Washington Jay Inslee - "Hey Oregon, Hold my beer"

[Starslinger]

In ten years anyone will be able to 3D print a working gun and all criminals and crazies will have them. Law-abiding citizens will be disarmed and defenseless.

 

[Xaevian]

In ten years anyone will be able to 3D print a working gun and all criminals and crazies will have them. Law-abiding citizens will be disarmed and defenseless.

Sounds like Utopia.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

What if you don't have the gun(s) anymore?

 

[Xaevian]

What if you don't have the gun(s) anymore?

They haven't implemented the anytime-they-want background check...yet.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

They haven't implemented the anytime-they-want background check...yet.

I know, but if they did, what's to stop people from saying they don't have it anymore.

 

[Alexx1401]

For all the gun owners who "just found out" how great Jay is remember a LOT of gun owners helped him win. His last run a LOT of gun owners did not "like" his opponent. So now they got Jay elected again.Now we all get to live with him.

 

[sobo]

I know, but if they did, what's to stop people from saying they don't have it anymore.

 

[sobo]

You can't fairly blame Bob F.

I can fairly blame him for being a massive, purple-veined, turgid dickhead.

 

[bradsteen]

So you waive constitutional rights to exercise certain constitutional rights….. seems legit.

This right here should be all the justification they need for repeal and reversal. It's no different than requiring the people waive their 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search & seizure in order to speak, assemble, or practice a religion - blatant unconstitutionality.

 

[BPS2271]

Just buy a gun once a year. Problem solved. I will have to cut way back to accomplish that but everything has its downside.

 

[Xaevian]

I know, but if they did, what's to stop people from saying they don't have it anymore.

They would have to provide proof. Intent was if a check comes back that the person is not allowed to own firearms, it would be forwarded to local police to investigate and confiscate any firearms. A search warrant is highly likely.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Shelved since 2018, this Washington gun law may finally be implemented soon
State officials have decided to push forward a voter-approved measure requiring annual background checks of pistol and semiautomatic rifle owners.

Gov. Jay Inslee's administration is now working to implement a 2018 voter-approved firearms background-check law that Washington officials had quietly set aside due to logistical and legal hurdles.

The administration's reversal comes after a September report by Crosscut documenting how state officials in 2020 concluded it wasn't cost-effective or efficient to implement the new law requiring annual background checks on people who own pistols and semiautomatic rifles. A spokesperson for the governor's office went further, saying in September that "there is not a way to legally conduct the check under our current system."

Yet no background check required to get a driver license in WA as an illegal alien and killl somebody with a car...

 

[RobMa]

Yet no background check required to get a driver license in WA as an illegal alien and killl somebody with a car...

Nope...

Like I said, pretty soon sneezing in public will give the tyrants and excuse to take away your guns....

 

[slimmer13]

If by "perpetual" you mean annual then you imagine wrong (see RCW 9.41.139).

That just says what 1639 implemented, that once you buy a pistol or SAR, once it takes effect, you will be subject to the yearly check. If they are backdating it to people that didn't sign up for that, it sure seems like it should be grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Nope...

Like I said, pretty soon sneezing in public will give the tyrants and excuse to take away your guns....

" hey , that guy's sick "

 

[slimmer13]

I don't know what was said before about the waiver of confidentiality but it has been a permanent, open-ended waiver since 1994. In 1994, the triggering event for the waiver was applying for a concealed pistol license. That's still the law under RCW 9.41.070(4).

As amended, by I-1639, RCW 9.41.094 says:

The waiver of confidentiality is related but different from the background check. The waiver doesn't require the "inquiring court or law enforcement agency" to be seeking information for a background check.

If the court or LE agency have a "signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle" (or for a CPL) from any time then your confidentiality is permanently waived. The law also doesn't require the inquiry to be prompted by an actual attempt to purchase a pistol or SAR. In practice, most such inquiries will probably be linked to a purchase attempt but that is not required. I am unaware of any case law that contradicts this expansive reading of the statutory law.

Then why would they bother putting it in 1639 if they already had open an ended confidentiality waiver?

 

[RVTECH]

The worst part of all these new, (and radical) gun laws is the intent is probably to dramatically slow down, or eliminate the sale of new guns altogether.

While 'they' know they can never remove whats already out there they will simply pass laws that don't actually eliminate new gun sales but will make it so difficult to purchase the choice will be left up to US as to whether we want to buy guns or not.

 

[BPS2271]

For all the gun owners who "just found out" how great Jay is remember a LOT of gun owners helped him win. His last run a LOT of gun owners did not "like" his opponent. So now they got Jay elected again.Now we all get to live with him.

An old story. True with 114, also. And even those who voted against it, many of them voted for the scumbags that support it....like the governor, AG, etc.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

They would have to provide proof. Intent was if a check comes back that the person is not allowed to own firearms, it would be forwarded to local police to investigate and confiscate any firearms. A search warrant is highly likely.

You are probably right on that I think. What gets me is all this type of stuff is tied to a registry and tracking individual guns. Looking long term, I see a progression where the gun type, location, and owner are more and more defined and detailed.

At the same time the government's "permission" to possess that gun will get tighter and tighter. This gives them more avenues for gun confiscation. Fe you are now illegally carrying a gun they know you have because you didn't complete the 5 year permit paperwork, or didn't compete your 1 year background check.

After registration confiscation is potentially one step away. For example in the near futurelet's say a group or individual of anti-gunner(s) uses a fake red flag against you. They can legally confiscate your guns that way. Longer term it may be as simple as you didn't get your repeating paperwork in on time.

It seems to me we need to be thinking 10-20 years from now and the tactics they will be using, and shut down those tactics now as much as possible.

So it seems to me a critical task for any gun owner is to get the gun to stay off of any efforts to gather more info on it (such as location and owner). Also to get it off the list if possible (may not be possible). Perhaps an early "sold/transferred" designation on a gun they are trying to gather more info on will keep it off of future lists or data collection efforts.

I guess one example I'm thinking of is that if a person temporarily "moved" to Wyoming (went there with intention to live there) where person to person transfers are allowed without a bg check, and sold them. Then "moved" back. Place of residence as defined by ATF I think means "intent to live there". Also what about "temporarily experiencing homelessness"? This could happen maybe if one temporarily investigated another state with the intent to live there maybe? Just exploring possible non boating accident methods here...

In England right now I've seen on tv shows where they track an individual gun from location to location on "crime shows". Almost like the gun itself is "the bad guy" and needs to be hunted down. I can see parts of the US (ie west coast, New York) getting to this point if they are allowed to incrementally erode our 2A rights.

 

[rjmt]

They would have to provide proof. Intent was if a check comes back that the person is not allowed to own firearms, it would be forwarded to local police to investigate and confiscate any firearms. A search warrant is highly likely.

the local police don't have the manpower to perform their normal duties now
where is this manpower coming from?
search warrants? LOLLL
they wouldn't respond to a meth head on the next property to me, but they are going to serve search warrants on known armed citizens?
the Sheriffs office told us they were not going to expose their deputies to the danger of a Meth Head, even with an outstanding warrant
but I'm expected to believe this same department is going to start raiding properties in the country with armed and motivated owners?
I'll have to see this to believe it