Washington Did Washington just ban 80% lowers and pre-1968 guns?

[Oohrah]

Many, many guns made before 1968 did not have serial numbers. I wonder how many more law-abiding decent citizens were just made into criminals?

Washington has lost it's mind.

The lower inexpensive .22s and shotguns did not have serial numbers. Yes I should imagine that it could be looked at as not being legal the way those laws are written. It a shame as not one one of the more than 23,000 firearms laws have prevented a single crime or stopped a death. Only the law abiding are penalized are charged.

 

[DRZ400S]

Blblblblblbl as long as I can have the 80% shipped to my door I'll keep building.

 

[HighlandLofts]

Many, many guns made before 1968 did not have serial numbers. I wonder how many more law-abiding decent citizens were just made into criminals?

Washington has lost it's mind.

Washington didn't lose it's mind only the anti gun left did.

 

[bentoncity]

otherwise your state should legally need to buy back anything they are making illegal to own

Bullbubblegum!!! And I mean that in the most emphatic method possible. How do you place a value on a weapon owned by your ancestor/relative that fails the 'new criteria'? Ya think people are OK with the states buy-back/give someone 30 bucks for an old semiauto that's worth 10 times or more the amount the frickin state thinks it's worth is gonna fly? I sure as hell won't and I seriously doubt a lot of others would as well. That line of thinking is bullbubblegum and needs to stop! Why you would even suggest it is why we're in the position we're in now. Wimpy bubblegum condescending gun owners that lack the fortitude & balls to stand up for your constitutional rights!

If you even THINK it's valid, look at the asinine bumpstock buy back here in Wa. 150K? spent and the program is broke? But there's another 2K (hypothetically) of stocks waiting to be turned in but for free? or you're a felon because you couldn't turn your's in because there's no more money to buy yours? What the hell is that? Where's the equality? The state gave Mary/John Doe $$ for theirs but don't have the $$ to buy mine? So instead of paying me, you'll just make me a felon by legislative action? WTFrick is that? Screw that!

Even though I don't own and never would own a bumper, the imposition on the legal owners is a not only a travesty, but a damned illegal action as far as I'm concerned. (ps: I have a belt loop on ALL of my pants/shorts) Ya wanna tax them? Maybe outlaw belt loops?

Dan

 

[billdeserthills]

Bullbubblegum!!! And I mean that in the most emphatic method possible. How do you place a value on a weapon owned by your ancestor/relative that fails the 'new criteria'? Ya think people are OK with the states buy-back/give someone 30 bucks for an old semiauto that's worth 10 times or more the amount the frickin state thinks it's worth is gonna fly? I sure as hell won't and I seriously doubt a lot of others would as well. That line of thinking is bullbubblegum and needs to stop! Why you would even suggest it is why we're in the position we're in now. Wimpy bubblegum condescending gun owners that lack the fortitude & balls to stand up for your constitutional rights!

If you even THINK it's valid, look at the asinine bumpstock buy back here in Wa. 150K? spent and the program is broke? But there's another 2K (hypothetically) of stocks waiting to be turned in but for free? or you're a felon because you couldn't turn your's in because there's no more money to buy yours? What the hell is that? Where's the equality? The state gave Mary/John Doe $$ for theirs but don't have the $$ to buy mine? So instead of paying me, you'll just make me a felon by legislative action? WTFrick is that? Screw that!

Even though I don't own and never would own a bumper, the imposition on the legal owners is a not only a travesty, but a damned illegal action as far as I'm concerned. (ps: I have a belt loop on ALL of my pants/shorts) Ya wanna tax them? Maybe outlaw belt loops?

Dan

If the gov't wants to take your property the least they can do is pay you for it, but do please rant on

 

[DunRanull]

Bullbubblegum!!! And I mean that in the most emphatic method possible. How do you place a value on a weapon owned by your ancestor/relative that fails the 'new criteria'? Ya think people are OK with the states buy-back/give someone 30 bucks for an old semiauto that's worth 10 times or more the amount the frickin state thinks it's worth is gonna fly? I sure as hell won't and I seriously doubt a lot of others would as well. That line of thinking is bullbubblegum and needs to stop! Why you would even suggest it is why we're in the position we're in now. Wimpy bubblegum condescending gun owners that lack the fortitude & balls to stand up for your constitutional rights!

If you even THINK it's valid, look at the asinine bumpstock buy back here in Wa. 150K? spent and the program is broke? But there's another 2K (hypothetically) of stocks waiting to be turned in but for free? or you're a felon because you couldn't turn your's in because there's no more money to buy yours? What the hell is that? Where's the equality? The state gave Mary/John Doe $$ for theirs but don't have the $$ to buy mine? So instead of paying me, you'll just make me a felon by legislative action? WTFrick is that? Screw that!

Even though I don't own and never would own a bumper, the imposition on the legal owners is a not only a travesty, but a damned illegal action as far as I'm concerned. (ps: I have a belt loop on ALL of my pants/shorts) Ya wanna tax them? Maybe outlaw belt loops?

Dan

When belt loops are outlawed, only the law-abiding will have suspenders...
What they want after all, is your guns. Failing that, they will pass enuff "common sense laws" to make practical use of them so circumscribed as to be too much trouble for the average person to exercise their God-given, pre-existing, enshrined in the Bill Of Rights, PERSONAL LIBERTY and freedom to own or use any kind of projectile weapon... God Save The Constitution and protect our republic!

 

[coop44]

I'll be happy when Ambulance Chaser Inslee and Turd Ferguson choke out on each other's trouserwursts.

Really? I thought they were equipped with spunkmuffins!

 

[Spec.-K]

I was kind of worried there when it mentioned 3.7 oz of 17-4 stainless...
But as I read further, it says "as detectable as..." which would lead me to believe that they mean it'd ping a metal detector with the same level.
I'm not entirely sure, but if they meant it to where it would require such an expensive grade of stainless, it would double or triple the price of LPKs.
I could see them pulling a shady regulatory scam like that, but I don't think that's the case here.

 

[awshoot]

I was kind of worried there when it mentioned 3.7 oz of 17-4 stainless...
But as I read further, it says "as detectable as..." which would lead me to believe that they mean it'd ping a metal detector with the same level.
I'm not entirely sure, but if they meant it to where it would require such an expensive grade of stainless, it would double or triple the price of LPKs.
I could see them pulling a shady regulatory scam like that, but I don't think that's the case here.

Statutes are supposed to mean what they say. When it says "as detectable as", it means exactly that. The courts are not allowed to rewrite legislation if the plain language is clear.

 

[Diamondback]

Statutes are supposed to mean what they say. When it says "as detectable as", it means exactly that. The courts are not allowed to rewrite legislation if the plain language is clear.

Hasn't stopped 'em on immigration or any number of other things...

 

[jimmeh]

With that in mind, you should figure out how to document your non-serialized firearms. One potential method -- not positive it would work in court but it is a decent attempt -- is to take multiple pictures of all your non-SN firearms and have those pictures notarized no later than July 1, 2019. Make sure you get pics of any unique markings or blemishes. Then never ever change the firearms and never lose the notarized original photos. Get high quality long lasting photo-prints rather than just print out on junk paper with an inkjet. I would think that notarized pictures would go a long way toward demonstrating that they existed before the law takes effect.

An easier thing to do is to just take pics of the items, email them to yourself now, so everything is date stamped electronically. Even the photos themselves would be date stamped automatically.

 

[awshoot]

An easier thing to do is to just take pics of the items, email them to yourself now, so everything is date stamped electronically. Even the photos themselves would be date stamped automatically.

How do you fight the accusation you spoofed the data? Your email is a text file that could be edited very easily, as is the exif data for the photo, and imprinting a fake date on the photo would be a snap with most any photo editing program. Lastly, say the issue comes up 10 years from now and your email host has no log of the email going through its servers (let alone the content of the emails) or it went belly up -- all you have are some easily doctored files in your sent and received folders.

You can argue don't know how to do any of that, but how do you argue you don't know how to pay someone to do that? In contrast, a notarized document has a whole set of laws behind how it was notarized that would be very beneficial in proving the date of an item (in this case, a photograph): Chapter 42.45 RCW: REVISED UNIFORM LAW ON NOTARIAL ACTS

 

[jimmeh]

How do you fight the accusation you spoofed the data? Your email is a text file that could be edited very easily, as is the exif data for the photo, and imprinting a fake date on the photo would be a snap with most any photo editing program. Lastly, say the issue comes up 10 years from now and your email host has no log of the email going through its servers (let alone the content of the emails) or it went belly up -- all you have are some easily doctored files in your sent and received folders.

You can argue don't know how to do any of that, but how do you argue you don't know how to pay someone to do that? In contrast, a notarized document has a whole set of laws behind how it was notarized that would be very beneficial in proving the date of an item (in this case, a photograph): Chapter 42.45 RCW: REVISED UNIFORM LAW ON NOTARIAL ACTS

I'm not arguing your idea was bad. It's a great idea. I just mentioned mine as an easier and faster way to do it.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor if it should ever end up in court. How could he/she prove I didn't buy and make my gun before July 1, 2019? I have receipts for everything dating back years. Moot point anyways, as I lost all of my stuff in a boating accident.

The raw data on the email would provide the proof needed as to when date stamps were done. I'm not talking about photoshopping proof.

The ISP I use (Yahoo and Gmail) are both around 20 yrs old. And I don't think either are going to belly up any time soon.

 

[jimmeh]

As for email, I'm pretty certain the raw email itself sent and recvd in original form is not easily updated. What leads me to believe such, is the fact that emails were and are still used today as indisputable proof of facts. ie: Hillary Clinton.

 

[DB is Here]

You could always send them to the state AG's office and when you need them fill out an FOIA...

 

[jimmeh]

Also, I'm not gonna name names, but I know factually that even notarized documents have been doctored, or outright lied and done unlawfully in the past. So even notarizations can and have been challenged in the court of law. Maybe not successfully won all the time, but not 100% fool proof bomb proof, either.

 

[jimmeh]

You could always send them to the state AG's office and when you need them fill out an FOIA...

Good point!

 

[awshoot]

... The raw data on the email would provide the proof needed as to when date stamps were done. I'm not talking about photoshopping proof. ...

Just quibbling: The raw data in the email can be altered with text editor. If the email is stored on someone else's server rather than your own computer, this becomes impossible without inside help -- but is it wise to store gun related materials on someone else's servers? The third party doctrine to the 4A eliminates all expectation of privacy from government snooping if you leave the email on a third party's servers.

 

[jimmeh]

Just quibbling: The raw data in the email can be altered with text editor. If the email is stored on someone else's server rather than your own computer, this becomes impossible without inside help -- but is it wise to store gun related materials on someone else's servers? The third party doctrine to the 4A eliminates all expectation of privacy from government snooping if you leave the email on a third party's servers.

Also good points, yes!

 

[jimmeh]

And it's a good thing you and I are each others' witnesses on losing our 80%'rs in that horrible boating accident.

Iron clad, bomb proof! Whew...