- Messages
- 2,475
- Reactions
- 6,666
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Washington Fairly late but... maybe jump on board?
- Thread Starter bentoncity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- washington
- Messages
- 43
- Reactions
- 44
SB 5434 was amended and passed the senate already. Washington State Legislature
Me, so far, I don't see much issue with SB5174.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon law. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
In my own experiences, I really don't like handing someone a card to get their conceal/carry permit and never fire a round or had a safety class.
It looks that way already when driving, but would hate it even more if people didn't have to prove their proficiency. I feel the same about guns, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon law. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
In my own experiences, I really don't like handing someone a card to get their conceal/carry permit and never fire a round or had a safety class.
It looks that way already when driving, but would hate it even more if people didn't have to prove their proficiency. I feel the same about guns, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
- Messages
- 7,387
- Reactions
- 19,943
Me, so far, I don't see much issue with SB5174.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
I feel the same about guns, cars, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
Sadly, individuals who don't share the same viewpoint are still legally obligated to follow the law.
A better idea: folks who want that can voluntarily do that and folks who don't, be not legally mandated too.
As each generation subsequently says, "I can accept a little less freedom and a little more infringement," it doesn't take too many generations until what was once a right, no longer exists.
Hence why we have people around the world who have never grown up with a right to bear arms find it to be an unnecessary right, they are so many generations away from freedom that they lack the ability to perceive what was lost for them.
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reactions
- 6,378
OK so you want licensing and training for future parents and computer owners?Me, so far, I don't see much issue with SB5174.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
I feel the same about guns, cars, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
Self defense is a basic human right. Show me the numbers on crimes committed by CWP holders. CWP holders are 6 times less likely than a police officer to commit a crime. More hassle for law abiding gun owners will equal less people carrying legally. CWP holders are not a problem but why pass more restrictive regulation? It is not about public safety but CONTROL of the sheepel. 
Me, so far, I don't see much issue with SB5174.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
I feel the same about guns, cars, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
First off, I don't think you read the bill, as it's not 4 hours..........
SB 5174 said:
Also, your "another hour for the live-fire training" could turn into another 3-4 hours, depending on how many pistols a person may want carry through out the license period (many people carry different pistols depending on the situation: clothing, weather, activity).
SB 5174 said:
Lets also not forget the additional cost of having to do live fire training multiple times (because of the above, buying a new carry pistol, etc.) and of getting a new license every time someone wants to add a new/different pistol to their license.
You may think that creating more restrictions, costs and burdens for gun owners is "reasonable", but me and many liberty minded people out there, disagree with you.
Note: I'm not against training, but I am against govt mandated training, additional restrictions, additional cost and additional burdens on enumerated rights.
Ray
- Messages
- 21,571
- Reactions
- 61,392
Me, so far, I don't see much issue with SB5174.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
I feel the same about guns, cars, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
Um, NO. How's about instead of constantly persecuting the law abiding gun owners, that lawmakers pass laws forcing political entities in power (Governor & AG) to enforce the laws already written!!!
That would be great.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 2,475
- Reactions
- 6,666
- Thread Starter
- #9
Add this into the mix..
"A signed application for a concealed pistol license shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release information relevant to the applicant's eligibility for a concealed pistol license to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency."
Speaking on my behalf, no damn way I'd EVER grant a waiver of confidentiality to 'some' company/organization for whatever irrational reason (s).
AND...
If the applicant is not a United States citizen, the applicant must provide the applicant's country of citizenship, United States issued alien number or admission number, and the basis on which the applicant claims to be exempt from federal prohibitions on firearm possession by aliens. The applicant shall not be required to produce a birth certificate or other evidence of citizenship.
Concealed carry for aliens, "applicant claims to be", "not be required to produce", but the restrictions on a USA citizen are what again? Not for me thank you. I'm sure a USA citizen can conceal carry in the aliens country..right? Nothing like granting aliens a free pass and handcuffing legal citizens.
Lastly, I don't believe there's a 'timeframe' on when the classes will be offered much less where these classes will take place. IE: Feb 29, every 4 years in Laurier, Wa or maybe Nighthawk, Wa at 10pm? Just sayin...
Dan
"A signed application for a concealed pistol license shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and written request that the health care authority, mental health institutions, and other health care facilities release information relevant to the applicant's eligibility for a concealed pistol license to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency."
Speaking on my behalf, no damn way I'd EVER grant a waiver of confidentiality to 'some' company/organization for whatever irrational reason (s).
AND...
If the applicant is not a United States citizen, the applicant must provide the applicant's country of citizenship, United States issued alien number or admission number, and the basis on which the applicant claims to be exempt from federal prohibitions on firearm possession by aliens. The applicant shall not be required to produce a birth certificate or other evidence of citizenship.
Concealed carry for aliens, "applicant claims to be", "not be required to produce", but the restrictions on a USA citizen are what again? Not for me thank you. I'm sure a USA citizen can conceal carry in the aliens country..right? Nothing like granting aliens a free pass and handcuffing legal citizens.
Lastly, I don't believe there's a 'timeframe' on when the classes will be offered much less where these classes will take place. IE: Feb 29, every 4 years in Laurier, Wa or maybe Nighthawk, Wa at 10pm? Just sayin...
Dan
- Messages
- 9,529
- Reactions
- 34,553
Remember to be excellent to eachother.
Want to debate the merits, have at it. Personal barbs cross that line, so let's stay away from it.
Thank you in advance.
DB
Want to debate the merits, have at it. Personal barbs cross that line, so let's stay away from it.
Thank you in advance.
DB
Dude doesn't think we should procreate unless we've passed his muster. Sorry that's statist, feel free to delete this one as well.
He crossed a line, and he might think he's being cheeky, but our rights our under assault. I'm tired of the enablers, how that behavior is allowed on a website devoted to exercising arguably one of our most fundamental rights is pretty astounding...
- Messages
- 9,529
- Reactions
- 34,553
Then debate the merits, I disagree with what he stated also just haven't had time to respond. If you have ideas counter to what he shared then share them. But dropping divisive labels on others aren't what we're about.
The merits of having the government mandate a training program to exercise a fundamental right?
That's tautologically false on it's face. You can't mandate training to exercise a right, otherwise it's not a right.
I think the government should mandate you take a public speaking class before you can exercise that right in public. <-- Same logic, see how statist that is?
If you advocate statist policies...that makes you a statist. If you find the label insulting, then maybe don't advocate for those policies
Otherwise, be proud of it and own the label
- Messages
- 9,529
- Reactions
- 34,553
Ok, you're debating now and doing it w/o labeling someone, thank you for that. We strive to have a welcoming environment and having adult dialogue with each other. We don't all agree on everything and it'd be boring if we did, it's more about having those exchanges with mutual respect for each other on this forum.
- Messages
- 3,827
- Reactions
- 9,273
Me, so far, I don't see much issue with SB5174.
"... [P]roof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years." doesn't seem unreasonable.
Most of the list of education requirements are already law in Oregon. That class takes about 4 hours, for well under $100. Add another hour for the live-fire training. All of which I think is a good idea.
I feel the same about guns, cars, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
Just my opine; I am diametrically opposed to this line of thinking and from now on will have trouble not seeing the happy face as scary.
- Labels are a fundamental aspect of our psychology. It's how our brains order and process information. There's nothing amoral about labels. Society has associated some misguided negative connotation to them, when in reality it's the individuals reaction to a label that should be in judgement not the label itself. IE "John is a white Freemason" <-- John is white and a member of the Freemasons are two labels. If I then judge John based on his race and membership to the Freemasons this is what could be argued is amoral. The label is nothing more than an organizational tool.
- No, we don't all need to agree on things. You and I might not agree whether a 1911 or a Glock is a better pistol design. That's not what we are discussing here. If we don't both fundamentally agree that we have a God given/natural right to defend ourselves then we aren't starting from the same ideological starting point and everything that comes that is irrelevant.
- The last thing I will say is, I have no respect for those that espouse the position above. Neither the idea nor the individual. The idea is abhorrent and the individual is naive. Or they are purposefully arguing for the abrogation of our ability to defend ourselves which is worse.
Last Edited:
He actually didn't say anything about procreating (see below), he stated that no one should be able to "own" children without proper training...............
I feel the same about guns, cars, children and computers. Shouldn't be allowed to own them unless you prove you can properly and safely operate.
FWIW, I would say there's a big difference between being a statist and advocating child slavery*
Ray
*Personally, I believe he was just joking about owning children and don't think he advocates child slavery, but I could be wrong
- Messages
- 2,475
- Reactions
- 6,666
- Thread Starter
- #19
Some good, some bad..
Yesterday, March 13th at 5:00PM, was the cutoff deadline for all bills to be voted out of the chamber in which they originated. Having failed to receive a floor vote, the following bills are likely dead for this year.
The Senate Bill 5062, and House Bill 1068. SB 5062 would have banned the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10 and HB 1068 would have banned those greater than 15.
Senate Bill 5174, would have increased the time, cost, and government red tape that law-abiding adults must go through in order to obtain a Concealed Pistol License by requiring a mandatory training course that meets arbitrary standards.
Senate Bill 5745, would have expanded Washington's existing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) to allow Second Amendment rights to be suspended for individuals alleged to make certain threats by third party accusers with little, if any, real evidence and limited "due process" for the respondent.
House Bill 1010, would have allowed the Washington State Patrol to destroy forfeited firearms rather than raise funds by selling them to licensed firearm dealers.
However, several anti-gun bills did receive a floor vote and passed their chamber of origin, and are still alive for the session.
House Bill 1225, would require law-enforcement to seize firearms and ammunition when they are called to the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident and hold them for at least five business days. This would result in property being confiscated without first going through due process and subjecting citizens to bureaucratic red tape to get their property returned.
House Bill 1465, would require CPL holders to undergo a state background check on handgun purchases instead of the instant NICS check that is currently being conducted as a courtesy by the FBI. Unfortunately, beginning July 1st, the FBI will no longer be conducting these courtesy NICS checks for CPL holders.
House Bill 1786, would expand firearm seizures to a wider range of protective orders with little to no due process, and in some cases, would remove a judge's discretion as to whether to impose firearm restrictions upon respondents of protective orders.
Senate Bill 5027, would expand Washington's existing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). It would affirm that the ERPO can be issued against minors while also infringing upon the self-defense rights of law-abiding parents or others in the household without due process.
Senate Bill 5181, would suspend Second Amendment rights without due process for six months from individuals who are admitted for a 72-hour mental health evaluation, but who are not subsequently involuntarily committed.
Senate Bill 5434, would increase the areas where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, including holders of a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) carrying a handgun for self-defense.
Dan
Yesterday, March 13th at 5:00PM, was the cutoff deadline for all bills to be voted out of the chamber in which they originated. Having failed to receive a floor vote, the following bills are likely dead for this year.
The Senate Bill 5062, and House Bill 1068. SB 5062 would have banned the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10 and HB 1068 would have banned those greater than 15.
Senate Bill 5174, would have increased the time, cost, and government red tape that law-abiding adults must go through in order to obtain a Concealed Pistol License by requiring a mandatory training course that meets arbitrary standards.
Senate Bill 5745, would have expanded Washington's existing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) to allow Second Amendment rights to be suspended for individuals alleged to make certain threats by third party accusers with little, if any, real evidence and limited "due process" for the respondent.
House Bill 1010, would have allowed the Washington State Patrol to destroy forfeited firearms rather than raise funds by selling them to licensed firearm dealers.
However, several anti-gun bills did receive a floor vote and passed their chamber of origin, and are still alive for the session.
House Bill 1225, would require law-enforcement to seize firearms and ammunition when they are called to the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident and hold them for at least five business days. This would result in property being confiscated without first going through due process and subjecting citizens to bureaucratic red tape to get their property returned.
House Bill 1465, would require CPL holders to undergo a state background check on handgun purchases instead of the instant NICS check that is currently being conducted as a courtesy by the FBI. Unfortunately, beginning July 1st, the FBI will no longer be conducting these courtesy NICS checks for CPL holders.
House Bill 1786, would expand firearm seizures to a wider range of protective orders with little to no due process, and in some cases, would remove a judge's discretion as to whether to impose firearm restrictions upon respondents of protective orders.
Senate Bill 5027, would expand Washington's existing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). It would affirm that the ERPO can be issued against minors while also infringing upon the self-defense rights of law-abiding parents or others in the household without due process.
Senate Bill 5181, would suspend Second Amendment rights without due process for six months from individuals who are admitted for a 72-hour mental health evaluation, but who are not subsequently involuntarily committed.
Senate Bill 5434, would increase the areas where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, including holders of a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) carrying a handgun for self-defense.
Dan
Upcoming Events
Central Wyoming Machine Gun And Cannon Shoot
- Laramie, WY
Ladies only beginning trap shooting
- Albany, OR
Classic Sportsman Gun & Knife Show
- Monroe, WA
New Classified Ads
-
Remington 1100 semi auto, has a release trigger.- Started by virginia73
- Replies: 0
-
-
17/19x/45 w/ TLR1 Light bearing holster - GCODE SOC RIG with RTI Hanger- Started by Gunbuggy
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-