1639 and Training?

[ma96782]

Although I think repeal is likely, it is a good time to purchase some of these "evil" weapons like the 10/22 if you have a desire for one. Owned before it goes into effect exempts you from the training requirement but not the storage rules. The storage rules are a whole nother issue. Pretty hard to enforce. If it makes it through the challenges it will certainly kill the market for the sale of semi auto rifles in wa. I know I will not buy one if the law stands.

Not really. It's not that hard to imagine. They'll say "loophole". And, the next thing you know....

A new law will PASS.

++++++

YUP, in the past.....
I've seen other proposals (elsewhere), that besides licensing of gun owners, ammo and arsenal lic., safe storage requirements, etc... would have LEOs check homes w/o a warrant. You know.....to ensure that guns and owners are totally in compliance.

Of course, with a license comes fees. Call it a tax or user fee or whatever.

BTW, I don't know of any fees to vote. So, why do gun owners accept fees to exercise the RIGHT to own a firearm? COUGH, Cough, cough..... But, some say that it's only $10. So, when will the people object? When the fee hits $100, $200, or $300 or more?

Aloha, Mark

 

[E4mafia]

To abolish unlawful, unjust, and unconstitutional gun laws in Washington state (I-1639). | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Heres the link you had mentioned.

Repeal the NFA | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

This link was near the bottom of the top link. Its gotten enough signed votes. Wonder if there was an update?

About We the People | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

inserting this in as many 1639 threads I see in hopes it can be challenged at a higher level. Hope the best for you WA bros.

 

[justcuz]

Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639

Per SAF President cited article, quote:

Gottlieb said with the law being virtually unenforceable, it makes it harder to challenge. Unquote.

So the hopes firearm enthusiasts should be grounded in reality...

 

[44Brent]

inserting this in as many 1639 threads I see in hopes it can be challenged at a higher level. Hope the best for you WA bros.

Are you really so uninformed about the separation of powers as to believe that the President has the power to rescind a state law by waving their magic pixie dust wand in response to a petition?

 

[E4mafia]

Are you really so uninformed about the separation of powers as to believe that the President has the power to rescind a state law by waving their magic pixie dust wand in response to a petition?

Maybe I am?

OR

Maybe this petition would help circulate to the correct desks where something COULD be done, as it states in the FAQ of the site. While also doing as it intends at the head of the petition:
WE THE PEOPLE ASK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OR EXPLAIN A POSITION ON AN ISSUE OR POLICY:

As in not expecting the pixie dust wand simply asking them to either side with 1639 or not side with it and then direct the message to where it would have impact helping WA remove a state level law.

I see it as another bullet in the mag in helping combat 1639 along with hopeful local gun groups like NRA and co. Along with court legal battles I'm sure good folk here have been creating to challenge. Obviously relying upon voting at the booth didn't work or 1639 would never have come to fruition.

 

[wired]

Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639

Good point in that article about the law being unenforceable. I'll continue to ignore it.

 

[44Brent]

Maybe this petition would help circulate to the correct desks where something COULD be done, as it states in the FAQ of the site. While also doing as it intends at the head of the petition:
WE THE PEOPLE ASK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OR EXPLAIN A POSITION ON AN ISSUE OR POLICY:

I'll save you the trouble of having to collect 10 million signatures just to find out the whose desk this belongs. The person who has the authority and responsibility to explain a position on state laws is Attorney General Bob Ferguson, not the President of the US. But, even if you sent it to Bob Ferguson he's not going to tell you his position on it or tell you how to interpret the law. He needs to keep the interpretation undefined in hopes of carrying out a successful defense of the law in court. If you don't believe me, go ahead and collect 10 million signatures, and if that isn't enough to satisfy you, try 50 million signatures. At the end of the exercise perhaps you will be motivated to learn out why petitions to presidents about state laws have no meaning.

 

[GWS]

IMHO. Passing laws by initiative is just a bad idea. Not to mention, that there are also some Anti-Constitutional legislators. Perhaps there should be a "test/screening process" prior to their name being placed on the ballot?

LOL. Define the word: "infringed".

Aloha, Mark

As a rule, I agree with you. Propositions/Initiatives are mob rule usually foisted off as a vote by politicians too feckless to do their jobs. To wit several years ago in San Jose CA the city council didn't have the guts for a stand up vote on a higher minimum wage. They knew a higher minimum wage would be bad for businesses but didn't want to look heartless to the "working poor". So they decided to put it to a popular vote and the minimum wage got boosted to $10. Businesses in SJ now had to either raise prices to pay the higher wages or let people go. They let people go. A feel good Proposition that ended up hurting people... As usual.
OTOH Proposition 13 in California was a success for people because the politicians were constantly raising property taxes on people and driving more than a few out of their homes. Prop 13 was a serious check on the tax and spend liberals, requiring 2/3 majority votes to raise any tax. Prop 13 however, is the only example I have of a truly beneficial popular vote law. Everything else has always been a "If it doesn't hurt me/If somebody else pays for it, I'll vote for it" affair. i.e. Booze taxes, Tobacco taxes and now I1639 A Second Amendment tax.

People who offer these training classes will be underducutting the efforts of the SAF to get the law tossed in court.

Not in the least. As there is no real standard for the training it'll be a hodge podge of instructions/instructors which will further prove how poorly conceived I1639 is. That will help the lawsuit.

 

[wired]

Prop 13 had the unintended consequence of really jacking the property values exponentially. You literally have to buy someone out of their home in California. Housing turnover has dropped considerably compared to the national average. People stay in their homes until they retire to keep the lower tax rate and then they sell. When when they sell their house they cant afford anything to replace it or the taxes on the new home and they end up moving out of state to OR and WA spreading their California bile.

 

[GUNARCHER]

Not really. It's not that hard to imagine. They'll say "loophole". And, the next thing you know....

A new law will PASS.

++++++

YUP, in the past.....
I've seen other proposals (elsewhere), that besides licensing of gun owners, ammo and arsenal lic., safe storage requirements, etc... would have LEOs check homes w/o a warrant. You know.....to ensure that guns and owners are totally in compliance.

Of course, with a license comes fees. Call it a tax or user fee or whatever.

BTW, I don't know of any fees to vote. So, why do gun owners accept fees to exercise the RIGHT to own a firearm? COUGH, Cough, cough..... But, some say that it's only $10. So, when will the people object? When the fee hits $100, $200, or $300 or more?

Aloha, Mark

There also is no law requiring that you be an informed voter. Look at the damage that causes to the American citizen. A mandatory passing grade in Civics would do more for this country than all the firearm laws

 

[Slobray]

Good point in that article about the law being unenforceable. I'll continue to ignore it.

Yup, just as others have done regarding I-594.



Ray

 

[ma96782]

Prop 13 had the unintended consequence of really jacking the property values exponentially. You literally have to buy someone out of their home in California. Housing turnover has dropped considerably compared to the national average. People stay in their homes until they retire to keep the lower tax rate and then they sell.

When when they sell their house they cant afford anything to replace it or the taxes on the new home and they end up moving out of state to OR and WA spreading their California bile.

Before I moved from Hawaii, I thought about CA for a brief moment. I looked at Prop 13 and how it would affect me.

Humm.....my wife was from L.A. and her parents lived in Korea Town (Los Angeles, CA). Of course, they had a million dollar home (more like $2M according to the realtor). BTW, most of the homes are from the 1940s (maybe 1950s) in that area. Think.....California bungalow.

So then.....
Being long time residents.......they paid next to nothing (in property taxes) compared to the new arrivals to the neighborhood. So.....if you buy in that neighborhood, Think about the mortgage on the $2M and you get the privilege of "subsidizing" the millionaires next door. Wonderful. IMHO, it reeks of being, "Un-American".

Course, as I said it was a brief thought and their gun laws s@^*. So it really wasn't on my radar.

Aloha, Mark

 

[wired]

Yes, That would be about $12,000 per month for a cruddy 1950's bungalow with bars on the windows. The weather is nice.


$12,000 ! A MONTH!

 

[User 1234]

Here's what the proposed statute states;

The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and
talking to children about gun safety;
(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(v) Safe handling of firearms; and
(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited
firearms transfers.
The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or
municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a
nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms
training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified
by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers
firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a
certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training
included the minimum requirements;


If this goes thru, I will provide the training at no cost to one and all.

If you offer it via webinar I think you should charge at least $10 a head.

 

[leadcounsel]

And how exactly is the requirement to buy a safe, and pay for training, not a "poll tax" on a Constitutional right????????????????????????

 

[DB is Here]

And how exactly is the requirement to buy a safe, and pay for training, not a "poll tax" on a Constitutional right????????????????????????

Ding, Ding, Ding....Winner.

 

[E4mafia]

I'll save you the trouble of having to collect 10 million signatures just to find out the whose desk this belongs. The person who has the authority and responsibility to explain a position on state laws is Attorney General Bob Ferguson, not the President of the US. But, even if you sent it to Bob Ferguson he's not going to tell you his position on it or tell you how to interpret the law. He needs to keep the interpretation undefined in hopes of carrying out a successful defense of the law in court. If you don't believe me, go ahead and collect 10 million signatures, and if that isn't enough to satisfy you, try 50 million signatures. At the end of the exercise perhaps you will be motivated to learn out why petitions to presidents about state laws have no meaning.

ok but dude im not the originator of the petition i was just trying to help out WA people since I seen an OG thread, also its 100 thousand signatures not 10 million just to be accurate. For a state issue 1639 had no problem starting a petition and getting voted in so maybe in the future for firing back in house maybe 100million pro gun signatures and votes would be nice. But thank you for the clarification to whom actually would make a difference. Guess its time to donate a lot to SAF to help instead. hopefully the executive, judicial, legislative (including WA in state house/senate/governor or the WASUPCO) will do more in the future to save our 2A nationwide.

 

[GWS]

Before I moved from Hawaii, I thought about CA for a brief moment. I looked at Prop 13 and how it would affect me.

Humm.....my wife was from L.A. and her parents lived in Korea Town (Los Angeles, CA). Of course, they had a million dollar home (more like $2M according to the realtor). BTW, most of the homes are from the 1940s (maybe 1950s) in that area. Think.....California bungalow.n

So then.....
Being long time residents.......they paid next to nothing (in property taxes) compared to the new arrivals to the neighborhood. So.....if you buy in that neighborhood, Think about the mortgage on the $2M and you get the privilege of "subsidizing" the millionaires next door. Wonderful. IMHO, it reeks of being, "Un-American".

Course, as I said it was a brief thought and their gun laws s@^*. So it really wasn't on my radar.

Aloha, Mark

Lol. Paying your taxes to support somebody else is indeed the American way. It appears that you really don't know what Prop 13 was about.
Back in the 70's, people, mostly elderly on fixed income, were being forced out of their homes because the politicians were raising their property taxes whenever they felt like. Folks had their homes siezed because they couldn't pay their inflated taxes. Prop 13 rolled back their taxes.. It also required a 2/3 majority for the assembly and senate to pass any new tax. It worked for years until the politicians started working ways around it. Big Business found their own methods for keeping their taxes low despite properties changing hands.
New house sales were taxed at their sale price. So why are property values so high? Because someone is willing to pay that price. They got the job that pays the money that lets them handle that mortgage and property tax bill. And nobody selling their house has ever been willing to take anything less than the maximum they can get. Human nature. that's why a $20,000 bungalow sells for $2 million. And none of this really has all that much to do with I1639

 

[Zathras]

Petitions/Ballot initiatives only favor gun-grabbers, as they have a mountain of funding. Newsom spent something like $7/signature (it was in the $millions all-told) for Prop63 in CA. He was even trying to 'one-up' the state legislature's 7 anti-gun bills that same year in 2016. The Veto efforts there, where I sat in a gun store for 8 weekends straight, told me all I need to know about how hard it is to get your average gun owner to care about any of this.

You cannot outspend the left. What you can do is continue paying attention to other state's gun-owner struggles/fights (as they are probably heading your way and will surprise you in your own state). You can continue supporting your local gun stores, local gun-rights organizations and folks like SAF from the legal side, which gets very expensive to merely maintain 'status-quo', unfortunately.

As far as rallying support, you can continue to show up to gun rallies in your capitol. Go up and shake hands with the (relatively few) women and all of the younger crowd that show up with their rifles and thank them for trying to fight the notion that it's just an old-guy thing. Responsibly carry (open or concealed, as your preference goes) wherever you can. Sometimes, you can change the mindset of people that claim to support 2A (or are at least indifferent to it), yet still feel a bit 'weird' or 'threatened' by the notion of carrying.

Donate to SAF/CCRKBA anytime you can. Awhile back, I focused on giving what I can to GOA, SAF and my local ISAA. Not trying to hijack the thread into pro/con NRA here (Patron Life member - just backed off in favor of these other orgs). I think SAF is doing more, especially in challenging laws like this, and can make better use of the funds. They attempted to thwart I-1639 in the crib, and even succeeded briefly (attacked its validity in the process/formatting), but the State Supreme Court overturned it, which allowed it onto the ballot this year.

 

[ma96782]

Lol. Paying your taxes to support somebody else is indeed the American way. It appears that you really don't know what Prop 13 was about.
Back in the 70's, people, mostly elderly on fixed income, were being forced out of their homes because the politicians were raising their property taxes whenever they felt like. Folks had their homes siezed because they couldn't pay their inflated taxes. Prop 13 rolled back their taxes.. It also required a 2/3 majority for the assembly and senate to pass any new tax. It worked for years until the politicians started working ways around it. Big Business found their own methods for keeping their taxes low despite properties changing hands.
New house sales were taxed at their sale price. So why are property values so high? Because someone is willing to pay that price. They got the job that pays the money that lets them handle that mortgage and property tax bill. And nobody selling their house has ever been willing to take anything less than the maximum they can get. Human nature. that's why a $20,000 bungalow sells for $2 million. And none of this really has all that much to do with I1639

I never claimed that the subject of CA taxes had anything to do with I-1639. I was responding to that other post.

Then....
YES, there was that history in CA.

However......even back then......it was stupid. IMHO, those that couldn't afford the taxes should have sold and moved. That's the American way. Or.....of course, they could have voted out the politicians that were responsible. Think of what CA would have been like if those politicians had been voted out back then? Now, they got the mentality......of subsidizing those that cry the loudest.

Note: Claiming that you're poor is far different from actually being poor.

Believe me....Hawaii was is no tax haven either and there was also that problem with rich people from foreign lands (and the 49 other states) coming to HI and jacking up the prices for the locals. But, don't get me wrong. What the Dems did in HI to try to address the housing problem didn't help either.

Aloha, Mark