I-594 would make First Shots a crime.

[timac]

That's the way I read it too....it sounds as if you own a store and rent out guns to be used at your range then you're fine....but if you go around and let people use your guns at a range and you are not present for the training then you're screwed.

That is how it reads, range guns.

 

[PiratePast40]

Typical gobbledygook garbage wording by self serving narcissistic morons. Does it mean that the gun has to always stay at that particular range to be a loaner, or does it mean that any gun can be loaned as long as it stays at the range during the loan period? Their command of the English language is a poor as their knowledge of the constitution and basic human rights.

 

[Redcap]

Voting NO on this crap.

However, if it passes...it'll just be another set of garbage I don't follow.

 

[Dave Workman]

It's a bad law regardless of exemptions.

Give everyone guns n ammo and fine them for not carrying them at all times.

I might suggest that it is bad law BECAUSE it has to include "exemptions." Exemptions are invariably tailored narrowly, in the midst of what amounts to a rather large trap for law-abiding citizens.

Never trust an 18-page initiative on ANY SUBJECT that has to detail "exemptions."

Vote NO ON 594

VOTE YES ON 591

 

[John H]

What happens if both pass???

 

[pchewn]

Vote NO on both 594 and 591 Neither are needed.

 

[Dave Workman]

Vote NO on both 594 and 591 Neither are needed.

I've been wondering when some one would come up with this.

I-594 is very likely going to pass thanks to their warchest and the fact that the majority of people hear "background check" and they are going to vote for it. The ONLY WAY to derail it from becoming the ONLY law is to PASS I-591.

Whether you like it or not, that is the way this works. Arguing against both is a vote for 594.

 

[Dave Workman]

Typical gobbledygook garbage wording by self serving narcissistic morons. Does it mean that the gun has to always stay at that particular range to be a loaner, or does it mean that any gun can be loaned as long as it stays at the range during the loan period? Their command of the English language is a poor as their knowledge of the constitution and basic human rights.

THEN VOTE NO on I-594 and YES on I-591.

 

[pchewn]

Really? The ONLY WAY to defeat the ultra-bad I-594 is to pass the merely-poor I-591?

I don't buy that. Fighting for a larger cage is not the same as fighting for freedom.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Well, yes, it can be.

There are reasonable restrictions on this idea of freedom. Freedom is not absolute. You can't swing your fists anyplace you like because sometimes people's faces are in the path.

Similarly, regulating things which are easily misused, such as high explosives, lethal poisons, white phosphorus grenades is not always a bad idea.

Reality has shown us that there is and shall continue to be regulations on who can purchase and possess guns, and considering the raft of individuals in the prison systems who have misused them, I don't think that's an automatically bad thing.

So a seemingly simple concept of "freedom" is more problematic when the fact of the insane and criminal humans is introduced into the mix.

At this time, a bill which limits state preemption to nothing worse than Federal standards sounds reasonable to me.

It would be enlightening to hear what aspects of I-591 make it 'merely poor'. What I know of that bill has come from the WAC news article and they seemed to support it.

 

[Redcap]

Well, yes, it can be.

There are reasonable restrictions on this idea of freedom. Freedom is not absolute. You can't swing your fists anyplace you like because sometimes people's faces are in the path.

Similarly, regulating things which are easily misused, such as high explosives, lethal poisons, white phosphorus grenades is not always a bad idea.

Reality has shown us that there is and shall continue to be regulations on who can purchase and possess guns, and considering the raft of individuals in the prison systems who have misused them, I don't think that's an automatically bad thing.

So a seemingly simple concept of "freedom" is more problematic when the fact of the insane and criminal humans is introduced into the mix.

At this time, a bill which limits state preemption to nothing worse than Federal standards sounds reasonable to me.

It would be enlightening to hear what aspects of I-591 make it 'merely poor'. What I know of that bill has come from the WAC news article and they seemed to support it.

Anything can be 'easily misused'. More bullbubblegum laws further restricting our freedoms are NOT the answer.

 

[pchewn]

It would be enlightening to hear what aspects of I-591 make it 'merely poor'. What I know of that bill has come from the WAC news article and they seemed to support it.

These parts of I-591 make it poor:

A) Reinforces the idea that background checks should be mandatory for gun sales.
B) Reinforces the idea that the Federal Government should set standards for gun-sale background checks.

For these two initiatives, there can be 4 results. Only one of them is "good" in my opinion:
1) Both pass (I honestly don't know what happens -- I guess the courts will figure it out) BAD RESULT
2) I-594 passes, I-591 Fails REALLY BAD RESULT
3) I-591 fails, I-591 passes BAD RESULT
4) both fail (NOT GOOD, NOT BAD, NO CHANGE)

I encourage WA voters to vote NO on both of these.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I don't agree that it "reinforces" mandatory BG checks. It states that Washington's can't be made more stringent.
Begs the question, who should set the standard, then, so we have equal protection under the law? Have you seen California's laws? Left to the states a crazy-quilt of impossible to follow regulations would result.




NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:

It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm unless a uniform national standard is required.

 

[Joe13]

Criminals can get guns in any number of easy ways... Stealing, black market etc; why do we want to impose more regulation for us law abiding citizens????

Y'all need to remember what the bigger picture is. Criminals will not have restricted access to guns - we will !!!

If you don't believe that or do not want it to be true, then you really need to do some soul searching and spend some time on google doing some research.

Stop spreading opinion's; let's deal in facts.

 

[Caveman Jim]

yep both of these bills are on the precept that it will stop gun violence which is bullbubblegum because criminals do not follow the rules just the law abiding gun owners!!!

We are imposing more restrictions on ourselves as gun owners in the guise of safety by the chicken bubblegum Liberals!!!

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Many safety training classes do not occur at shooting ranges. They often occur at Churches, gun stores, etc. and indeed would not be excepted even if the law is interpreted this way. (Which is questionable due to how it is written)