JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Only "proof" is checking "Yes" on Box 3 of the Firearm Transfer Application. There is no need for a certificate, the buyer "certifies, under penalty of perjury", that they have completed said course.
That is what I thought as well, oh well I guess I dug my Sporting Systems training certificate out for no reason.... I do now know where it is:)
 
I am vehemently opposed to any mandated course requirement as it pertains to our 2A rights.

However when I clicked on the Sporting Systems course out of curiosity, I began clicking through it with a smile while checking it out. Let's just say that in a matter of minutes my better half and myself were in the possession of completion certificates.

Then I went back and reviewed some of the mandates of 1639 itself and that ended it. No gun purchases for us in Washington whatsoever, in particular as it relates to the annual recertifications (BGC). Oregon just picked up a lot of Washington business. So did Idaho, Montana....

I have spoken to so many Washington residents who simply refuse to open businesses here in the state due to costly and burdensome regulations in areas like mining, logging, and more. I'm reminded of one of those pistols with the barrel twisted around and shooting the holder in the face.

The 'new' (Trump) 9th may surprise us, but in the meantime the GOA action is holding up the rear flank. If this fed action ends up with SCOTUS, by then we may have a few new Trump appointees replacing members who can't hold out (or live) any longer. In that case they'll take up some of these cases and set some new case law.
 
Last Edited:
Then I went back and reviewed some of the mandates of 1639 itself and that ended it. No gun purchases for us in Washington whatsoever, in particular as it relates to the annual recertifications (BGC). Oregon just picked up a lot of Washington business. So did Idaho, Montana....

I have spoken to so many Washington residents who simply refuse to open businesses here in the state due to costly and burdensome regulations in areas like mining, logging, and more. I'm reminded of one of those pistols with the barrel twisted around and shooting the holder in the face.
And now you see why so many of us only buy stripped receivers or 80%'s and roll our own... As for business, I think I've told the story about running into a Cracker Barrel Retaurants executive over lunch and him telling me that until the B&O gross-receipts tax is spiked and the business/regulatory climate otherwise improve they're firmly staying east of the Idaho border. Not for lack of interest, not for lack of customer demand, but because of the rapacious, business-hating predators infesting our State Crapital.
 
And now you see why so many of us only buy stripped receivers or 80%'s and roll our own... As for business, I think I've told the story about running into a Cracker Barrel Retaurants executive over lunch and him telling me that until the B&O gross-receipts tax is spiked and the business/regulatory climate otherwise improve they're firmly staying east of the Idaho border. Not for lack of interest, not for lack of customer demand, but because of the rapacious, business-hating predators infesting our State Crapital.
I've always left the building up to others, however I may be leaning toward going the 80% route myself, possibly this winter once I free up more time. I've been considering the receiver-only option myself, aka a 'firearm', with same day transfer. But it's much easier to just take a little drive and give someone else my business.
 
By the same reasoning the Eyman bill is under the cloud of taxation.
so if they block the Eyman bill while passing 1639, Could we go to federal court?

In theory, maybe, but in practice, probably not.

Most federal claims against states are for violating the federal constitution, which gives the feds jurisdiction since it's their laws the state is accused of breaking. The 11th amendment generally forbids federal courts from hearing cases where the state is a defendant, but oddly enough, you are allowed to sue the officers of a state individually to prevent them from enforcing a state law, allowing a federal court to potentially forbid the enforcement of a law without actually ruling on the law itself. Weird stuff.

This link explains far better than I can the challenges to sueing a state in federal court:

It's an artifact of pre-Civil War thinking where states rights were taken much more seriously, and the politicians didn't want the feds to just be a higher tier of government that could overrule state sovereignty. The intent was more like the federal government had its lane and the states had theirs. The supremacy clause was used to keep the states out of the feds lane and things like the 11th amendment kept the feds out of state business.

Rightly or wrongly, that's not at all how the government works anymore; what the feds want, they get, either through legislation or court battles or by threatening to choke off funding to the states. However, we still have laws and practices that are vestiges of how things used to be.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top