Murray signs gun sales tax

[etrain16]

I've seen a few headlines about this and none say 2AF sues to stop Seattle Gun tax.

If you mean you haven't seen it in the MSM, that's not exactly surprising. They likely don't even know the difference between the groups and probably lump them all together. Plus they want to take any chance to take a stab at the NRA since they are the big bullseye for the anti-gun groups.

If you didn't read Dave's article or the NRA ILA alert, then I'm not surprised you haven't seen that information. But Dave is closely connected to the SAF, so I trust his information is correct - you may want to check out the article he linked earlier in this thread:

<broken link removed>

 

[slimmer13]

If you mean you haven't seen it in the MSM, that's not exactly surprising. They likely don't even know the difference between the groups and probably lump them all together. Plus they want to take any chance to take a stab at the NRA since they are the big bullseye for the anti-gun groups.

My point exactly.
The MSM is main stream, that's what most people use for news so for most people the NRA will be the hero when in reality, we didn't even need them on this one. We needed them last year and you needed them this spring.

I'm not saying don't give them money. I'm saying they can't have it both ways. Either they are going to be a strictly national org that only fights federal gun threats or they are not and they can't just show up for the easy ones.

The fight is at the state level for the forsee able future. That's where we are losing rights and we need more that token support for the easy ones.

 

[etrain16]

My point exactly.
The MSM is main stream, that's what most people use for news so for most people the NRA will be the hero when in reality, we didn't even need them on this one. We needed them last year and you needed them this spring.

I'm not saying don't give them money. I'm saying they can't have it both ways. Either they are going to be a strictly national org that only fights federal gun threats or they are not and they can't just show up for the easy ones.

The fight is at the state level for the forsee able future. That's where we are losing rights and we need more that token support for the easy ones.

But the NRA does get involved in state/local fights around the country. With the national fight their main concern, they do have to spread their resources where they are likely to do the most good. They have racked up wins across the county in many states for the right to carry, shooting down local restrictions on guns, and backing pro-gun candidates. There are 50 states, do you really think they have the resources to fight full force in all 50? Bloomberg alone could out-spend the NRA 10-1 in a heartbeat - he's worth over 30 billion dollars. The NRA can't come close to that.

Looking at WA and OR, they are states dominated by anti-gun voters and anti-gun politicians. For the NRA to be effective, they also need support inside the state, namely politicians, that can help get the job done. It doesn't surprise me that they don't dump a huge amount of money into WA and OR. Why would they? It would likely just be throwing money away.

I still don't see a reason to bubblegum about them. What we have in our states is not the NRA's fault, it's the fault of the people in these states that have voted for and elected the people and laws that we are now stuck under.

As for me, I'll reserve my criticism for the folks that are actually attacking our rights, while I give my support to anyone that helps fight them.

 

[slimmer13]

"etrain16, post: There are 50 states, do you really think they have the resources to fight full force in all 50?

Maybe that's it or maybe they don't hate UBCs? Wa was pretty blue in 97 when they spent some money defeating the trigger lock initiative.

 

[etrain16]

"etrain16, post: There are 50 states, do you really think they have the resources to fight full force in all 50?

Maybe that's it or maybe they don't hate UBCs? Wa was pretty blue in 97 when they spent some money defeating the trigger lock initiative.

If you think the politics of gun control is as simple as 'fight every battle', then I fear you may not have a good grasp of the complexities of such decisions. I'm glad they fought in 97, sounds like they did a good job. They didn't get deeply involved in either I594 or SB941. Don't you wonder why? Do you really think they're pro BGC? Do you really think they wanted to abandon 2 states to BGC's? Or is it that they looked at it and perhaps, with eyes and experience far more seasoned than either of us, they were able to see a lost fight before it even began. I don't know, but it's certainly a legitimate consideration.

I don't suggest you love the NRA. Hate them if you like. I just don't see why folks have the need to slam them at every opportunity. I'd much rather save the hate for the anti-gun crowd. They're the ones that really deserve it.

 

[4Freedom]

I originally wrote this thread on another Seattle forum and the original post was directed to a more liberal crowd, so I apologize for some of the comments that may seem odd for being here in this forum. Anyhow , I thought I just re-post it here, as I think it is quite relevant on this forum.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/seattle-passes-gun-violence-tax-immediately-this-happens/

I think Allen West has hit the nail on the head with this article. Despite being illegal for the city of Seattle to enact its own firearm laws, they went ahead and gave the middle finger to the very government's laws they are suppose to follow and enforce and passed an illegal law in which they demand a $25.00 tax on firearms and a tax of 0.20 on each round of ammunition sold. They, then claim they will take the tax to fund some type of BS gun safety research and prevention measures. The whole program is modeled after the city of Chicago , which despite all the gun taxes and some of strictest firearm laws in the country, has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the country. Of course, many criminals don't buy their guns in stores, especially not in Seattle, itself. They will continue committing their crimes and breaking the laws. This entire measure is designed to punish law abiding citizens who dare punish the autocratic city-state of Seattle.

Despite the fact that more people are probably killed in Seattle due to people texting and playing on their smartphones while driving or walking (people hit by cars), the city of Seattle will not dare put a tax on smartphones used to fund a program used to research phone and texting deaths and dangers. No, because people with phones do not threat the authority of the government and banning phones is not popular among the leftists, as they enjoy using their phones, despite how many more people are killed using them.

Anyhow, despite Washington being a preemption state, the city of SEattle thinks it is above the law. In fact, by them passing the measure they did, they are breaking the law and the city council members are committing a crime. If they actually attempt to enforce these laws and attempt to collect such a tax or punish gun owners /merchants for not collecting the tax, I think these city council members should be arrested and convicted of a criminal offense and serve time in jail, like any other person who commits a crime in the state. Politicians are not above the law.

Not only is the illegal measure they passed foolish, illegal and unenforceable, it will result in long court battles which will cost the taxpayers a lot of money. The city of Seattle has been sued and paid out large fines in the past when it imposed illegal gun laws and taxpayers had to foot the bill.

Now for an ethical question. What if tomorrow the Seattle City Council said that it is illegal to be a homosexual or criminalize gay marriage, despite now being backed up by the federal government under our Constitution? Would you then cry out and scream injustice and use these very laws as your justification?

Of course, the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right that many states want to suppress, unlike the freedom of sexual orientation under our 1st Amendment rights, as passed by our Supreme Court recently.

Now, if you believe that our politicians should follow the laws, then why should Seattle blatantly pass an illegal law and demand it be enforced? Of course, this law will sooner or later be struck down since it clearly violates Washington state law. However, I would like to know the taxpayer and resident of the city of Seattle will pay the bill and has a volatile city government who thinks they are above the law and can take matters into their own hands.

Is this right? Should both gun owners and residents of Seattle suffer from a volatile city government who refuses to follow the laws it is suppose to abide by? Tomorrow it could be a law banning blacks or gay people.

I believe the city council members who voted for this law should at least lose their jobs and those who seek to have it enforced be arrested and given appropriate jail terms, fines and suffer legal ramifications for blatantly violating laws. Perhaps, politicians get immunity to committing crimes, but it doesn't mean I think it is fair!

 

[U8395279]

This is a thoughtful and well written editorial, highly critical of the Seattle city government's decision to tax firearms and ammo:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/08/26/why-exactly-are-we-taxing-guns/

.

 

[oknow]

"etrain16, post: There are 50 states, do you really think they have the resources to fight full force in all 50?

Maybe that's it or maybe they don't hate UBCs? Wa was pretty blue in 97 when they spent some money defeating the trigger lock initiative.

Wasn't that back when people were donating to the NRA instead of beaching about the NRA?????

 

[balaperdida]

I've seen some news reports claiming that legal challenges would be made. But I've yet to see anything from any gun rights groups saying that they were definitely going to go ahead and do so.

Grandmothers Against Gun Violence was a key lobbying group that pressured the Seattle city council to pass the ordinance. They marched to city hall and demanded that the council put an end to gun violence.

So the answer is to tax law abiding gun owners? Where is the logic in doing that?

The world appears to have gone insane.


View attachment 253362

Appears that the banner says "Grandmothers Against Gin Violence".