GAME ON! WA gun control initiative filed

[Kable]

I read the bill and it is so jacked up! All transfers except in an emergency to protect your life and only add long as the threat exists is it legal to hand sometime your gun, no loans to a friend at a range unless it's your domestic partner or spouse and I may be wrong because the legal wording is hard to understand but it looks like they are extending the waiting period to 30 days in this bill as well

 

[duane black]

So maybe I'm late to the party I didn't see this discussed.

Cheryl Stumbo was the director of marketing at / during the Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting ? Did the Jewish federation shooter obtain his weapons through a private party transfer here in Washington ? I do not know much about this as I was not a resident of Washington at the time.

It seems like she is now pulling a Gabby and becoming the poster child of gun control in Washington. Cha-ching... Sigh...

When will these people understand, evil people will do evil things regardless of what the state tells them to do ? She was essentially the victim of Muslim TERRORISM. I have great disdain for people that do not take responsibility for themselves and safety.

Does anybody know if this could pass constitutional muster in regards to the Washington Constitution ? My sig line seems pretty damn clear as far as the intent. We were RAILROADED in California by gun control nuts because we had no such language. We tried to add it but failed... I wonder if this is a angle we could challenge this BS, if we get it shoved down our throats.

 

[Kable]

So maybe I'm late to the party I didn't see this discussed.

Cheryl Stumbo was the director of marketing at / during the Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting ? Did the Jewish federation shooter obtain his weapons through a private party transfer here in Washington ? I do not know much about this as I was not a resident of Washington at the time.

It seems like she is now pulling a Gabby and becoming the poster child of gun control in Washington. Cha-ching... Sigh...

When will these people understand, evil people will do evil things regardless of what the state tells them to do ? She was essentially the victim of Muslim TERRORISM. I have great disdain for people that do not take responsibility for themselves and safety.

Does anybody know if this could pass constitutional muster in regards to the Washington Constitution ? My sig line seems pretty damn clear as far as the intent. We were RAILROADED in California by gun control nuts because we had no such language. We tried to add it but failed... I wonder if this is a angle we could challenge this BS, if we get it shoved down our throats.

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Legally purchased and even completed the mandatory waiting period

The law would be unconstitutional, it violates your 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure. I don't remember the specific case but there was a federal case that ruled you could not be stopped and questioned by police simply by having a gun as it is a completely legal action in that state. The judge went on to say something along the lines of there are already laws against felons possessing guns and that it is not the norm and does not doubt to reasonable suspicion. You can apply that same argument to background checks. Purchasing a gun is a legal activity therefore not something that would qualify as reasonably suspicion for a search (of your background) and seizure (if your personal info required to run a background) and there are already laws that say felons aren't allowed to have guns.

 

[GunnyG]

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Legally purchased and even completed the mandatory waiting period

The law would be unconstitutional, it violates your 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure. I don't remember the specific case but there was a federal case that ruled you could not be stopped and questioned by police simply by having a gun as it is a completely legal action in that state. The judge went on to say something along the lines of there are already laws against felons possessing guns and that it is not the norm and does not doubt to reasonable suspicion. You can apply that same argument to background checks. Purchasing a gun is a legal activity therefore not something that would qualify as reasonably suspicion for a search (of your background) and seizure (if your personal info required to run a background) and there are already laws that say felons aren't allowed to have guns.

I'd also argue it as being a governmental exercise of prior restraint on a civil right: You won't be able to buy the arms that you are guaranteed by art. 1, section 24 of the state constitution, as well as the bill of rights, until some civil authority grants an approval.

 

[duane black]

Seattle Jewish Federation shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Legally purchased and even completed the mandatory waiting period

The law would be unconstitutional, it violates your 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure. I don't remember the specific case but there was a federal case that ruled you could not be stopped and questioned by police simply by having a gun as it is a completely legal action in that state. The judge went on to say something along the lines of there are already laws against felons possessing guns and that it is not the norm and does not doubt to reasonable suspicion. You can apply that same argument to background checks. Purchasing a gun is a legal activity therefore not something that would qualify as reasonably suspicion for a search (of your background) and seizure (if your personal info required to run a background) and there are already laws that say felons aren't allowed to have guns.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising she is pushing an agenda that if in effect at the time, would have done absolutely nothing to change her experience. Seems like a very common thread amongst the gun control freaks. The language in the WA constitution is significant, will be a interesting next few years.

Moved from one state that wanted my guns, to another that's just getting started.

 

[Dave Workman]

Glad to see some proactive thinking here, HOWEVER..

Kable: A law isn't unconstitutional until a court SAYS it is unconstitutional, and that will take several appeals.

GunnyG: An interesting observation about prior restraint, but you'll have to prove that in a court of law...with appeals

Now..Start building your bank accounts if you plan to sue. Say, $100,000 to $150,000 for the trial and appeals, perhaps more.
Depends upon who your attorney is.

Not trying to be flip here, just speaking from experience

 

[duane black]

Glad to see some proactive thinking here, HOWEVER..

Kable: A law isn't unconstitutional until a court SAYS it is unconstitutional, and that will take several appeals.

GunnyG: An interesting observation about prior restraint, but you'll have to prove that in a court of law...with appeals

Now..Start building your bank accounts if you plan to sue. Say, $100,000 to $150,000 for the trial and appeals, perhaps more.
Depends upon who your attorney is.

Not trying to be flip here, just speaking from experience

I think you are absolutely correct. This has the potential to be a long expensive fight, if we get it. Is the SAF or any other Washington based gun group planning on responding to this ? Now would be a fine time. NRA ? Can you hear me ?

I'm fearful if placed on a ballot, it will pass. Especially with big money behind it. I read an article after we legalized marijuana that basically said it was won in WA and lost in OR mainly because of the cash behind the lobbying, advertising, etc. Of course it was just someones opinion but we all know money talks, and Bloombergs pockets run deep.

If it does pass, it will be just the beginning based on my experiences.

 

[GunnyG]

Glad to see some proactive thinking here, HOWEVER..

Kable: A law isn't unconstitutional until a court SAYS it is unconstitutional, and that will take several appeals.

GunnyG: An interesting observation about prior restraint, but you'll have to prove that in a court of law...with appeals

Now..Start building your bank accounts if you plan to sue. Say, $100,000 to $150,000 for the trial and appeals, perhaps more.
Depends upon who your attorney is.

Not trying to be flip here, just speaking from experience

Sadly, I agree. I'd rather we head this off, before it ever makes it into law.




A different avenue: Article II, Section 19 of the Washington Constitution requires bills and initiatives to only address a single subject and the subject of the measure must be stated in the title.

Is this going to be used to enforce a business registry and impose a sales tax on everything (but guns, but you will have to go through a dealer on those sales, anyways) else on the ebayers, etc., regardless of what they sell?

...Sec. 11. RCW 82.12.040 and 2011 1st sp.s. c 20 s 103 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Every person who maintains in this state a place of business or a stock of goods, or engages in business activities within this state, shall obtain from the department a

certificate of registration, and shall, at the time of making sales of tangible personal property, digital goods, digital codes, digital automated services, extended warranties, or sales

of any service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g), (3)(a), or (6)(b), or making transfers of either possession or title, or both, of tangible personal property for

use in this state, collect from the purchasers or transferees the tax imposed under this chapter. The tax to be collected under this section must be in an amount equal to the

purchase price multiplied by the rate in effect for the retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.020. For the purposes of this chapter, the phrase "maintains in this state a place of

business" shall include the solicitation of sales and/or taking of orders by sales agents or traveling representatives. For the purposes of this chapter, "engages in business activity

within this state" includes every activity which is sufficient under the Constitution of the United States for this state to require collection of tax under this chapter. The department

must in rules specify activities which constitute engaging in business activity within this state, and must keep the rules current with future court interpretations of the Constitution

of the United States.

Does this give the state the ability to define what constitutes a "business activity" administratively and without needing adjudication and/or legislation ?

 

[Scvette]

If they keep this up,it's not going to be the bad guys they have to worry about,it will be the 70 million+ pissed off legal gun owners.

 

[dobeman]

when elected representatives start ignoring their constituents and passing laws to support national political agendas, our system of governance is broken. In a bigger context, Skousen, in "The Five Thousand Year Leap", asks if the sun is rising, or setting.. has the experiment failed? I think it did a long time ago.

 

[duane black]

Does this give the state the ability to define what constitutes a "business activity" administratively and without needing adjudication and/or legislation ?

Not an attorney and I did not stay at a holiday inn express last night but thats how I am reading the last two thirds or so.

 

[BigStick]

So I wasn't too worried at first that this would pass, but after reading it, I am not feeling so confident. They did not fill it with a ton of junk that would make common people realize how bad it is. As far as gun-control laws go, this is fairly mild mannered and narrow in scope. That could be a problem if there are not major glaring flaws to poke holes in their support. Here are a few comments from what I gathered.

Section 2
(14) will change the definition of "loaded" to include a full magazine with an empty chamber
(20) defines "sell" as the approval of the delivery, so to be in violation, you don't need to actually make the transaction, just approve/agree upon it
(25) "transfer" means intended delivery of a firearm including gifts and loans.

Section 3
(4)(c) Prevents loaning a gun to a felon even if their life is in immenant danger.
(4)(f) only allows loaning for hunting on the site of and at the time of the hunting, or loaning at an official shooting range. Plinking outdoors you would not be able to hand your gun to a friend. And you couldn't loan your rifle or shotgun for a hunting season, you have to be there with it.

Section 4
(2) Extends time for background check to come through to 10 days before you can bypass it.

Section 5
Requires either a concealed pistol license, or a letter of permission from the sheriff/COP to buy a pistol
(4) allows up to 30 days with possible extensions for the sheriff/COP to deny the sale of the pistol if you have been arrested or charged with a crime (not convicted, just arrested).

There were a few other minor things, and this is just how I read it. Feel free to check out and back up or question my analysis. But like I said, not a ton of things to cry foul over. They might be able to convince enough people that this is not too invasive. And they made a fairly inclusive definition of "immediate family" to first cousins/aunts/uncles/nephew&niece/grandparents.

Get ready for a battle.

 

[duane black]

So I wasn't too worried at first that this would pass, but after reading it, I am not feeling so confident. They did not fill it with a ton of junk that would make common people realize how bad it is. As far as gun-control laws go, this is fairly mild mannered and narrow in scope.

I had the exact same thought when I read it. For the non gunners, or the folks not paying attention this will be an easy sale. For us that know better, not so much. I hope there are alot of us...

If not, lets bring out the pocket books and fight to the finish.

( if it gets that far )

 

[mancat]

Seriously you think that this is mild mannered? It's basically the Manchin-Toomey bill on a state level. A lot of the same provisional intent is there - e.g. banning loaning/borrowing of firearms.

Notice that everything gradually nudges the goalpost towards a specific target: the desire to build a database of who has which guns - regardless of whether or not they admit that "universal background checks" will provide the legal framework for a national registry - and then make it incrementally impossible for a person to move those guns away from the known location.

Eventually: you loan your buddy or your cousin a gun. Oops, that's now illegal, but you do it anyway because that's what Americans did for hundreds of years before. Your buddy has an accident with that gun, or is involved in some other criminal activity that results in his house being searched, and your gun is found there. Hey, weren't you supposed to have that gun? Your buddy/cousin/brother whatever didn't get a background check before you let him borrow it. You're under arrest for firearms trafficking. Oh hey, by the way, that's a federal crime with a minimum 5 year stay, and you really don't have a whole lot of pleading power against it.. So, see you later for 1-2 years on good behavior. For letting your buddy borrow your gun.

Or selling it to a family member. Or letting a minor handle and fire the gun on your own property. Or carrying a "loaded" firearm, which used to obviously mean a firearm with an empty chamber to anyone with two bubblegums' worth of mechanical cognitive ability. Or, bubblegum, why do you even have that pistol at all? You didn't get a permission slip to buy that.

And above all else, as all background checks become universal, and staying legal means buying into (pun intended) that system, it only depends on the honesty and integrity of those associated state agencies to keep good on their word to not keep records - but they will, and it won't take long for them to openly use those records to seize firearms for unrelated offenses, and perhaps no offense at all. And boy, our current federal and state governments are obviously well known for being honest, operating with integrity, or keeping their word.

So it's not very mild mannered in my opinion.

I realize and apologize if I'm preaching to the choir.. But I got on a rant and just couldn't stop.

 

[BigStick]

I feel you mancat, and agree. The point I was trying to make is that it is not the typical Dianne Feinstien overreach-BAN EVERYTHING rule. People who value their freedoms and privacy will see this for what it is, but it is not scary for those who still have their heads in the sand. It is a bad initiative, and "universal"(on all legal sales) background checks is the precursor to registration because it does no good without registration. But we need to realize how difficult a sell that will be to the rest of the public. Unfortunately, the uninformed majority will get to vote on the rights of the minority. The courts may save us, but I'm not holding my breath, and I would rather not let it get that far.

 

[captqc]

VOTE THE BUGGERS OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!!! (Yes, I know I'm yelling!!!)

 

[mancat]

in this case, you can't vote anyone out. it's a citizen initiative.

 

[meener777]

Game on indeed.

 

[timac]

Trying to sound hopeful, but didn't we just stop or stall a bunch of anti gun legislation in Washington state? We called and wrote voicing our opinions, we need to do this now on the streets of Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver, Everett and Bellingham and on every university campus.

 

[mancat]

Probably a little premature, but what do you think the reaction of these groups will be if they get it onto a ballot, then it fails? What can they say then, if the excuse isn't that the "NRA intimidated the politicians" any longer?