Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm Laws & Legal' started by PNWPrepper, Nov 7, 2018.
Ammo and accessories yes. Guns no.
Maybe but I'm pretty sure they can figure it out. If your buying ammo you own a gun
Yes I own several, all bought and or traded for before I-594. (What ever paper trail that is left for guns that I purchased prior to I-594 have been sold traded or lost) again before I-594.
I do have a paper trail of comments on this forum going back prior to I-594 trying to warn others that I-594 was a registration scheme but few people showed any interest. I believe a lot of people believe that registering firearms is a good idea.
Or comments like this...
Your Friendly Neighborhood LEO
Well I see a couple solutions to the problems...1. put state districts/counties on an electoral system just like how the president is elected. Don't let a few metro cities determine the law of the land for the other 95% of the state that doesn't share the same views as them and happens to live in rural areas verses metropolis type areas.
what works for a densely populated city like Seattle doesn't work for a rural area where we live on acreage and police response times in an emergency are 15+ minutes minimum and far greater the more rural the area gets. apartment dwelling city folk don't understand why we need guns and trucks and why we should never vote our rights away as having a long gun in a city full of skyscrapers doesn't make sense to them as they know nothing else and don't care to.
But unfortunately for us they have all the voting power because they are densely populated and have the numbers. So to balance this out we just need to use an electoral system within the states to pass state wide measures. what they do in their own district is their own problem. but their views shouldn't be used to oppress the rest of the state.
look at the district races and you can see exactly where the populations in the "green" counties are that voted yes...cause it's not the entire county. majority of area in king county voted no, just seattle/bellevue area voted yes.
Write Up the initiative! Make sure you word it to say you are trying to prevent oppression of minorities in rural counties or some crap like that and seattle will pass it. Haha
Well, I am in a bit of a snit as well over the whole thing. It's wrong on so many levels and has so many legal problems that I am thinking they shot for the moon and are awaiting the results to see what they got away with. Thinking supporters were laying the groundwork for the long game.
Now that we know who our state legislators are, that's the first set of calls to make. They have the ability to modify or kill this monster in session. The supporters are going to claim 'popular mandate.' We have the ability to make our voices heard even as we await the many court challenges that will come our way.
Remember, the standard in the state constitution is 'impaired.' That's a pretty big difference from infringed.
Secondly, we learned from the Eyman initiatives (and set state law precedents) on multiple subjects. It is a previously held majority opinion that an initiative gets one subject on which to ask a question. Multiple questions that create a situation where a voter may want to approve one but not another causes a violation of that precedent and has thrown initiatives out on that basis.
(Yes.... I realize that the state attorney general is obligated to fight for the initiative and this one is bound to be a powerful proponent unlike Gregoire's 'fight' for Eyman's initiatives. I get it. But, unless the state supreme court wants to rewrite the previous decision on the basis of political winds, stare decisis should quickly dispatch this horror)
I support Workman and his cohort in their suit filings. And hope that the NRA funds some other fights. Ideally, this will be buried long before it goes to District Court, the 9th and the USSC. How this would not be granted multiple injunctions from going into effect is beyond me. Given the scope, depth and impact of these things, you won't be able to enact provisions and then pull back as though nothing had happened. Pandora's box will have been opened.
Also part of the long game strategy of the hoploplophobes.... (I think I have that spelled correctly)
Not sure what you are saying. I believe the guns I still own prior to I-594 are still legal...or not? Local law enforcement knows I own guns as I and friends target shoot in my front yard.
Rereading my post I should also say that the (sold, bought or lost) part was just used to show that before I-594 there is no paper trail to show what I did and no I have not lost any firearms but I did do some trading and selling.
I totally turned my back on firearms myself. Donated them all to 1-877-KARS4KIDS
Thank you for your write up on I-1639. Regarding the enhanced background checks and training. If Handguns and Semiautomatics are passed down to local law enforcement level, does this mean concealed pistol licensees will be required to wait extended periods of time (10 days etc) for local law enforcement to clear them as when handgun purchasers do not have a CPL? Regarding firearm safety courses, how will this be handled and what will be required? Please and thank you.
1639 says that any gun that uses a bolt, lever, slide or pump is NOT applicable to the term "semi automatic assault rifle" and is not restricted by this law. How does the first bullet get chambered in ANY gun?
Im serious, I'm not trolling. Laws need to be picked apart piece by piece.
I've got so many questions with this new law (as well as 594, I just moved back to WA in the past four months
We need to stop worrying about every little detail in these laws and just ignore them.
Bending over backwards to be law abiding just gets the antis turned on.
Well, the whole problem is, gun laws ARE going to be passed. Unfortunately, the gun owners community and organizations (and all the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS they pump into political contests *sarcasm injected*) has sat by and waited, and defended AGAINST these laws, instead of being proactive and writing laws that gun owners can live with.
For example- 594. Getting a background check is fine, right? But, the police do the NICS search for FREE. The only reason we pay is because we have to have it done through a gun shop. And that gun shop isn't making money off our private gun sale or trade, so they charge for the service.
In Minnesota, you walk into a police station, fill out a simple form, and the police do your NICS for you. In a week, you get mailed a HARD CARD permit to purchase that is good for a year. When trading on Armslist, people say "must show CCL or PTP". The system works, the background checks are done, and everyone is happy.
We could have had this system. If we had written the laws, instead of people who have only ever seen guns in movies .
No you are wrong, a receiver is a receiver no matter what is stamped on it
Semantics vs legal discussion...
If it's a rifle receiver (say, from a 10/22) then you can't put the stock and barrel from a Charger on it, you've created an SBR. But you can put the stock and barrel from a 10/22 on a Charger receiver with no issues.
Sad, yes, that these distinctions exist .
Don’t believe it, can’t wait to hear about the “exit process”.... keep a plunger close by!
a ar receiver marked pistol doesn't mean its just a pistol
AR purchases after 7/1/19 have a mandatory ten business day waiting period. Handgun purchases after 7/1/19 will not have a mandatory waiting period, but you will have to wait until the locals get the background check done or ten business days, whichever happens first.
Firearm safety courses will only be required if you purchase an AR after 7/1/19. The specifics aren't set up in statute any more than what I've already included in the blog post.