it if they are savvy enough, so whose guilty then?
If you leave your house locked up and someone breaks in and steals 5 of your guns and within 5 days of you noticing your guns you call the police to report it they've been stolen you will not face prosecution under the new law. The notifying the LE agency is the big exemption to the law.
Post by: bornhunter on November 06, 2018, 10:14:42 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on November 06, 2018, 10:21:07 PM
Everybody is freaking out over the "someone broke into my house and stole my gun" so now I will be charged scenario. There are four exceptions to the law where if they apply you can't be charged. I bolded the two big ones in my opinion.
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
How are people ever going to prove they had a trigger lock or similar device or that it was even in your gun safe? What if they steal the gun safe? The burden of proof will fall on the victim of being burglarized...
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 10:24:39 PM
It doesn't matter as long as you report they were stolen!!!!!Everybody is freaking out over the "someone broke into my house and stole my gun" so now I will be charged scenario. There are four exceptions to the law where if they apply you can't be charged. I bolded the two big ones in my opinion.How are people ever going to prove they had a trigger lock or similar device or that it was even in your gun safe? What if they steal the gun safe? The burden of proof will fall on the victim of being burglarized...
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
If you have 500 guns in you're house just laying around with no trigger locks/gun safes, etc. and someone breaks in and steals them as long as you report the theft you cannot be charged with a crime.
Nothing in the law says you have to lock up your guns, in fact the law even says that "(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored."
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 10:41:00 PM
homeowner: I was on a 12 day vacation, I got broken into on day 2 of my vacation and reported it when I got back 10 days after the incident.
Police: sucks to be you, by order of the court you're under arrest, do you have a good lawyer?
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 10:42:56 PM
Police: We got a report your house was broken into on January the 21st by your neighbor, a gun registered to you was used in a homicide, why didn't you report it within the 5 day window?It's not within 5 days of the theft. It's within 5 days of you knowing your guns are gone.
homeowner: I was on a 12 day vacation, I got broken into on day 2 of my vacation and reported it when I got back 10 days after the incident.
Police: sucks to be you, by order of the court you're under arrest, do you have a good lawyer?
"within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken"
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 10:44:35 PM
crap, what if someone goes diving an finds on and uses it? :yike:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 06, 2018, 10:48:32 PM
My guns are all gone, lost, in the river, in protest of this terrible law.It's more believable that you capsized because you had the actual safe in the boat too. Plus, there's trigger locks on everything in the safe.
crap, what if someone goes diving an finds on and uses it? :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on November 06, 2018, 11:03:13 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on November 06, 2018, 11:08:11 PM
. Their definition...It doesn't matter as long as you report they were stolen!!!!!Everybody is freaking out over the "someone broke into my house and stole my gun" so now I will be charged scenario. There are four exceptions to the law where if they apply you can't be charged. I bolded the two big ones in my opinion.How are people ever going to prove they had a trigger lock or similar device or that it was even in your gun safe? What if they steal the gun safe? The burden of proof will fall on the victim of being burglarized...
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
If you have 500 guns in you're house just laying around with no trigger locks/gun safes, etc. and someone breaks in and steals them as long as you report the theft you cannot be charged with a crime.
Nothing in the law says you have to lock up your guns, in fact the law even says that "(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored."
Secure gun storage" means:
(a) A locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space
that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a
firearm; and
If it is just laying around they will more then definitely prosecute you.
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 11:10:33 PM
You are reading a definition, not the enforceable law.. Their definition...It doesn't matter as long as you report they were stolen!!!!!Everybody is freaking out over the "someone broke into my house and stole my gun" so now I will be charged scenario. There are four exceptions to the law where if they apply you can't be charged. I bolded the two big ones in my opinion.How are people ever going to prove they had a trigger lock or similar device or that it was even in your gun safe? What if they steal the gun safe? The burden of proof will fall on the victim of being burglarized...
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
If you have 500 guns in you're house just laying around with no trigger locks/gun safes, etc. and someone breaks in and steals them as long as you report the theft you cannot be charged with a crime.
Nothing in the law says you have to lock up your guns, in fact the law even says that "(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored."
Secure gun storage" means:
(a) A locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space
that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a
firearm; and
If it is just laying around they will more then definitely prosecute you.
But what do I know, it's only my job to enforce the law :dunno:
Post by: Humptulips on November 06, 2018, 11:12:22 PM
Aren't initiatives only supposed to cover one subject? This one is training, age, storage, etc.Very true, but the Seattle Supreme court would not agreeUnconstitutional
Needs to go thru the courts and up on Kavanaughs desk
:yeah:
Don’t think it would pass muster in the Supreme Court.
That’s fine. But it has to go thru the courts for a ruling and appeals and on to to the appellate courts. This law could back fire on anti gun groups because the courts may rule that anyone over 18 can legally purchase a firearm including a pistol because it is commonly used for self defense
:yeah:
The WA Supreme Court has ruled that Initiative titles can be classed as General and Restrictive. If topics are merely incidental to the general topic reflected in the title the title can be classed as General and be seen as one subject even though it appears to have multiple subjects.
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 11:14:07 PM
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:[/u]
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.[/color]
Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!
If someone steals your gun and it does have a trigger lock then guess what you can't be charged.
If someone steals your gun and it doesn't have a trigger lock or it wasn't in safe you can't be charged as long as you report it within 5 days of noticing the gun is gone.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 11:15:51 PM
However, my biggest gripe with I1639, and why I will leave the state, is the disenfranchisement of my children of their 2A rights. A pox on people who voted for that, and Paul Allen can EABOD.
Post by: csaaphill on November 06, 2018, 11:16:47 PM
Police: We got a report your house was broken into on January the 21st 2019 by your neighbor, a gun registered to you was used in a homicide 3 years later, why didn't you report it within the 5 day window?yeah but you'll deserve it right? you'll read headlines on where someone violates this and post here and will be all "Well he broke the law he deserves it. " :rolleyes:
homeowner: I was on a 12 day vacation, I got broken into on day 2 of my vacation and reported it when I got back 10 days after the incident.
Police: sucks to be you, by order of the court you're under arrest, do you have a good lawyer?
One of the things I've been saying all along. :bash:
Post by: csaaphill on November 06, 2018, 11:18:15 PM
Not surprised >:(You are reading a definition, not the enforceable law.. Their definition...It doesn't matter as long as you report they were stolen!!!!!Everybody is freaking out over the "someone broke into my house and stole my gun" so now I will be charged scenario. There are four exceptions to the law where if they apply you can't be charged. I bolded the two big ones in my opinion.How are people ever going to prove they had a trigger lock or similar device or that it was even in your gun safe? What if they steal the gun safe? The burden of proof will fall on the victim of being burglarized...
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
If you have 500 guns in you're house just laying around with no trigger locks/gun safes, etc. and someone breaks in and steals them as long as you report the theft you cannot be charged with a crime.
Nothing in the law says you have to lock up your guns, in fact the law even says that "(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored."
Secure gun storage" means:
(a) A locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space
that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a
firearm; and
If it is just laying around they will more then definitely prosecute you.
But what do I know, it's only my job to enforce the law :dunno:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 11:20:27 PM
Ok guys here is the enforceable law for the whole "someone stole my gun scenario"
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:[/u]
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.[/color]
Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!
Quit playing games. If you don't want to run afoul of the enforceable provisions, the intention is that you will lock them up. The law is written so that you are presented with an empty choice. Comply or risk the consequences.
Post by: csaaphill on November 06, 2018, 11:21:50 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 11:23:13 PM
How am I playing games? It's in the damn text of the law!Ok guys here is the enforceable law for the whole "someone stole my gun scenario"Quit playing games. If you don't want to run afoul of the enforceable provisions, the intention is that you will lock them up. The law is written so that you are presented with an empty choice. Comply or risk the consequences.
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:[/u]
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.[/color]
Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!
Post by: csaaphill on November 06, 2018, 11:23:31 PM
:chuckle:Ok guys here is the enforceable law for the whole "someone stole my gun scenario"
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:[/u]
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.[/color]
Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!
Quit playing games. If you don't want to run afoul of the enforceable provisions, the intention is that you will lock them up. The law is written so that you are presented with an empty choice. Comply or risk the consequences.
Post by: olyguy79 on November 06, 2018, 11:26:14 PM
Bigtex is correct on the interpretation of the law.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 11:28:21 PM
It says if you don't lock them, you risk these consequences. The practical effect is the same. You are playing semantic games. It would be more honest to acknowledge the legitimate grievance people are raising.
Yes, you are right. It does not say you HAVE to lock them up. Why? Because the risk of being ruled unconstitutional. So they make the consequences of not making the desired choice so onerous as to remove volition from the choice.
But yeah, sure, we dont HAVE to. That's comforting.
You don't HAVE to pay your taxes, but I bet you do.
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 11:30:54 PM
"Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!"I'm not playing games. I would think most people with half a brain would report their gun stolen even before this law was in place :dunno:
It says if you don't lock them, you risk these consequences. The practical effect is the same. You are playing semantic games. It would be more honest to acknowledge the legitimate grievance people are raising.
Yes, you are right. It does not say you HAVE to lock them up. Why? Because the risk of being ruled unconstitutional. So they make the consequences of not making the desired so onerous as to remove volition from the choice.
But yeah, sure, we dont HAVE to. That's comforting.
And guess what, now if you do and someone uses your gun to kill someone you can't be charged.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 11:31:27 PM
Thankfully people dont seek actual legal advice on this forum.
Bigtex is correct on the interpretation of the law.
:yeah:
Especially from "experts."
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 11:32:55 PM
"Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!"I'm not playing games. I would think most people with half a brain would report their gun stolen even before this law was in place :dunno:
It says if you don't lock them, you risk these consequences. The practical effect is the same. You are playing semantic games. It would be more honest to acknowledge the legitimate grievance people are raising.
Yes, you are right. It does not say you HAVE to lock them up. Why? Because the risk of being ruled unconstitutional. So they make the consequences of not making the desired so onerous as to remove volition from the choice.
But yeah, sure, we dont HAVE to. That's comforting.
And guess what, now if you do and someone uses your gun to kill someone you can't be charged.
Anyone with half a brain can recognize word games, too.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 06, 2018, 11:35:27 PM
Post by: csaaphill on November 06, 2018, 11:45:35 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 06, 2018, 11:52:33 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/o6ma7.jpg)
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 12:50:42 AM
sent from the telephone
Post by: csaaphill on November 07, 2018, 01:08:07 AM
I really attempted to read and understand everything in the voters pamphlet on this. Didn't make a lot of sense to me and was confusing as hell. Seems to me that there was a lot of "To Be Determined" stuff in there ? Left me wondering what the true impact will be if this gets passed.And I do foresee a time when checks will be made.
Mandatory training every 5 years ? How much will that cost to be allowed permission to own a firearm ?
And they don't even have a designation of what safe storage is. so I guess it's at their discretion at the time they want to check to see if you are in compliance ? And I do foresee a time when checks will be made.
:yeah:
Since the 4th only works in limited occasions then yeah. plus those who enforce it will interpret how they want, when the time comes.
Post by: Kc_Kracker on November 07, 2018, 04:08:08 AM
Post by: RadSav on November 07, 2018, 04:17:49 AM
I'd miss the heck out of blacktail hunting, but I'm sure my over the counter spring bear tags, wolf tags and an ability to draw an antler or horn tag sometime within 35 years of applying would make up for it.
Post by: fowl smacker on November 07, 2018, 04:40:23 AM
Post by: huntnfmly on November 07, 2018, 04:59:02 AM
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 05:03:56 AM
Curious about the required classes, how can that be enforced without registration.
sent from the telephone
If you are talking about a state wide gun registration, that is part of the bill.
Post by: fishngamereaper on November 07, 2018, 05:05:20 AM
Curious about the required classes, how can that be enforced without registration.
How can any of it be enforced.
Try proving a gun wasnt legally secured in house when it was illegally taken. My doors are always locked, thats secure. This whole initiative is one big mess.
Good thing I dont own any guns...
Post by: huntnfmly on November 07, 2018, 05:14:39 AM
Just one more thing to make honest people outlaws!Same thing I've been thinking
Post by: asmith on November 07, 2018, 05:25:04 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 07, 2018, 05:44:33 AM
How vague
Post by: Tundra on November 07, 2018, 06:04:14 AM
Post by: MADMAX on November 07, 2018, 06:11:14 AM
and does it mean a waiting period when making a transfer at the FFL also ?
Post by: trophyhunt on November 07, 2018, 06:21:47 AM
When does I-1639 become law?It will be in the courts for a while I suspect.
Post by: Wingin it on November 07, 2018, 06:22:36 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on November 07, 2018, 06:25:04 AM
I believe it becomes law on December 1st, if remember correctly.
July 1 2019
Post by: Tundra on November 07, 2018, 06:25:51 AM
I believe it becomes law on December 1st, if remember correctly.I hope you are wrong........ Can we carve King County out as a Separate State yet? :bash:
Post by: trophyhunt on November 07, 2018, 06:26:52 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 07, 2018, 06:28:59 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 06:29:22 AM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?As it is written yes. I suspect shotguns aren't used as often as rifles in mass shootings.
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 06:32:17 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
Post by: Wingin it on November 07, 2018, 06:33:59 AM
The minimum age of 21 for purchasing an "assault rifle" is supposed to go into effect January 1, 2019.
This is what I was referring to with December 1st. Evidently I was off by a month
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 07, 2018, 06:36:08 AM
Prohibited person is any person who can't possess a firearm whether it be because their a felon, underage, etc. Not a person who can't possess your firearm because you haven't legally transferred it to them yet (assuming they can legally possess a gun).What about 594? Registered to one person, but someone else has access?I like the language of “prohibited person” in the storage requirement what the heck does that mean? Way to vague against 2nd, 4th and 5th amendmentsNot vague at all.
Per the initiative, "prohibited person" means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
Vague Arbitrary and Capricious
Let see how 940 goes for you. :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 06:37:14 AM
BT, thanks for the info on storage and illegal entry. I want to be sure I know what this means. If my house or car is locked (assuming the firearm is out of sight in the car) and I don't have a gunlock on the firearm, I'm exempted from the gun lock requirement penalties if someone breaks in and steals the firearm. Is that correct, in your opinion?If you report it stolen within five days of noticing it was stolen, yes.
Post by: ghosthunter on November 07, 2018, 06:40:29 AM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?As it is written yes. I suspect shotguns aren't used as often as rifles in mass shootings.
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
They will be back next year for the shotguns. This passed by 60%. I think they can write any law they want at this point.
Post by: jackmaster on November 07, 2018, 06:50:47 AM
I hate King County our governor and The AG:yeah: KING county is a sickening debilitating disease , along with down town Tacoma !! And what the hell happened to port angelas and sequim?? I actually feel bad for you eastside folks, the west side isn’t pulling its weight, bunch of damn sick liberals over here :bash: :bash:
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 06:55:08 AM
Lost for words. If anybody with half a brain read the ENTIRE initiative, they would vote NO. Thanks Paul Allen.
That was part of the problem since the initiative was 30 pages.
Hopefully it will be challenged under the multiple clause rule.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 06:56:06 AM
Right, thanks Bob.BT, thanks for the info on storage and illegal entry. I want to be sure I know what this means. If my house or car is locked (assuming the firearm is out of sight in the car) and I don't have a gunlock on the firearm, I'm exempted from the gun lock requirement penalties if someone breaks in and steals the firearm. Is that correct, in your opinion?If you report it stolen within five days of noticing it was stolen, yes.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 07:00:14 AM
Good amount of H-W
(https://i.imgflip.com/o6ma7.jpg)
:chuckle:
Where'd I put that Cartman respect muh authority meme?
:chuckle:
Post by: Lincoln4 on November 07, 2018, 07:01:11 AM
Post by: Kc_Kracker on November 07, 2018, 07:01:13 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 07, 2018, 07:01:49 AM
Post by: full choke on November 07, 2018, 07:04:23 AM
Last night, we were discussing a move to either Austin or Louisville.
My wife is from Austin. Grew up there, went to college there. Her family still lives there. Don't go to Austin. It is Seattle ten years ago. It is following the exact same path. Liberalism, traffic, costs. The Music, and food were exceptional, now getting watered down...
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 07:06:52 AM
Ok guys here is the enforceable law for the whole "someone stole my gun scenario"
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:[/u]
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.[/color]
Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!
Quit playing games. If you don't want to run afoul of the enforceable provisions, the intention is that you will lock them up. The law is written so that you are presented with an empty choice. Comply or risk the consequences.
Isn't that true with any law? Look, I'm considering selling our house and moving to another state after this election and previous ones which show the true colors of this state and its politicians. I voted no on 1639, like most on this forum, if not all. Bigtex is only respectfully interpreting the information from the law to make sure we understand what's in it and how it affects us. We can discuss this without thinking that anyone who disagrees with us is the enemy. He certainly is not that. After such a hugely crappy political season, with more to come, I suggest that we tone down the rhetoric toward each other and form our responses around this topic in such a way that we assume good intent on the part of those with whom we may not agree.
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2018, 07:07:35 AM
This does actually surprise me, a teeny tiny bit, since ALL law enforcement agencies opposed this. However, WHERE WERE THE ADDS OPPOSING IT STATING THAT FACT?The NRA had them all over Facebook. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Molon5labe on November 07, 2018, 07:10:57 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 07:11:47 AM
Right, thanks Bob.BT, thanks for the info on storage and illegal entry. I want to be sure I know what this means. If my house or car is locked (assuming the firearm is out of sight in the car) and I don't have a gunlock on the firearm, I'm exempted from the gun lock requirement penalties if someone breaks in and steals the firearm. Is that correct, in your opinion?If you report it stolen within five days of noticing it was stolen, yes.
Unless an overzealous prosecutor, as a political statement, wants to use you as political statement that he is tough on gun owners and imputes to you that you "reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken" more than five days before your teport, which renders that safe harbor unavailable.
But hey, that kind of LE political witch hunting never happens, right? *coughs* Mueller *coughs*
Any attorney worth his salt will tell you not to trust LE to tell you what the law is. They are not acting in your best interest.
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2018, 07:12:04 AM
http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 07:17:24 AM
Just one more thing to make honest people outlaws!Same thing I've been thinking
This IS the point. To make compliance with all gun laws so overburdensome as to make you throw up your hands and give up on your 2A rights. It is sad that you get a couple of "experts" telling you "trust us," "it's for your own good."
Post by: weatherbow21 on November 07, 2018, 07:17:27 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 07, 2018, 07:19:07 AM
Right, thanks Bob.BT, thanks for the info on storage and illegal entry. I want to be sure I know what this means. If my house or car is locked (assuming the firearm is out of sight in the car) and I don't have a gunlock on the firearm, I'm exempted from the gun lock requirement penalties if someone breaks in and steals the firearm. Is that correct, in your opinion?If you report it stolen within five days of noticing it was stolen, yes.
Unless an overzealous prosecutor, as a political statement wants to use you as political statement that he is tough on gun owners and imputes to you that you "reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken" more than five days before your teport, which renders that safe harbor unavailable.
But hey, that kind of LE political witch hunting never happens, right? *coughs* Mueller *coughs*
Any attorney worth his salt will tell you not to trust LE to tell you what the law is. They are not acting in your best interest.
We all know police officers never lie and police are lawyers
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 07:19:22 AM
Last night, we were discussing a move to either Austin or Louisville.
My wife is from Austin. Grew up there, went to college there. Her family still lives there. Don't go to Austin. It is Seattle ten years ago. It is following the exact same path. Liberalism, traffic, costs. The Music, and food were exceptional, now getting watered down...
Yeah, we're leaning more toward KY. By the way, Austin's fine dining scene is one of the most vibrant and growing in the country.
Post by: RJW on November 07, 2018, 07:21:17 AM
Post by: Mongo Hunter on November 07, 2018, 07:32:18 AM
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2018, 07:32:48 AM
There are some southern states that have done similar things but I cant tell you which ones.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 07:33:28 AM
But we need to face the core of the problem or all the states will eventually have these initiatives. Colorado was once a free state and now Californians are turning it into another suburb. They chased out Magpul and now there is talk of banning AR-15s.
Then there is the problem of the Feds. Even if you move there could be an anti-gun President and congress in the future.
The core of the problem is that the media is indoctrinating the public into *feeling* that guns are the problem. There is no serious discussion on the second amendment or the odds of actually being killed in a mass shooting. There is no questioning why these shootings are more common now than in the 1960s-80s when more households owned guns. The media constantly pushes an anti-gun view and people absorb it. When an initiative like this comes out it is then difficult to defend since people are going on feelings in the first place.
So maybe we could brainstorm on how to really deal with this problem. We need pre-emptive attacks and not the current defense strategy.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 07:34:55 AM
Overzealous prosecutors don't need another law to make your life difficult; they can do that all on their own. *cough*Right, thanks Bob.BT, thanks for the info on storage and illegal entry. I want to be sure I know what this means. If my house or car is locked (assuming the firearm is out of sight in the car) and I don't have a gunlock on the firearm, I'm exempted from the gun lock requirement penalties if someone breaks in and steals the firearm. Is that correct, in your opinion?If you report it stolen within five days of noticing it was stolen, yes.
Unless an overzealous prosecutor, as a political statement, wants to use you as political statement that he is tough on gun owners and imputes to you that you "reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken" more than five days before your teport, which renders that safe harbor unavailable.
But hey, that kind of LE political witch hunting never happens, right? *coughs* Mueller *coughs*
Any attorney worth his salt will tell you not to trust LE to tell you what the law is. They are not acting in your best interest.
And I don't need LE to tell me what this law states. It's pretty simple to understand for me. :dunno:
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 07:35:47 AM
Post by: woodswalker on November 07, 2018, 07:39:00 AM
500,000 plus yes votes on 1639 came from king county
wonder how many of those were REAL votes...not from the graveyard or obit pages. Remember, Grandpa never voted Democrat until after he died.
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2018, 07:40:05 AM
ID, WY and some southern states have made gun ownership, hunting and other stuff state constitutional rights requiring super majorities to overturn. This is the only preventative measures I can see.
On the federal level there are several cases challenging the commerce clause. I belive out of Kentucky the state says any suppressors made and sold in the state dont need fed tax stamps. If this makes it to the supreme court it will have a huge effect on all manner of business.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: ljsommer on November 07, 2018, 07:40:10 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 07:48:05 AM
Post by: Kc_Kracker on November 07, 2018, 07:50:19 AM
It should be no surprise since they have amended thier constitutions to require super majorities to change 2A, hunting and other constitutional rights.what does that mean?
Post by: r67968 on November 07, 2018, 07:51:57 AM
What if we just built the Trump wall... and then kept going to have it also surround California so that the Californians just stayed there?
We have been producing our own generations of progressive liberals right here.
Just take a look at what is being taught in colleges these days. I don't think that it's all California transplants giving us these results. It seems to me our public education system is a pipeline of liberal indoctrination, and some parents are content to let it be.
Post by: Machias on November 07, 2018, 07:53:08 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 07, 2018, 07:55:51 AM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?As it is written yes. I suspect shotguns aren't used as often as rifles in mass shootings.
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
I don't believe .22 rimfires are much used either.
Post by: 2MANY on November 07, 2018, 07:56:48 AM
Post by: Tundra on November 07, 2018, 08:00:08 AM
Post by: Naches Sportsman on November 07, 2018, 08:00:43 AM
No matter where you go, you will be impacted by native Californians. Look at the other states out west that have blue in them. You'll see what I mean.
The destruction of Amerrica is too late to be stopped.
Post by: ljsommer on November 07, 2018, 08:01:54 AM
Post by: ljsommer on November 07, 2018, 08:02:33 AM
What if we just built the Trump wall... and then kept going to have it also surround California so that the Californians just stayed there?
We have been producing our own generations of progressive liberals right here.
Just take a look at what is being taught in colleges these days. I don't think that it's all California transplants giving us these results. It seems to me our public education system is a pipeline of liberal indoctrination, and some parents are content to let it be.
You're more right than you know.
Post by: ljsommer on November 07, 2018, 08:03:48 AM
The destruction of Amerrica is too late to be stopped.
By you maybe, but that kind of defeatism won't get us anywhere. Chin up, we've got it good.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:04:09 AM
The law is written so that you are presented with an empty choice. Comply or risk the consequences.
Isn't that true with any law?
Yes. But as with any law, there is the stated function and the actual function.
With taxes the stated function is to raise revenue and stated or unstated and actual function is to enforce social policy toward non-taxed items and away from taxed items, in addition to actually raising revenue. Typically, generally applicable laws have stated and actual coextensive functions. That has been the case for some time. Lately, these diverge as the law has been used by the majority to harass the disfavored majority.
With gun laws, the stated function function is always safety and effective LE. The actual function is to raise the compliance costs and risks of enjoying your 2A rights ever higher. It knocks people off at the fringes, reduces the size of available 2A advocates (you stop advocating for a right you don't care about because you don't enjoy it), and pushes the envelope as to what people consider "reasonable" restrictions. I suspect you see a problem with that safety and LE effectiveness benefit never materializing, when the grand bargain was struck, because laws are rarely revoked for lack of initial promised benefit.
With I-594, you have de facto registration, or at least the mechanism for de jure registration, once there are not enough 2A advocates to resist. And over time, all guns in WA will have the de facto registration as the pre-I594 firearms become an ever-decreasing fraction of the total.
Now, all you need is a crime in which to investigate to use to trace the firearm. Viola I-1639. Evil gun owner may have not locked up his weapon properly, so we can go and use the limitless resources harass him and determine whether "he should have reasonably known" that his firearm was stolen within the minuscule reporting window.
These scenarios all do not take great stretches of the imagination as the experts suggest. "Trust us?" No thanks.
Look, I'm considering selling our house and moving to another state after this election and previous ones which show the true colors of this state and its politicians. I voted no on 1639, like most on this forum, if not all.
I am a couple steps ahead of you.
Bigtex is only respectfully interpreting the information from the law to make sure we understand what's in it and how it affects us. We can discuss this without thinking that anyone who disagrees with us is the enemy. He certainly is not that. After such a hugely crappy political season, with more to come, I suggest that we tone down the rhetoric toward each other and form our responses around this topic in such a way that we assume good intent on the part of those with whom we may not agree.
Bigtex and Co. is presenting a rose-colored view, from an LE perspective, blowing sunshine and skittles up our behinds. He is selling something. I am not buying, and so are others raising legitimate concerns and fears about how the law will be applied.
And then he is throwing around the "respect muh authority" garbage, when being confronted with such fears and concerns. So he gets his buddy to join in and continue to demean people's concerns and fears.
Otherwise, you make great points. Thanks for being an arbiter on contentious issues.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 08:12:47 AM
Post by: Kc_Kracker on November 07, 2018, 08:20:31 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:23:23 AM
LE (Bigtex & Co.), almost without exception, were opposed to this initiative. Just saying. He's using his perspective to give us further insight. I doubt very much he supported this initiative, but I don't know. Has he stated?
"Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!"I'm not playing games. I would think most people with half a brain would report their gun stolen even before this law was in place :dunno:
It says if you don't lock them, you risk these consequences. The practical effect is the same. You are playing semantic games. It would be more honest to acknowledge the legitimate grievance people are raising.
Yes, you are right. It does not say you HAVE to lock them up. Why? Because the risk of being ruled unconstitutional. So they make the consequences of not making the desired so onerous as to remove volition from the choice.
But yeah, sure, we dont HAVE to. That's comforting.
And guess what, now if you do and someone uses your gun to kill someone you can't be charged.
Implying that someone who doesn't support the LE reporting requirement has less than half a brain sure seems supportive, from my perspective.
And such goes beyond "respectful interpretation." I get and appreciate his perspective. I don't get getting defensive when someone questions your authority over your fiefdom and slighting those who do. His is an LE perspective. People are raising concerns from their perspective.
The law has two perspectives that are important. Prosecution and defense. That is why we have an adversarial justice system and why we have such due process and fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, etc. I don't want a sunshine and skittles prosecutor perspective to be substituted for a defense perspective. You shouldn't either.
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:31:25 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:31:42 AM
ID and AK are probably doable from the wife's perspective. We already sold our house.
Post by: Woodchuck on November 07, 2018, 08:31:44 AM
Dude, you're going after the wrong guy for the wrong reasons. :twocents: Honestly man, take a breath and refocus, arguing with the same user group will be the end of us.LE (Bigtex & Co.), almost without exception, were opposed to this initiative. Just saying. He's using his perspective to give us further insight. I doubt very much he supported this initiative, but I don't know. Has he stated?"Nowhere does it say guns have to be locked up!"I'm not playing games. I would think most people with half a brain would report their gun stolen even before this law was in place :dunno:
It says if you don't lock them, you risk these consequences. The practical effect is the same. You are playing semantic games. It would be more honest to acknowledge the legitimate grievance people are raising.
Yes, you are right. It does not say you HAVE to lock them up. Why? Because the risk of being ruled unconstitutional. So they make the consequences of not making the desired so onerous as to remove volition from the choice.
But yeah, sure, we dont HAVE to. That's comforting.
And guess what, now if you do and someone uses your gun to kill someone you can't be charged.
Implying that someone who doesn't support the LE reporting requirement has less than half a brain sure seems supportive, from my perspective.
And such goes beyond "respectful interpretation." I get and appreciate his perspective. I don't get getting defensive when someone questions your authority over your fiefdom and slighting those who do. His is an LE perspective. People are raising concerns from their perspective.
The law has two perspectives that are important. Prosecution and defense. That is why we have an adversarial justice system and why we have such due process and fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, etc. I don't want a sunshine and skittles prosecutor perspective to be substituted for a defense perspective. You shouldn't either.
Post by: Kc_Kracker on November 07, 2018, 08:32:52 AM
What part of Idaho you going to Kracker. I cant decide. Idaho has it all.preferably an area that isnt too hot in the summer, like north or east ID, might even creep over into MT
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:34:14 AM
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:34:35 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 07, 2018, 08:34:45 AM
I believe it becomes law on December 1st, if remember correctly.I think on many initiatives, if the date isn't specified, they become law 30 days after passing.
Post by: CoryTDF on November 07, 2018, 08:35:10 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on November 07, 2018, 08:35:56 AM
Post by: asmith on November 07, 2018, 08:36:35 AM
Post by: 2MANY on November 07, 2018, 08:40:19 AM
I have family outside the Challis area. Love it there!!
The problem is making a living near Challis.
No worries if your a goat and can eat brush along the highway.
That being said even a taxidermist would starve in Challis.
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:41:09 AM
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:43:05 AM
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:44:14 AM
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:44:21 AM
ID, AK, WY, and UT are on my short list. I'd probably also do TN or LA if it were just me.Mittens will be your new governor lololol
ID and AK are probably doable from the wife's perspective. We already sold our house.
sent from the telephone
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 07, 2018, 08:45:12 AM
ID, AK, WY, and UT are on my short list. I'd probably also do TN or LA if it were just me.Oh man, I might have to deal with you in AK too? :chuckle:
ID and AK are probably doable from the wife's perspective. We already sold our house.
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 08:45:47 AM
I am not even that upset about the 21 YO age restriction or the 10 day waiting period. Yes, those are stupid and will do nothing to prevent shootings but it's the little gem about charging me with a FELONY if so A-Hole steals my gun and shoots somebody with it. That is the part that really scares me. What happened to accountability? Why then if somebody steal your car and kills somebody with it are you not charged with a felony? This is just backwards thinking.
I think the annual medical check is the worst. It's incredibly invasive and poorly thought out. What is the criteria? It isn't defined. People will avoid going to the Dr for things like depression out of fear that they might lose their guns.
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:46:13 AM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?As it is written yes. I suspect shotguns aren't used as often as rifles in mass shootings.
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
They will be back next year for the shotguns. This passed by 60%. I think they can write any law they want at this point.
Exactly!!!
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:48:11 AM
Just noticed where you live. I grew up on jawks prairie. Shot a spike buck right where cabelas now sits :tup:
Sorry that would be hawks
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:48:21 AM
ID, AK, WY, and UT are on my short list. I'd probably also do TN or LA if it were just me.Mittens will be your new governor lololol
ID and AK are probably doable from the wife's perspective. We already sold our house.
sent from the telephone
*scratches UT off list*
*realizes contempt for traitorous nevertrump*
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:49:04 AM
All the more reason to create the new state od Liberty. Eastern Wa and Eastern Or.A new state of liberty wont last long, spokane voted for a communist, it took the whole rest of the district to over turn spokane, too close, over time it'll slip into what we know now
sent from the telephone
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:49:54 AM
sent from the telephone
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 08:50:42 AM
I am not even that upset about the 21 YO age restriction or the 10 day waiting period. Yes, those are stupid and will do nothing to prevent shootings but it's the little gem about charging me with a FELONY if so A-Hole steals my gun and shoots somebody with it. That is the part that really scares me. What happened to accountability? Why then if somebody steal your car and kills somebody with it are you not charged with a felony? This is just backwards thinking.Not that I agree with any portion of the law, but if you report the firearm stolen you would be exempt from being charged if the law is followed as written.
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 08:51:03 AM
They are 2/2 with big margins, we're just beginning.
Post by: jaymark6655 on November 07, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.
Everything that a bad guy with a stolen gun would do was already illegal. WA-1639 does nothing to change that. It's sole purpose is to provide a way to come after the legal gun owner despite how we want to read it.
Edit: Well that and take one step closer to classifying all semi-autos as assault weapons that must be outright banned and change the buying age to 21 and whatever else horrible this thing did. Truthfully I was thinking everything should be dropped to 18 or voting should be bumped to 21 (might solve some issues).
Post by: bigdave on November 07, 2018, 08:54:02 AM
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 08:54:04 AM
I believe it becomes law on December 1st, if remember correctly.I think on many initiatives, if the date isn't specified, they become law 30 days after passing.
I just verified this. Thanks for bringing this up, I was assuming it would start Jan 1st.
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:54:14 AM
sent from the telephone
Post by: bobcat on November 07, 2018, 08:56:20 AM
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 07, 2018, 08:57:17 AM
Don't forget Pierce and Thurston Co.sI believe it becomes law on December 1st, if remember correctly.I hope you are wrong........ Can we carve King County out as a Separate State yet? :bash:
Post by: Billy74 on November 07, 2018, 08:57:20 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:58:08 AM
I am not even that upset about the 21 YO age restriction or the 10 day waiting period. Yes, those are stupid and will do nothing to prevent shootings but it's the little gem about charging me with a FELONY if so A-Hole steals my gun and shoots somebody with it. That is the part that really scares me. What happened to accountability? Why then if somebody steal your car and kills somebody with it are you not charged with a felony? This is just backwards thinking.
I think the annual medical check is the worst. It's incredibly invasive and poorly thought out. What is the criteria? It isn't defined. People will avoid going to the Dr for things like depression out of fear that they might lose their guns.
This. But I am also miffed about the 18-21 ban.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 08:59:17 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
80% receivers.
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 08:59:40 AM
Training = Registration
sent from the telephone
No, there is a separate section in the bill specifically setting up registration. This is required as local police will be required to check the every registration at least annually and go door knocking if you are no longer authorized to own the firearm.
Quote
NEW SECTION. Sec. 15. A new section is added to chapter 9.41
RCW to read as follows:
(1) Within twelve months of the effective date of this section,
the department of licensing shall, in conjunction with the
Washington state patrol and other state and local law enforcement
agencies as necessary, develop a cost-effective and efficient
process to:
(a) Verify, on an annual or more frequent basis, that persons
who acquired pistols or semiautomatic assault rifles pursuant to
this chapter remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and
federal law; and
(b) If such persons are determined to be ineligible for any
reason, (i) notify and provide the relevant information to the chief
of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser
resides and (ii) take steps to ensure such persons are not illegally
in possession of firearms.
and
Quote
The department of licensing shall 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 or
semiautomatic assault rifles provided for in RCW 9.41.090, and
copies or records of pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle 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).
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 07, 2018, 09:00:17 AM
None of us should be surprised that the initiative passed. We will see more restrictions in the future and would be smart to get ahead of that through legislation rather than another initiative.
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 09:00:27 AM
The initiative sounds like it doesn't include semi-automatic shotguns. I wonder why?
So an 18 year old could still buy a semi auto shotgun but not a Ruger 10/22?
They will be added, after all, you can put a rifled barrel on a shotgun action and now it is a "rifle", mark my words..... :bash:
Semi-auto shotguns have flown under the radar because the AR-15 has been used in high profile shootings.
It's only a matter of time before mass shooters switch to shotguns in states where AR-15s are banned.
Then the idiots that write these bills will campaign against "automatic combat shotguns" even if they can't explain what they are trying to ban.
Hunters that have been on the fence will realize that the gun grabbers were not going to stop at the AR-15.
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 09:02:30 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
80% receivers.
Shhhhhhhhh. The idiots that wrote this bill didn't consider those.
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 09:02:34 AM
What about the firearms already owned?
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 09:03:38 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 09:04:28 AM
Gun owners should be looking for realistic ways to stop mass shootings and gun violence. I agree that it's generally a mental health issue, I also think it's a masculinity issue.
None of us should be surprised that the initiative passed. We will see more restrictions in the future and would be smart to get ahead of that through legislation rather than another initiative.
That is an elusive solution. This went by initiative, exactly because the legislature didn't want any of their fingerprints on it. It's all fine to propose legislation as a correction for bad initiatives purchased by people as their own pet legislative priority. I-594 is still standing. This is and never was intended to be about mental health and gun safety. That was just the selling point.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 09:05:45 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 09:07:54 AM
So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?
What about the firearms already owned?
Grandfathered. You need to have attended a class in the last five years that provided a certificate that indicates under penalty of perjury that the class covers the minimum requirements in the bill. The class must also be provided by a nationally recognized organization or an instructor that has nationally recognized credentials.
So, you either need to take a new NRA class or similar, or convince you last instructor to re-issue a certificate meeting the above.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 09:12:39 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
Except for the "reasonably should have known" part. This is standard verbiage for imputing knowledge to you when you say "I did not know" of a fact. It is called constructive knowledge and it is a standard process in law enforcement.
People should not downplay that this could eviscerate any reporting safe-harbor that implies you could still report five days after you did actually discover the fact of the stolen firearm. I forget the case, but there was a federal firearms prosecution where a guy was prosecuted for selling to a prohibited possessor (illegal alien, as I recall), because he "reasonably should have known" that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.
So this is not just in the realm of fantasy, as some would have you believe. It is smack dab in the middle of reality.
Post by: jaymark6655 on November 07, 2018, 09:12:51 AM
That would be the preferred way of interpreting it, but not what it says. "Prohibited person according to state law or federal law", if 594 is a state law it applies to people that cannot possess under it.Prohibited person is any person who can't possess a firearm whether it be because their a felon, underage, etc. Not a person who can't possess your firearm because you haven't legally transferred it to them yet (assuming they can legally possess a gun).What about 594? Registered to one person, but someone else has access?I like the language of “prohibited person” in the storage requirement what the heck does that mean? Way to vague against 2nd, 4th and 5th amendmentsNot vague at all.
Per the initiative, "prohibited person" means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
Post by: Cab on November 07, 2018, 09:13:02 AM
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 09:14:06 AM
I bet literally none, which really isnt the point is it. Law abiding people already report theft of weapons.
sent from the telephone
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 09:15:09 AM
So now with the "training" that is required within the last 5 years to buy semi-auto rifles does that mean you have to take training every 5 years now? or you have to have had within every time you want to buy one?! this is bonkers
Every time you want to buy one you have to produce a valid certificate. I bet that no existing certificates will work as they don't reference the minimums in this new law.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 07, 2018, 09:15:42 AM
:yeah: Guns are now part of political identity. Republicans enjoy the almost guaranteed votes of high turnout group of single issue voters known as gun owners. The Dems need to shrink this group to be insignificant in elections. Make it so burdensome to become a gunowner and eventually only a small group will remain and their votes mean little. Then the Dems can have an easier time enriching their big donors.Gun owners should be looking for realistic ways to stop mass shootings and gun violence. I agree that it's generally a mental health issue, I also think it's a masculinity issue.
None of us should be surprised that the initiative passed. We will see more restrictions in the future and would be smart to get ahead of that through legislation rather than another initiative.
That is an elusive solution. This went by initiative, exactly because the legislature didn't want any of their fingerprints on it. It's all fine to propose legislation as a correction for bad initiatives purchased by people as their own pet legislative priority. I-594 is still standing. This is and never was intended to be about mental health and gun safety. That was just the selling point.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 09:15:58 AM
So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?This training requirement applies only to "semiautomatic assault rifles".
What about the firearms already owned?
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 09:16:21 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
80% receivers.
Shhhhhhhhh. The idiots that wrote this bill didn't consider those.
80% receivers are semi-automatic assault rifles under this bill I believe. I didn't see anything requiring the firearm to be complete - similar to the federal laws.
Post by: jrebel on November 07, 2018, 09:17:58 AM
At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted. Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun. It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere. Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible. What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible. No differnece.
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 09:18:19 AM
They're playing the long game.
sent from the telephone
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 09:20:05 AM
None of this is inforceable!!! Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly. It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington.
At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted. Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun. It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere. Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible. What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible. No differnece.
Unfortunately there is a difference, I-639 passed and it specifically does what you mentioned. Congress had to pass a law to prevent the manufacturer from being held liable for making something they sold to someone who sold it to someone else, who used it in a crime.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2018, 09:22:24 AM
(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
80% receivers.
Shhhhhhhhh. The idiots that wrote this bill didn't consider those.
80% receivers are semi-automatic assault rifles under this bill I believe. I didn't see anything requiring the firearm to be complete - similar to the federal laws.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.
(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
Post by: bobcat on November 07, 2018, 09:22:33 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
Except for the "reasonably should have known" part. This is standard verbiage for imputing knowledge to you when you say "I did not know" of a fact. It is called constructive knowledge and it is a standard process in law enforcement.
People should not downplay that this could eviscerate any reporting safe-harbor that implies you could still report five days after you did actually discover the fact of the stolen firearm. I forget the case, but there was a federal firearms prosecution where a guy was prosecuted for selling to a prohibited possessor (illegal alien, as I recall), because he "reasonably should have known" that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.
So this is not just in the realm of fantasy, as some would have you believe. It is smack dab in the middle of reality.
Yeah, kind of what I was thinking. So say your handgun was stolen from your house and you don't even know it. A month later a crime is committed with the handgun. You never reported it stolen. Are they going to prosecute you because you SHOULD HAVE known it was stolen?
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 09:24:57 AM
None of this is inforceable!!! Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly. It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington.
At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted. Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun. It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere. Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible. What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible. No differnece.
Not business as usual.
Read the full text. You sign over full access to your medical records if you buy a semi-automatic which includes a 10/22. There is no due process or even a set of conditions specified. So a state worker can just look at your medical records and say NOPE.
This is a nightmare.
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 09:25:22 AM
Unless they arrest you first, better inventory everything you got and give a list to the stateWhat if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
sent from the telephone
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 09:26:16 AM
So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?
What about the firearms already owned?
Not specified.
It's written for transfers.
Post by: chiwawadan on November 07, 2018, 09:32:25 AM
None of this is inforceable!!! Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly. It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington.
At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted. Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun. It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere. Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible. What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible. No differnece.
Not business as usual.
Read the full text. You sign over full access to your medical records if you buy a semi-automatic which includes a 10/22. There is no due process or even a set of conditions specified. So a state worker can just look at your medical records and say NOPE.
This is a nightmare.
Any chance you can copy-paste this medical record part of the full text? I can't find it. Just want to see it for myself. Thanks if you're able!
Post by: jrebel on November 07, 2018, 09:33:30 AM
None of this is inforceable!!! Every law enforcement officer I know has said this is just silly. It is why it had wide spread dissaproval from all Law Enforcement in Washington.
At the end of the day it will make new purchases a pain in the arse because....which is ultimately what they wanted. Business as usual......It will get thrown out of court the first time they try to hold a homeowner accountable for a stolen gun. It will cost a lot of money....(again an intended consequence of the libs)....but it will not go anywhere. Simple defense.....a car gets stolen and kills someone in a high speed chase that insues......is the car owner responsible. What about my machette, hammer, bat, etc get stolen.....Am I responsible. No differnece.
Not business as usual.
Read the full text. You sign over full access to your medical records if you buy a semi-automatic which includes a 10/22. There is no due process or even a set of conditions specified. So a state worker can just look at your medical records and say NOPE.
This is a nightmare.
I clearly stated new purchases would be a pain in the arse.....I get it. I don't agree with it, and am adimately against it. With that said it will not be enforceable....it will not be enforceable. It will be fought and won....just cost a lot of money to do so.
Post by: Bofire on November 07, 2018, 09:34:32 AM
Carl
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 09:39:48 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
Except for the "reasonably should have known" part. This is standard verbiage for imputing knowledge to you when you say "I did not know" of a fact. It is called constructive knowledge and it is a standard process in law enforcement.
People should not downplay that this could eviscerate any reporting safe-harbor that implies you could still report five days after you did actually discover the fact of the stolen firearm. I forget the case, but there was a federal firearms prosecution where a guy was prosecuted for selling to a prohibited possessor (illegal alien, as I recall), because he "reasonably should have known" that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.
So this is not just in the realm of fantasy, as some would have you believe. It is smack dab in the middle of reality.
Yeah, kind of what I was thinking. So say your handgun was stolen from your house and you don't even know it. A month later a crime is committed with the handgun. You never reported it stolen. Are they going to prosecute you because you SHOULD HAVE known it was stolen?
:yeah:
We had a burglary. It was reported. We also thought another item was taken, and so we reported it. We were mistaken and corrected the record. The item was misplaced. You make mistakes when dealing with the violation of a burglary.
The point is that the "reasonably should have known" appears in what appears to be affirmative defenses to the crime that you can be charged with, if you did not report within five days, AND it appears to essentially eviscerate this reporting safe harbor, which you will find out at the cost of your liberty, time, and money to defend against the charge that you "reasonably should have known."
So you get the choice of risking liberty, time, and money, even if you late report, or locking them up.
It is written as a Hobson's choice, and it saddens me to see people deny this simple reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
(25) "Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
80% receivers.
Shhhhhhhhh. The idiots that wrote this bill didn't consider those.
80% receivers are semi-automatic assault rifles under this bill I believe. I didn't see anything requiring the firearm to be complete - similar to the federal laws.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.
(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
The point is the buy action that implicates the I-1639 provisions, for an 80% receiver is that you are buying not a firearm. Never was under WA and federal law. I don't know if it is now defined as one in I-1639. But I am sure that if it isn't we can expect an 80% receiver loophole initiative coming down the pike, for the children, because, the unifying theme is burdening lawful gun ownership.
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 09:43:05 AM
If you understand it explain it to us shouldn't be too hard either.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 09:52:51 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Face.mu.nu%2Farchives%2Fflorida%2520ballot%2520question.jpg&hash=dc58c3609946bc555bd948230fe7d73848ae67fa)
Post by: Kc_Kracker on November 07, 2018, 09:53:42 AM
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 09:55:13 AM
One easy way to do that would be to slightly amend 1639 to include semi-auto rifles "or other semi-auto firearms capable of being modified to fit the definition of assault weapon through the use of commercially available parts or components." Most, if not virtually all semi-auto shotguns have factory or aftermarket rifled barrels available which I believe would qualify them as assault rifles. If so, it isn't clear what happens if you have both barrels for a shotgun, is it only an assault rifle if the rifled barrel is installed, or by simply owning one do you have an assault rifle?
Don't give them any ideas.
Seriously. These people are so limited and unoriginal in their thinking. There is nothing to be gained by pointing out how it could be improved or amended.
Remember that 1639 will likely be used as a template for other states.
Post by: Bofire on November 07, 2018, 09:59:57 AM
on the opening page you have to roll the text up. if nothing else look at Machine Gun on page 27.
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 10:04:57 AM
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdfI got it thanks sir. "would be" "buyer" future not past. :tup:
on the opening page you have to roll the text up. if nothing else look at Machine Gun on page 27.
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 10:05:15 AM
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 10:24:20 AM
What if you have a gun stolen from your house and you don't even know it's gone? I could see that happening.If you report it stolen within five days of knowing it was stolen, you should be exempt from consequences if the law is followed as written.
By the way, Whitman county voted for 1639, so it's not just the Westside and Spokane.
Except for the "reasonably should have known" part. This is standard verbiage for imputing knowledge to you when you say "I did not know" of a fact. It is called constructive knowledge and it is a standard process in law enforcement.
People should not downplay that this could eviscerate any reporting safe-harbor that implies you could still report five days after you did actually discover the fact of the stolen firearm. I forget the case, but there was a federal firearms prosecution where a guy was prosecuted for selling to a prohibited possessor (illegal alien, as I recall), because he "reasonably should have known" that the buyer was a prohibited possessor.
So this is not just in the realm of fantasy, as some would have you believe. It is smack dab in the middle of reality.
Yeah, kind of what I was thinking. So say your handgun was stolen from your house and you don't even know it. A month later a crime is committed with the handgun. You never reported it stolen. Are they going to prosecute you because you SHOULD HAVE known it was stolen?
Yep!
Post by: bornhunter on November 07, 2018, 10:30:59 AM
All the more reason to create the new state od Liberty. Eastern Wa and Eastern Or.A new state of liberty wont last long, spokane voted for a communist, it took the whole rest of the district to over turn spokane, too close, over time it'll slip into what we know now
sent from the telephone
I know. Just wishfull thinking.
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 07, 2018, 12:09:34 PM
So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?
What about the firearms already owned?
Grandfathered. You need to have attended a class in the last five years that provided a certificate that indicates under penalty of perjury that the class covers the minimum requirements in the bill. The class must also be provided by a nationally recognized organization or an instructor that has nationally recognized credentials.
So, you either need to take a new NRA class or similar, or convince you last instructor to re-issue a certificate meeting the above.
So does our WA state right to bear arms in self defense "shall not be impaired" state that you need training to own firearm? or the 2nd amendment. It is also an invasion of private affairs under Art 1 section 7. just to state a couple of them
IMO it would also seem that the right to bear arms would need to be amended, which isn't going to happen.
Post by: Curly on November 07, 2018, 01:12:31 PM
Gun owners should be looking for realistic ways to stop mass shootings and gun violence. I agree that it's generally a mental health issue, I also think it's a masculinity issue.
None of us should be surprised that the initiative passed. We will see more restrictions in the future and would be smart to get ahead of that through legislation rather than another initiative.
Gun owners should also not be voting for democrats.
Just say no to voting for Dems. :twocents:
Public service announcement.........just say NO!
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 02:30:46 PM
no motw for me :(
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 02:32:38 PM
So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?
What about the firearms already owned?
Grandfathered. You need to have attended a class in the last five years that provided a certificate that indicates under penalty of perjury that the class covers the minimum requirements in the bill. The class must also be provided by a nationally recognized organization or an instructor that has nationally recognized credentials.
So, you either need to take a new NRA class or similar, or convince you last instructor to re-issue a certificate meeting the above.
So does our WA state right to bear arms in self defense "shall not be impaired" state that you need training to own firearm? or the 2nd amendment. It is also an invasion of private affairs under Art 1 section 7. just to state a couple of them
IMO it would also seem that the right to bear arms would need to be amended, which isn't going to happen.
SCOTUS has ruled and reaffirmed that there may be reasonable limitations on the right as there are reasonable limitations on other rights (you can't threaten the president or yell fire in a theater under the 1st for example).
I do find it ironic that you can't require an ID to vote even if it is free because someone may have to pay 50 cents to take a bus, but you can require training and $50+ in tax to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 02:34:22 PM
We should demand a class before anyone can use their 1st amendment rights :bash:
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2018, 02:43:27 PM
I think "of a common use" will save us all. That and removing 2A rights for those 18-20, that and since when do constitutional rights require classes?
We should demand a class before anyone can use their 1st amendment rights :bash:
I do think they may have shot themselves in the foot with the introductory stuff, they are clearly calling out AR-15s as purely military weapons when they are a) not used by the military and b) very much commonly used.
The bill has so much stuff in there I can't help but think something can get the whole thing thrown out. Much of it is vague as noted. I can say that I hope to see it in DC as soon as possible.
Post by: konradcountry on November 07, 2018, 02:44:12 PM
Gun owners should be looking for realistic ways to stop mass shootings and gun violence. I agree that it's generally a mental health issue, I also think it's a masculinity issue.
None of us should be surprised that the initiative passed. We will see more restrictions in the future and would be smart to get ahead of that through legislation rather than another initiative.
Gun owners should also not be voting for democrats.
Just say no to voting for Dems. :twocents:
Public service announcement.........just say NO!
Sorry but we are going to need what is called a lateral strategy. Basically a different way of approaching it.
Voting is not going to do it. What did the state Republicans do to stop 1639? Only the police agencies came out against it.
Post by: TommyH on November 07, 2018, 02:49:37 PM
Post by: Angry Perch on November 07, 2018, 02:51:45 PM
(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the
explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the
trigger.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 07, 2018, 02:59:52 PM
So just to be sure,You now have to attend a gun ownership safety class before you can purchase your next firearm?
What about the firearms already owned?
Grandfathered. You need to have attended a class in the last five years that provided a certificate that indicates under penalty of perjury that the class covers the minimum requirements in the bill. The class must also be provided by a nationally recognized organization or an instructor that has nationally recognized credentials.
So, you either need to take a new NRA class or similar, or convince you last instructor to re-issue a certificate meeting the above.
So does our WA state right to bear arms in self defense "shall not be impaired" state that you need training to own firearm? or the 2nd amendment. It is also an invasion of private affairs under Art 1 section 7. just to state a couple of them
IMO it would also seem that the right to bear arms would need to be amended, which isn't going to happen.
SCOTUS has ruled and reaffirmed that there may be reasonable limitations on the right as there are reasonable limitations on other rights (you can't threaten the president or yell fire in a theater under the 1st for example).
I do find it ironic that you can't require an ID to vote even if it is free because someone may have to pay 50 cents to take a bus, but you can require training and $50+ in tax to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.
And voting isn't even a Constitutional right that "shall not be infringed."
Post by: Cab on November 07, 2018, 03:16:22 PM
Sounds like there may be a market for smooth bore AR's, or plastic cases. :chuckle:
(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the
explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the
trigger.
and this is why there is carbine "pistols" that work for certain states
Post by: SGTDuffman on November 07, 2018, 04:23:25 PM
Post by: 2MANY on November 07, 2018, 04:41:29 PM
Post by: timberfaller on November 07, 2018, 05:35:34 PM
Quick questions, How many firearm owners never got out and voted???? How many firearm owners voted for Cantwell and other "D's"???
Post by: Igor on November 07, 2018, 05:39:04 PM
Well, now that all semi-automatic rifles are scary “semiautomatic assault rifles”, it should be noted than an AR pistol, sidesteps all of this. How’s that for a plan libs? You effectively banned all semiautomatic rifles, by making it such a hassle. The end result will be basically more short barreled rifles in the form of AR pistols with people shouldering the braces, or just buying 80% lowers and making completely unregistered guns. Probably not what they had in mind, but I’m SO happy with how this will blow up in their face.
If you think they are done, you are dreaming..................
Post by: Igor on November 07, 2018, 05:46:36 PM
Next year will see a ban on the ballot. Possibly magazines >10 rounds, maybe something else. I also see firearm licensing a possibility, easy way to increase background checks by applying state level requirements. Other possibilities are increased pressure on gun dealers, we could see state requirements for people who are selling.
They are 2/2 with big margins, we're just beginning.
If you want to see what's coming to Washington, just look to California. For example, starting in 2019 you have to pass a background check to buy ammo in California.
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 05:46:49 PM
Well, I see it was another typical WA state mid term election! Over 6 million legal aged voters in the state and only just over 2 million got out and voted, AND you see the results!!!
Quick questions, How many firearm owners never got out and voted???? How many firearm owners voted for Cantwell and other "D's"???
It's disheartening isn't it, when it's so simple. We all get mail in ballots, do you don't even need to drive anywhere...don't even need a freaking stamp! It's postage paid!
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 05:55:04 PM
Well, I see it was another typical WA state mid term election! Over 6 million legal aged voters in the state and only just over 2 million got out and voted, AND you see the results!!!Upset i am.lol.but sorry total population for this state is about 7,5 million no way is there 6 million able to vote. :tup: turnout was very good just too many voters in low sea level places. :chuckle:
Quick questions, How many firearm owners never got out and voted???? How many firearm owners voted for Cantwell and other "D's"???
seriously though there are 4.36 million registered voters in WA. State as of 11-1-2018.
Post by: Twispriver on November 07, 2018, 07:30:04 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
sent from the telephone
Post by: shootem on November 07, 2018, 08:11:35 PM
Post by: shootem on November 07, 2018, 08:13:18 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 07, 2018, 08:34:20 PM
Hawaii is the only state I can think of where you must report and register any guns you bring into the state or purchase within the state.
WA has no such law that I'm aware of (yet) regarding firearms you already own and bring into the state.
Post by: cmiller85 on November 07, 2018, 08:49:41 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on November 07, 2018, 10:30:48 PM
Post by: luvmystang67 on November 08, 2018, 02:34:14 AM
Then its not an assault rifle.
Actually, given the barrel comment, who's to say what an AR lower turns into? Its not technically an assault rifle.
Post by: SGTDuffman on November 08, 2018, 06:02:56 AM
I'm going to start selling an AR without barrels... or with a smooth bore.
Then its not an assault rifle.
Actually, given the barrel comment, who's to say what an AR lower turns into? Its not technically an assault rifle.
Just build a “pistol”. A barrel shorter than 16” and a pistol brace instead of a buttstock = a pistol. Pistols are not effected by I-1639. There are pistol braces now that attach to regular carbine buffer tubes and are collapsible. They circumvent the ATFs definition of SBR by having a length of pull of less than 13.5”. The ATF has also stated that the incorrect use of a brace, or shouldering it, does not constitute a redesign. Washington defines a pistol as,
(21) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen
inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of
a single hand.
The brace is designed for use of a single hand. You misuse it to shoulder it, but like I said, the ATF has said that such misuse does not constitute a redesign because you are not physically modifying the parts from their intended design.
Post by: luvmystang67 on November 08, 2018, 06:59:58 AM
There were 195 murders in WA in 2016, 127 with guns, 11 with ALL rifle types, 19 with knives, 11 with hands and fists.
Let that sink in... probably 0-2 with assault rifles... probably zero with 10/22s
Post by: brokentrail on November 08, 2018, 07:05:00 AM
Post by: Stein on November 08, 2018, 07:19:11 AM
I'm going to start selling an AR without barrels... or with a smooth bore.
Then its not an assault rifle.
Actually, given the barrel comment, who's to say what an AR lower turns into? Its not technically an assault rifle.
Semi-auto assault rifles are defined as "any rifle". There are two "rifle" definitions, the regular "rifle" and "short-barreled rifle" for rifles with barrels under 16". The way I read it is that any barrel length is covered as "any rifle." "Rifle" definition does say designed to be shoulder fired, so AR pistols should be outside of that, but who knows.
It is also a bit vague about lowers, a huge loophole would be if you could buy them and the assemble without going through 639, probably only for those over 21 as a lower can currently only be made into either a pistol or semi-auto assault weapon (assuming no smoothbore barrels exist). It remains to be seen how far out on a limb FFLs will go with selling lowers without complying. Like the CA button issue a few years back, one might start seeing ARs being sold without barrels, or the upper and lower being simply separated and not sold together.
Post by: hunter399 on November 08, 2018, 07:46:19 AM
Post by: troyspinetar on November 08, 2018, 07:52:14 AM
Good thing we legalize marijuana, I love driving the roads with my family in the vehicle knowing that people are under the influence of drugs while operating a motor vehicle at a high rate of speed. There’s no accountability in Washington.
Post by: Stein on November 08, 2018, 07:52:20 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on November 08, 2018, 08:16:07 AM
Man, that's a grim map. It seems to be spreading.
Not surprised in the slightest at the map. I asked my gf the other day if she had cast her ballot and she said no because she didn't feel educated enough and it brought up the discussion about the demographics of wa. The map proves that point
Post by: CoryTDF on November 08, 2018, 08:21:56 AM
Man, that's a grim map. It seems to be spreading.
Not surprised in the slightest at the map. I asked my gf the other day if she had cast her ballot and she said no because she didn't feel educated enough and it brought up the discussion about the demographics of wa. The map proves that point
Meh, not really. Those are the typical counties to vote in completely idiotic things. Whitman has WSU and Spokane is just your typical big city with big city logic. The sad part is that most of the idiot votes come from western Washington and likely from people that have never even been East. They live in what i like to call the "Seattle bubble" and they just cant see life any other way. :twocents:
Post by: vandeman17 on November 08, 2018, 08:27:29 AM
Man, that's a grim map. It seems to be spreading.
Not surprised in the slightest at the map. I asked my gf the other day if she had cast her ballot and she said no because she didn't feel educated enough and it brought up the discussion about the demographics of wa. The map proves that point
Meh, not really. Those are the typical counties to vote in completely idiotic things. Whitman has WSU and Spokane is just your typical big city with big city logic. The sad part is that most of the idiot votes come from western Washington and likely from people that have never even been East. They live in what i like to call the "Seattle bubble" and they just cant see life any other way. :twocents:
Yes, I believe we are saying the same thing in different words
Post by: Curly on November 08, 2018, 08:39:10 AM
Man, that's a grim map. It seems to be spreading.
Not surprised in the slightest at the map. I asked my gf the other day if she had cast her ballot and she said no because she didn't feel educated enough and it brought up the discussion about the demographics of wa. The map proves that point
Next time, fill out her ballot for her and have her sign it. :twocents:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 08, 2018, 09:16:46 AM
I'm going to start selling an AR without barrels... or with a smooth bore.
Then its not an assault rifle.
Actually, given the barrel comment, who's to say what an AR lower turns into? Its not technically an assault rifle.
Semi-auto assault rifles are defined as "any rifle". There are two "rifle" definitions, the regular "rifle" and "short-barreled rifle" for rifles with barrels under 16". The way I read it is that any barrel length is covered as "any rifle." "Rifle" definition does say designed to be shoulder fired, so AR pistols should be outside of that, but who knows.
It is also a bit vague about lowers, a huge loophole would be if you could buy them and the assemble without going through 639, probably only for those over 21 as a lower can currently only be made into either a pistol or semi-auto assault weapon (assuming no smoothbore barrels exist). It remains to be seen how far out on a limb FFLs will go with selling lowers without complying. Like the CA button issue a few years back, one might start seeing ARs being sold without barrels, or the upper and lower being simply separated and not sold together.
Those thinking they want to buy/sell smoothbore ARs as a loophole need to familiarize themselves with WA and federal restrictions on shotguns and short-barrel shotguns.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 08, 2018, 09:18:06 AM
Man, that's a grim map. It seems to be spreading.
We have them surrounded.
Post by: Cougartail on November 08, 2018, 09:26:39 AM
Maybe this has been posted.
Does the green on the map signify areas of abnormally low testosterone and IQ levels?
Post by: KFhunter on November 08, 2018, 10:06:37 AM
Maybe this has been posted.
Does the green on the map signify areas of abnormally low testosterone and IQ levels?
The stupid is spreading, and it will consume all in its path - resistance is futile, we will be assimilated.
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 08, 2018, 03:46:31 PM
Post by: Stein on November 08, 2018, 04:32:20 PM
A person (individuals) whether they are 18-20 or whomever needs to file a lawsuit for constitutional violations in every county in this state. Good ole Bob AG will love it. Since he brags about the 40 plus lawsuits against trump. Then we need to stand together and file one in all 39 counties in this state.
I don't know if that is going to work. The 21 age limit for handguns has been upheld all the way to SCOTUS.
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 08, 2018, 04:39:21 PM
And the little thing in the constitution about the states individual rights.A person (individuals) whether they are 18-20 or whomever needs to file a lawsuit for constitutional violations in every county in this state. Good ole Bob AG will love it. Since he brags about the 40 plus lawsuits against trump. Then we need to stand together and file one in all 39 counties in this state.
I don't know if that is going to work. The 21 age limit for handguns has been upheld all the way to SCOTUS.
Post by: Mudman on November 08, 2018, 05:05:39 PM
YES it does!! :mgun: Guns in Wa is like wolves in Wa. SSS..?? Ya all might want think about that. Future laws and internet data to see who have guns when they go house to house for confiscation. I know its "out there" but honestly we are getting pretty close to this scenario. Maybe another 5-15 years??Maybe this has been posted.
Does the green on the map signify areas of abnormally low testosterone and IQ levels?
Post by: woodswalker on November 08, 2018, 05:22:03 PM
Well, I see it was another typical WA state mid term election! Over 6 million legal aged voters in the state and only just over 2 million got out and voted, AND you see the results!!!
Quick questions, How many firearm owners never got out and voted???? How many firearm owners voted for Cantwell and other "D's"???
Any firearms owners who didnt vote, or lord help them, voted Yes on 1639 should be at the very least, shunned. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :dunno: :dunno:
Maybe they don't NEED firearms. :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 08, 2018, 06:01:21 PM
Maybe this has been posted.
Does the green on the map signify areas of abnormally low testosterone and IQ levels?
Compare it to a population density map. It would be identical.
Post by: KFhunter on November 08, 2018, 06:11:55 PM
Maybe this has been posted.
Does the green on the map signify areas of abnormally low testosterone and IQ levels?
Compare it to a population density map. It would be identical.
It proves that when you cluster too many people together critical thinking is out the window. The herd takes over, they're NPC's.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2018, 06:26:48 PM
Seattle/King Co in Washington, Portland in Oregon, Denver in Colorado, New York in New York, even Missoula in Montana. Large urban centers are increasingly liberal as the residents become more dependent on others and less on themselves.Maybe this has been posted.
Does the green on the map signify areas of abnormally low testosterone and IQ levels?
Compare it to a population density map. It would be identical.
Post by: Slow-drifter on November 08, 2018, 07:40:11 PM
Post by: Hi-Liter on November 08, 2018, 07:57:39 PM
A person (individuals) whether they are 18-20 or whomever needs to file a lawsuit for constitutional violations in every county in this state. Good ole Bob AG will love it. Since he brags about the 40 plus lawsuits against trump. Then we need to stand together and file one in all 39 counties in this state.
I don't know if that is going to work. The 21 age limit for handguns has been upheld all the way to SCOTUS.
We will see, right to self defense a good thing for WA is we have a right to bear arms unlike CA
Florida Law has been already challenged in federal court
Post by: Oh Mah on November 09, 2018, 07:47:09 AM
I wonder how many injuries or death there are annually because of no gun for self defense was available.how much safer are the people as a whole because private individuals under 21 are armed? :twocents: :dunno:
1 answer to these would be the entire U.S because of the armed soldiers in the military that secure this country.
How many mass shootings were carried out by people between the ages of 18 and 21?this alone would beat the lefts anti gun argument.
Post by: bornhunter on November 09, 2018, 08:12:46 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 09, 2018, 10:13:55 AM
1 of the hand gun arguments was that they left long guns to be legally bought buy under 21.now this makes it where they have no right to purchase either one for self defense.I think this 1 with the court aligned the way it is will be over turned.we will see.
I wonder how many injuries or death there are annually because of no gun for self defense was available.how much safer are the people as a whole because private individuals under 21 are armed? :twocents: :dunno:
1 answer to these would be the entire U.S because of the armed soldiers in the military that secure this country.
You make good points.
Now, WA will completely disenfranchise 18-20 year olds.
While searching for something else yesterday, I read a stat that said something like there are 3-4 times as many defensive gun uses versus crime gun uses and that that number could be expected to be low due to the number of unreported defensive gun uses.
This is not that article or stat, but it is a good article on defensive gun uses.
Quote
However, the same survey found that the number of people who used a gun for self-defense was about six times greater than the number who said that using the gun “almost certainly” saved a life. This amounts to at least 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year, including those in which lives were saved and those of lesser consequence.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
Post by: Cab on November 09, 2018, 11:12:40 AM
Post by: Cab on November 09, 2018, 11:15:12 AM
https://www.facebook.com/dmsportingsystems/videos/351477668946584/ (https://www.facebook.com/dmsportingsystems/videos/351477668946584/)
Post by: CP on November 09, 2018, 12:58:07 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on November 09, 2018, 01:15:44 PM
If they have your medical records they have your whole life.
I was talking to my wife last night about that part. She says mental illness diagnoses is subjective. And cant understand how they would be allowed to use medical records. ???????
I would be very surprised if 1639 got over turned in the courts. With 60% of the voters they can do what ever they want.
Post by: Cab on November 09, 2018, 01:22:52 PM
So, what's in my possession right now is not affected? Do I have that right?100% correct, your current firearms are not effected only new purchases are after July 1st
Post by: Stein on November 09, 2018, 02:34:05 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 09, 2018, 03:07:15 PM
So, what's in my possession right now is not affected? Do I have that right?
Well, any so called "assault rifles" that you have will be harder to sell, or maybe impossible, at least for a while, until they have training classes available for people to take and become certified so they are allowed to purchase an "assault rifle." Right now as far as I know there's no class you could take to satisfy the requirement. Maybe there is, and I just don't know about it. But I know one thing, I will never take any such class. Not in my lifetime. If I want to purchase a semi-automatic rifle I guess I'll be driving to another state.
Post by: eastsidemallard74 on November 09, 2018, 03:16:24 PM
Post by: actionshooter on November 09, 2018, 04:10:11 PM
Sporting system made a video that helps a lotI was going to post this....
https://www.facebook.com/dmsportingsystems/videos/351477668946584/ (https://www.facebook.com/dmsportingsystems/videos/351477668946584/)
If everyone watches this it will answer a lot of questions.
Post by: Bob33 on November 09, 2018, 05:29:13 PM
I have a question, i voted no of course, but one of the things i heard is now having to take a gun class within the last 5 years. Does this only apply if yo bought the gun here after July 1st? And does anyone know where these so classes are? And last ,I'm being serious when i ask this, it's after July 1st 2019 correct?The training course requirement pertains to "semiautomatic assault rifles" purchased or transferred in Washington after July 1, 2019. There is insufficient information about any classes at this time.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 09, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 09, 2018, 06:16:42 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on November 09, 2018, 07:14:05 PM
Received this today.
Jan Ulijohn
WDFW - Hunter Education
(360) 902-8112
Mailing Address
POB 43200
Olympia WA 98504-3200
From: Whipple, David A (DFW)
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 3:16 PM
To: Ulijohn, Jan (DFW) <Jan.Ulijohn@dfw.wa.gov>
Subject: Initiative 1639
Dear Hunter Education Instructors,
You likely know Initiative 1639 was approved by the majority of Washington voters during the recent election. You also likely have questions about WDFW’s perspective on whether our hunter education curriculum meets the required elements of the firearm safety training program.
I want to let you know that, as you might expect, WDFW does not believe the hunter education curriculum meets the initiative’s required training elements. In addition, we will not be actively seeking to modify our curriculum to meet the required training elements in the initiative.
Among the reasons not to modify our curriculum to meet the initiative’s requirements, is that has been estimated an average of 260,000 background checks are conducted each year in Washington for the purchase of long guns. It is unknown how many of those purchases would meet the definition of a “semiautomatic assault rifle” under the initiative, and thus require completion of training. However, even if that percentage is very small, and the initiative were to have a significant negative effect on the number of semiautomatic assault rifles purchased, the hunter education program could not accommodate that additional demand.
We’ll be discussing this further with the Instructor Advisory Committee at our December 1 meeting.
Please help make sure your fellow teaching team instructors receive this information, especially those who do not have access to a computer.
I’ll share any other important information in the future via the instructor website.
Attached are two documents:
· A copy of Initiative 1639
· A brief summary of the initiative, which includes an assessment of how the required training relates to the hunter education curriculum.
Thank you all for your incredible service to the hunting heritage. I also want to thank our many veterans for serving our country.
I wish you all a very Happy Veteran’s Day, and also a Happy Thanksgiving.
Sincerely,
Dave
Post by: SGTDuffman on November 09, 2018, 08:29:56 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 10, 2018, 07:52:09 AM
Sounds like the kind of “hunter” who voted yes... he probably read that super biased summary in the pamphlet and said, “Eh, I don’t use assault rifles...”. All those scary weapons of war like a 10/22, Nylon 66, or Marlin Model 60 have no place on our streets.
I don't know if that is a fair statement. The classes will address different subjects and people. It is common sense for WDFW to divorce themselves from the I-1639 classes which at present nobody in the world knows what needs to be taught and who certifies it as such.
Post by: Oh Mah on November 10, 2018, 07:58:15 AM
Post by: actionshooter on November 10, 2018, 08:41:43 AM
I believe part of the reason WDFW would separate themselves would be the possibility that this could overwhelm the hunter ed resources.Sounds like the kind of “hunter” who voted yes... he probably read that super biased summary in the pamphlet and said, “Eh, I don’t use assault rifles...”. All those scary weapons of war like a 10/22, Nylon 66, or Marlin Model 60 have no place on our streets.
I don't know if that is a fair statement. The classes will address different subjects and people. It is common sense for WDFW to divorce themselves from the I-1639 classes which at present nobody in the world knows what needs to be taught and who certifies it as such.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 10, 2018, 09:37:13 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 10, 2018, 09:38:27 AM
Sounds like the kind of “hunter” who voted yes... he probably read that super biased summary in the pamphlet and said, “Eh, I don’t use assault rifles...”. All those scary weapons of war like a 10/22, Nylon 66, or Marlin Model 60 have no place on our streets.
I don't know if that is a fair statement. The classes will address different subjects and people. It is common sense for WDFW to divorce themselves from the I-1639 classes which at present nobody in the world knows what needs to be taught and who certifies it as such.
:yeah:
Post by: Bob33 on November 10, 2018, 09:48:14 AM
https://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseDetails.aspx?Courseid=483222&seats=10&State=n&zip=98075&radius=200.1&id=4&bsa=&youth=&women (https://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseDetails.aspx?Courseid=483222&seats=10&State=n&zip=98075&radius=200.1&id=4&bsa=&youth=&women)
Post by: ghosthunter on November 10, 2018, 10:31:22 AM
If you cannot meet the requirement because a class does not exist. I would think that is infringement.
Post by: Stein on November 10, 2018, 01:19:16 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on November 10, 2018, 01:42:40 PM
Of course they will need to be offered not only in English but also Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic, French... subsidies for the needy...online courses for the immobile...on site courses for the homeless...tutors for the developmentally challenged...
Post by: Britt-dog on November 10, 2018, 07:41:52 PM
I suspect that courses like this one from the NRA will become acceptable.Ironic that the NRA may have to step up and develop a program for this. That's wrong on several levels.
https://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseDetails.aspx?Courseid=483222&seats=10&State=n&zip=98075&radius=200.1&id=4&bsa=&youth=&women (https://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseDetails.aspx?Courseid=483222&seats=10&State=n&zip=98075&radius=200.1&id=4&bsa=&youth=&women)
Post by: Caseyd on November 10, 2018, 09:40:29 PM
Post by: Igor on November 11, 2018, 08:19:57 AM
You can donate online to the SAF...............I just sent them $100.
https://www.saf.org/
Post by: BearCreekCookBook on November 11, 2018, 04:19:05 PM
Post by: whacker1 on November 13, 2018, 01:05:58 PM
I know that people on this forum like to bash the NRA, however the NRA and the SAF are both currently working on legal challenges to 1639. Please, find a way to send a contribution, no matter how big or small, to either of these groups. Right now that is our only hope to fight this mindless political attack on our rights.
You can donate online to the SAF...............I just sent them $100.
https://www.saf.org/
there is a petition for the whitehouse as well.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-unlawful-unjust-and-unconstitutional-gun-laws-washington-state-i-1639
Post by: Tundra on November 13, 2018, 01:49:52 PM
I know that people on this forum like to bash the NRA, however the NRA and the SAF are both currently working on legal challenges to 1639. Please, find a way to send a contribution, no matter how big or small, to either of these groups. Right now that is our only hope to fight this mindless political attack on our rights.
You can donate online to the SAF...............I just sent them $100.
https://www.saf.org/
there is a petition for the whitehouse as well.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-unlawful-unjust-and-unconstitutional-gun-laws-washington-state-i-1639
Can the feds do much in a state matter? I signed the petition, but is there anything they can do? (Out of curiosity) ??
Post by: whacker1 on November 14, 2018, 04:58:48 AM
I know that people on this forum like to bash the NRA, however the NRA and the SAF are both currently working on legal challenges to 1639. Please, find a way to send a contribution, no matter how big or small, to either of these groups. Right now that is our only hope to fight this mindless political attack on our rights.
You can donate online to the SAF...............I just sent them $100.
https://www.saf.org/
there is a petition for the whitehouse as well.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/abolish-unlawful-unjust-and-unconstitutional-gun-laws-washington-state-i-1639
Can the feds do much in a state matter? I signed the petition, but is there anything they can do? (Out of curiosity) ??
I have no idea. I wondered the same thing, but wanted to share it when I saw the endeavor.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 14, 2018, 08:13:01 AM
What I will be interested in is how the SCOWa views this initiave in the light of how many issues it addresses. That was the down fall of many of Tim Eymans initiaves, which could indicate a couple of things
1) the late Paul Allen and firends hired a better lawyer to write it up.
2) Tim Eyman didn't care if his initaive passed judiary scrutiny, his actual paying job was to get them to the ballot hell or high water. That's why he repeated the same mistake over and over and he never learned to correct his ballot mistakes.
3) The SCOWa is jobbed against Eyman's initaives.
I think the answer is a combination of all three, probably in a ratio of 32.5/45/22.5
Post by: whacker1 on November 14, 2018, 10:33:22 AM
Looking ar DOJ involvement with civil rights and voting rights in other states, I believe they could. I doubt they will because very onerous gun laws in NYC and other cities have been allowed to stand.
What I will be interested in is how the SCOWa views this initiave in the light of how many issues it addresses. That was the down fall of many of Tim Eymans initiaves, which could indicate a couple of things
1) the late Paul Allen and firends hired a better lawyer to write it up.
2) Tim Eyman didn't care if his initaive passed judiary scrutiny, his actual paying job was to get them to the ballot hell or high water. That's why he repeated the same mistake over and over and he never learned to correct his ballot mistakes.
3) The SCOWa is jobbed against Eyman's initaives.
I think the answer is a combination of all three, probably in a ratio of 32.5/45/22.5
I view it in a similar fashion. one thing that favors the Supreme court hearing this case is that they don't like to weigh in on intiatives pre-ballot on the merits of the legality of the initiative, because there is no standing in most cases until after the initiative has passed. Now that the initiative has passed, there is a high probability of them hearing the merits of the law. how they decide I am less confident in the outcome either way.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 14, 2018, 10:38:12 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on November 14, 2018, 10:56:26 AM
Post by: saylean on November 14, 2018, 11:48:08 AM
Looking at the map makes me wonder why I live in Clallam county, let alone this state any more. 5 more years until the kiddos are out of the house, then it off to Idaho or Alaska, whichever the wife chooses...
right there with you.
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 05:03:27 PM
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Post by: Windwalker on November 15, 2018, 04:24:28 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/nov/13/petition-asks-trump-to-block-i-1639/
NRA sues to stop I-1639's gun-control provisions
https://komonews.com/news/local/nra-sues-to-stop-i-1639s-gun-control-provisions
Police chief of Republic says he will not enforce I-1639
http://www.ifiberone.com/columbia_basin/police-chief-of-republic-says-he-will-not-enforce-i/article_dab440d4-e86f-11e8-9122-db4b512111a7.html
Impact of I-1639 seen by local gun stores
http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/39486182/impact-of-i-1639-seen-by-local-gun-stores
Post by: HntnFsh on November 16, 2018, 05:39:49 PM
my 2 cents in this discussion.
If this goes into effect as they plan,Natives with legal right to buy firearms and under 21 should group together and go to as many sellers(walmart.cabelas fred meyers big 5 sportsmans warehouse etc) when told they can't purchase because of this law they should sue them all and this state collectively for denying their Constitutional right too do so.
1)they do not have to follow this state law and the feds are not behind it, (yet) take as much money from these commies as they can every time when they can.
2)if its for sale and they have the money to purchase the law is behind them to purchase,they can't be denied. :twocents:
I think this is a terrible idea. Why would you penalize the retailer? They had nothing to do with this law! No wonder prices on everything goes up. Frivolous lawsuits!
Post by: KFhunter on November 16, 2018, 05:44:27 PM
my 2 cents in this discussion.
If this goes into effect as they plan,Natives with legal right to buy firearms and under 21 should group together and go to as many sellers(walmart.cabelas fred meyers big 5 sportsmans warehouse etc) when told they can't purchase because of this law they should sue them all and this state collectively for denying their Constitutional right too do so.
1)they do not have to follow this state law and the feds are not behind it, (yet) take as much money from these commies as they can every time when they can.
2)if its for sale and they have the money to purchase the law is behind them to purchase,they can't be denied. :twocents:
I think this is a terrible idea. Why would you penalize the retailer? They had nothing to do with this law! No wonder prices on everything goes up. Frivolous lawsuits!
I'm for doing that to Dicks and other retailers for pulling AR's and stuff off the shelves after that mass shooting, but I'm not for doing this because of a voter initiative.
We have HW'rs who voted in favor of this thing.....
Post by: KFhunter on November 16, 2018, 07:47:05 PM
Why is it that every time someone brings up lawsuit its all about money?Bring the lawsuit against them and they in turn will fight the fight we want also.A lawsuit is very seldom about money. :bash: the only ones that will pay a price will be this state because they are at fault for forcing this law on these retailers.winning will make all the money already spent pushing this law down our throats in a loss category.
Anyone wanna help translate this? I'm lost :dunno:
not being a jerk, I just can't understand it.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 16, 2018, 07:49:09 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 16, 2018, 07:51:43 PM
It will certainly help the gun stores in Republic if they sell guns to Washington residents without the encumberous of 1639
until the raids begin......
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 16, 2018, 07:53:01 PM
It will certainly help the gun stores in Republic if they sell guns to Washington residents without the encumberous of 1639
until the raids begin......
Sad to say that is probably correct.
Post by: SGTDuffman on November 16, 2018, 07:56:25 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 16, 2018, 07:58:47 PM
I’m curious to see what will actually change. For complete rifles obviously it’ll make a big deal. I just don’t see how it’s enforceable at all for stripped lowers. They’re not registered as firearms during the transfer, so this crap “law” will do nothing to stop them. A stripped lower is registered as other during purchase, or at least its supposed to be, because the dealer doesn’t know if you’re making s pistol or a rifle. This law only limits the sales of rifles. It does some other stuff with pistols as far as using a CPL for purchase and the like, but the big push is rifles. If you build your rifle, from a lower resigstered as other, I don’t see what they can do. The lower isn’t be registered as a part they’d be tracking, and everything else goes to your front door, so I don’t see how they could possibly keep an eye on anything. Just another useless feel good law that punishes law abiding citizens while doing nothing to make anyone any safer. If anything it will drastically increase the sales of de facto SBR style AR pistols AND 80% lowers to circumvent the law all together.
It does nothing for those shopping out of state OR if the Res is immune to this law, will people be going to the rez to get a new rifle along with their cigs?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 16, 2018, 08:31:47 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on November 16, 2018, 09:17:22 PM
law·suit
/ˈlôˌso͞ot/Submit
noun
a claim or dispute brought to a court of law for adjudication
Law suits aren't free.
Post by: wolfbait on November 16, 2018, 09:23:15 PM
Read more here: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article221427525.html?fbclid=IwAR0HNWveXedVnITogxP7hjZWmxTws4NthNR4rgCtONN93qflGI6e7Rd0L80#storylink=cpy
Post by: Little Dave on November 18, 2018, 08:07:25 PM
Well dose t look like Hunter Ed classes will be a option.
Received this today.
Jan Ulijohn
WDFW - Hunter Education
(360) 902-8112
Mailing Address
POB 43200
Olympia WA 98504-3200
From: Whipple, David A (DFW)
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 3:16 PM
To: Ulijohn, Jan (DFW) <Jan.Ulijohn@dfw.wa.gov>
Subject: Initiative 1639
Dear Hunter Education Instructors,
You likely know Initiative 1639 was approved by the majority of Washington voters during the recent election. You also likely have questions about WDFW’s perspective on whether our hunter education curriculum meets the required elements of the firearm safety training program.
I want to let you know that, as you might expect, WDFW does not believe the hunter education curriculum meets the initiative’s required training elements. In addition, we will not be actively seeking to modify our curriculum to meet the required training elements in the initiative.
Among the reasons not to modify our curriculum to meet the initiative’s requirements, is that has been estimated an average of 260,000 background checks are conducted each year in Washington for the purchase of long guns. It is unknown how many of those purchases would meet the definition of a “semiautomatic assault rifle” under the initiative, and thus require completion of training. However, even if that percentage is very small, and the initiative were to have a significant negative effect on the number of semiautomatic assault rifles purchased, the hunter education program could not accommodate that additional demand.
We’ll be discussing this further with the Instructor Advisory Committee at our December 1 meeting.
Please help make sure your fellow teaching team instructors receive this information, especially those who do not have access to a computer.
I’ll share any other important information in the future via the instructor website.
Attached are two documents:
· A copy of Initiative 1639
· A brief summary of the initiative, which includes an assessment of how the required training relates to the hunter education curriculum.
Thank you all for your incredible service to the hunting heritage. I also want to thank our many veterans for serving our country.
I wish you all a very Happy Veteran’s Day, and also a Happy Thanksgiving.
Sincerely,
Dave
That's too bad. Could be a good way to introduce more non-hunters to hunting.
Lost opportunity.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on November 21, 2018, 08:41:05 AM
Post by: TommyH on January 30, 2019, 07:08:26 AM
Another sheriff says nope. :tup:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 30, 2019, 07:19:15 AM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,236129.0/topicseen.html
Also Cowlitz.
Come on Stevens.
Post by: boneaddict on January 30, 2019, 07:59:03 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 30, 2019, 08:03:13 AM
Anyone hear about Okanogan yet
Post by: RockChuck on January 30, 2019, 09:15:22 AM
Post by: RockChuck on January 30, 2019, 08:08:40 PM
Post by: Jason on January 30, 2019, 08:17:22 PM
Benton county announced 👍🏻https://www.facebook.com/BenCoWASheriff/photos/a.334172180327602/608981552846662/?type=3&eid=ARBPzKoC3OXJvxlR3P_11-ITljoc_CiP7Gd7Flk6CJKa2XqjlmB82yDi2QmjSOvbeidWE6h_9EecQ5fP&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBgTN4MGZv9IZgQBt6y4dC3p_l3igZkMYEocmAaSqP1RuZXrjUtS-EHP7MQV4Oh5wf9I_fpyo9AuYpUxtf32Nakv6OpCWrYW1j29YbWeIF-cRG28Whagoss22VnO7Bp1-u5hQvCic00yG6r2UadQBuWwzQShsfbtQ8HYv6JC_QZtp5RtsIRq7ridF5h98SFR1ywTuJxPyKcyvNUi3BAYRnhVzYcZZm_FrCUgiaVfOzVyF9ceDHRROsc61LWGEvaFRIdx1wdvvx89Oqlsd6m7HVQ_SymbhXTbWkfNYV6Ohesw8S0jlXrJjnQC9XhGJX8zTJERPPlpms_RGWGoS15ltA&__tn__=EEHH-R
Post by: 700xcr on January 30, 2019, 08:21:59 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on January 30, 2019, 08:54:39 PM
Ive said it for years, hunters are our own worst enemy when it comes to gun rights. Im willing to bet theres some old timer that still holds the "you don't need 30 rds to hunt a deer" that had a part in making that decision. I would have accommodated the new law in some way, shape or form just to stick in in the eye of the over reaching government while also adding more hunters to the mix.
As a previous Hunter Ed instructor for over 27 years I gave it up Dec. 31, not going to donate time to a state that works every day to reduce my rights.
If there are no classes that can satisfy 1639 does that make a better case to recall it?
And if the state wants to pass these infringements let them fund them . Pittman Robinson funds should not be used to make gun owners jump through more hoops.
I hope the DFW stays as far away as possible from this.
If this costs the state thousands of dollars maybe they won’t be so quick to pass this stuff. And I would encourage any organization to not form these classes.
If it is impossible to obtain a class is not that a form of ban?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 31, 2019, 05:15:22 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 31, 2019, 06:15:32 AM