JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm still trying to digest this one.

Upon first reading, my initial thought was, "No way this could ever pass."

But then I remembered where I live.

And I've met some of our state legislators. Yes, many of them are that stupid.
 
I didn't think liability insurance was legal in Washington.
 
This is much bigger reach that what was proposed in the last session. Specifically, as a rider on your existing homeowner insurance.

HB 1504 is onerous, arbitrary and capricious. It uses a financial burden on individuals to deny the 2A Constitutional right.

Most people who own a home probably could fall under the self insurance clause, so long as they own 25 guns. A number picked out of the air.

The other clauses that call for a $25K bond or deposit PER GUN are hugely onerous. A poor man who wants one gun for protection would be screwed. There can't be a clearer example of denial of rights that this example.

Re. the deposit clause, there's a thousand miles of red tape on that in the initial bill. These are the guys who already don't have the funding to implement all of I-1639 (annual verification to weed out recently minted felons). Turning money over to the state in order to maintain a Constitutional right is obscene. AND: Don't be surprised at diversion of trust funds in some emergency or other.

I don't think the author and sponsors of HB 1504 care about Constitutional rights; their object is to discourage firearm ownership in any way they can.

Effective date, Jan. 1, 2027.
 
Oh, and William Kirk mentions that this might be the tipping point that causes gun owners to quit the state and move out. DO YOU REALLY THINK DEM POLS CARE??! In fact, they'd likely see this as a good thing, a positive result of their unconstitutional overreach. Fewer guns in the state taken away by political refugees in flight.
 

Most people who own a home probably could fall under the self insurance clause, so long as they own 25 guns. A number picked out of the air.
I don't know how you can say that when there is no indication of what their self insurance certificate requirements are. And they can revoke it any time. It may well be at their discretion in a case by case basis for all we know.
 
I don't know how you can say that when there is no indication of what their self insurance certificate requirements are.
Considering this bill is still in its original form, nobody can say anything solid about it. So I can make guesses as well as the next guy. And one of those guesses is, most homeowners have equity to some degree in their real property. Which makes sense as to the basis of surety. Banks lend money on this basis, might be a good example for the state to consider.
 
Elections do have consequences
They do for a fact. Yet I've voted against these sacks of dirt consistently for 38 years to little effect. I have however just a little while ago made my ire known to my local pols re. HB 1504 and HB 1132. For all the good it will do.
 
Considering this bill is still in its original form, nobody can say anything solid about it. So I can make guesses as well as the next guy. And one of those guesses is, most homeowners have equity to some degree in their real property. Which makes sense as to the basis of surety. Banks lend money on this basis, might be a good example for the state to consider.
I don't think we can say anything about what they will require. Showing your home equity may not be nearly enough, may not even be eligible, etc. Also if they did give you permission at that time they can revoke it anytime, double it the following year, "oh I'm sorry, now you will have to deposit $25,000 per gun to continue to own them", whatever.
 
Oh, and William Kirk mentions that this might be the tipping point that causes gun owners to quit the state and move out. DO YOU REALLY THINK DEM POLS CARE??! In fact, they'd likely see this as a good thing, a positive result of their unconstitutional overreach. Fewer guns in the state taken away by political refugees in flight.
And here good Sir you are beginning to stumble upon something that has remained largely unspoken so far. It is a grand social experiment of creating one party states. A more or less peaceful country divorce. Move all the reds into the heartland, keep the blues on the coasts and midwest/northeast.
Constitution? What Constitution? Don't gun violence victims have rights too? (cue the tiny violin here).
 
And here good Sir you are beginning to stumble upon something that has remained largely unspoken so far. It is a grand social experiment of creating one party states. A more or less peaceful country divorce. Move all the reds into the heartland, keep the blues on the coasts and midwest/northeast.
Constitution? What Constitution? Don't gun violence victims have rights too? (cue the tiny violin here).
But their disease ridden filth has spread to Colorado, once also a western free state. It's taking over the Boise metro area so that Idaho may eventually become like WA and OR with most of the whole state thinking one way but the voters in the metro area make draconian unconstitutional laws for the whole state. Basically they poison one state then flee the crime, squalor, high taxes they created and move to a free state. But they bring their poison with them.
 
It's taking over the Boise metro area so that Idaho may eventually become like WA and OR with most of the whole state thinking one way but the voters in the metro area make draconian unconstitutional laws for the whole state.
This is exactly the situation vis-a-vis Seattle/King Co. and the rest of Washington. Or mostly so anyway.
 
But their disease ridden filth has spread to Colorado, once also a western free state.
Colorado has been going that way for quite a while. In the 1980's, right wing Californians who wanted to flee moved to Idaho. But the enlightened left wing emigres wanted to go to Colorado. In general. When they started building mega ski resort communities, I think that's when the rot started to set in, circa 1960-80. The monied liberal money came complete with Dem voters. Boulder (univ. town) is another liberal hot bed. Then there is a significant Spanish speaking immigrant population in the Denver area who typically vote Dem. And lots more in ag communities.

Goes both ways. They will keep trying even if it doesn't pass this time around.
HB-1504 is pretty far reaching. The Dems. like the Communist adage, "two steps forward, one step back." So if they get a watered down version down the road, they got A version. The one introduced (and not passed) last session might be seen as more reasonable, yet just another burden for gun owners. Could be the insurance industry (lobby) quashed that one.
 

Upcoming Events

Roseburg Rod and Gun Club Gun Show
  • Roseburg, OR
Redmond Gun Show
  • Redmond, OR
Back Top