I was and still am a member of CCWSafe. I also have US Law Shield because at my last renew CCWSafe will no longer cover me for events is WA. I would love to sue Kreidler over the issue that he cannot ban CCWSafe from providing coverage in WA on the grounds that he has no authority over them because they are not providing insurance coverage in WA, there is no statutory or case law basis for his actions a
I live in an extremely low crime area of Washington. My wife and I no longer go to Portland because of the homelessness and the past rioting. I don't approve of how the city is run so we don't spend our money there. As for Seattle, it's a lost cause. In many of the situations I find myself in, there are too many bystanders milling around. The chance of collateral damage is a little too high. Finally, the way I dress and act makes me blend in and not stand out so I'm not really a target.
"If someone mails you mags from out of state, they are the importer, not you." I do not think that is the way it works. Importation will only be unlawful if the importer is in WA and if what you say is correct there would effectively be no ban at all.
"None of the other companies have, to my knowledge, even tried."
You are not entirely correct. Possession is fine. Purchasing, selling, and/or distributing them is not. There is indeed a ban on purchasing mags for delivery into WA state in the legislation - even gifting them across state lines. It's spelled out under Section 2, Paragraphs 37 and 38 of ESSB 5078. It's called distribution and importing, and the paragraphs state very clearly that you cannot "...receive an item from a place outside of the territorial limits of the state of Washington to a place inside the state of Washington." So, that would preclude having anyone mail you mags from out of state, purchased or gifted, since by this new definition, you have imported them, not the person who mailed them to you. Please see the relevant portions of the legislation below:
Disagree. Jurisprudence in this country requires the prosecution to prove one violated a law, not that you obeyed it. That would mean that the prosecution, not you, would have to prove that you did not have the subject magazines prior to re-entering the state with them in order to convict you. As I said a few posts above, that would put the prosecution in the unenviable position of attempting to prove a negative.
OK, with the qualifier, you win that one. Enjoi..."None of the other companies have, to my knowledge, even tried."
The sentence is still true because at that time I had no such knowledge. It may also be true that one of them has tried or is trying.
Thankyou for your reply. As a north Idaho resident, I also live in a low crime area. Hopefully, I also blend in. But to me, the chance of being a target is not zero and even though the likeliness of needing to draw my pistol is very low, I feel more comfortable knowing that I am armed. But to each his own. I also appreciate your concern for collateral damage.
My thought on all this is that its not necessarily meant to bust you with mags... its to prevent them from being sold here... along with all the provisions of 1639 the the bubbleguming lemmings in WA voted for... its meant to deter interest in shooting sports/self defense. To make it to burdensome & confusing for newbies to navigate... ultimately causing them to walk away or otherwise stifle their enthusiasm... much like the raising of the legal age from 18 to 21 for long guns. A lot of things happen in a young mans life between those years... The idea is to keep young people from getting into the game...
I read the legislation, but missed how they were defining "import". Thank you for the correction.
That's rather beside the point. If you are stopped in the act of bringing mags into the state, the inability to demonstrate that you are not importing them may result in them being impounded and subsequently destroyed. The best you'll get from the state is a hearty apology and monetary compensation for the magazines, since they aren't going to violate state law by replacing them.
There is also the issue of whether or not no prior possession in WA would be an element of the offense or prior possession deemed an affirmative defense that would place some burden on the defendant to raise and maybe offer some evidence that would need to be rebutted.
Wut?
You're welcome. I edited my post above to include the relevant definitions for the benefit of others .
I don't see it as "besides the point." It's a matter of the law and its proper application. While one might agree that having some sort of prima facie evidence of one's ownership of the mags prior to exiting WA state might ease one out of an incident, LE must recognize that, by the law itself, "proof" is not required. The proof of ownership section was struck from the legislation before it was finalized. So by the very fact that that section was struck, that tells me that one does not have to prove ownership prior to a certain date.
You seem to understand that importing magazines into the state is illegal. LE has duty to investigate violations of the law. If they observe what appears to be illegal importation they are going to do exactly what they would do if confronted with a trunk full of powder sugar in unmarked ziplock bags - confiscate them to investigate.
They would not be replacing "banned property" because my property is not banned, because I had it before the effective date of the law. Listen, I totally get what you're saying, and how it would makes things easier if I were to make myself subservient to the LEO who pulled me over. I'm not going to go into all the hoops that the LEO would have to go through to confiscate my mags (with nothing in plain view, the LEO would have to establish PC, get a search warrant, etc. since I will not submit to a search or any of that shhit). But suffice it to say that I'm not going to take photos or carry receipts around with me, since the law says I don't have to in order to be an obedient peasant. What they're going to have to do is either repeal this BS (which we know they never will) or write a better law, as I am certain that this POS legislation will be challenged in court on exactly these grounds. And if I'm the test case? So much the better. I would love a go at these asshats with Alan Gottlieb and his lawyers sitting at my table, cuz I'm at that point in my life where IDGAFF what these assclowns say anymore...
Yikes! No disrespect intended, but that almost sounds like some Kamala Harris word salad.
Airplanes and TSA. You don't have to submit to a search.
Online, I encourage others to carry. It's the right thing to do. The issue is me: I don't trust a legal system run by Democrats when it comes to gun rights. I never have. I feel that as victim I would be on trial and not the perpetrator. Having said that, I know about an incident in Hayward, California involving a man who defended himself during an attempted carjacking. He shot two of the three attackers: one attacker was hit four times in the chest and lived, and the second attacker was hit in the arm and leg. The man who was the target of the attack was hit twice in the leg and once in the arm. The attackers managed to flee in their vehicle and drug the wounded into the auto they were driving so as to avoid arrest. What I find astonishing about this incident is law enforcement did not charge the man who defended himself, especially given the fact he did not have a conceal carry license. That's highly unusual for California. I guess this is one example in which the legal system actually did the right thing.
Wait a minute.... did this Bill get passed?
Yes, you do, whether you are aware of it or not. Common carriers operate under a set of rules known as the Contract of Carriage. One of the sections in the Contract of Carriage states quite clearly that you agree to be screened/searched prior to boarding, including your baggage. So, yeah, kinda different than a traffic stop and a request by LEO to search one's vehicle, which one can legally and lawfully refuse. In your example above, you did indeed consent to a search when you bought your ticket and showed up at the airport, according to the language in the Contract of Carriage.
I'll go with making the State prove their case, which they will never be able to do, because they'll be in the position of attempting to prove a negative. It's a (Constitutional) principle thing rather than a potential loss of equipment thing for me. I have hundreds upon hundreds of what the 2A-antis frighteningly refer to as "high-capacity" magazines, so making an example of the asshats in Olympia in court would be joyous and just icing on the cake to me.
