- Messages
- 7,000
- Reactions
- 9,862
I predict some people will do what they want and avoid the new law.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Washington No on 1639 SW Washington Organization and messaging
- Thread Starter Sporting Systems
- Start date
-
- Tags
- washington
- Messages
- 5,707
- Reactions
- 13,995
Don't worry, they'll come up with a "solution" which will be expensive, ineffective, and have unintended consequences that will require even more government intervention.
That's just the way it is.
- Messages
- 5,707
- Reactions
- 13,995
Something like this, probably. Bullying, intimidation, mob rule. These creeps need a good smack down.
Antifa protesters show up at Tucker Carlson's home
Federal law pertaining to such sales requires that they fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both states concerned. So in answering this question, I-1639 isn't the limiting factor, it's federal law. For a time, you might find a clerk in a gun store in Idaho who didn't know the law in Wash. But word gets around. It's conceivable that sometime there might be cause for audits of gun stores close to neighboring state lines to occur. Along the lines of California sending agents to Reno to observe gun buyers carrying new purchases to vehicles with Calif. license plates. It seems the real answer to your question is, it's against the law but enforcement will not be absolute.
Practical application of these onerous laws has its limits. The millionaire liberal proponents are cranking these things out faster than the state bureaucracy can deal with them. For donkey's years, the DOL has had piles of handgun purchase documents get piled up off and on. The budget doesn't always allow money to catch up. Imagine the record keeping that will result from I-1639. My guess is that routine transgressions will rarely surface. The danger is if an active felony investigation somehow uncovers a unlawful firearm transaction at random. There will always be budget available to follow the dots in those cases.
- Messages
- 5,297
- Reactions
- 4,917
When do opposing groups start monitoring these antifa sites and show up to counter them?
It's clear that the police have ZERO interest in stopping antifa in any major city. Mayor Wheeler is one step away from deputizing them.
- Messages
- 7,000
- Reactions
- 9,862
And gun laws done matter at that point in time
Well, at the expense of repeating myself, and as I posted earlier...RCW 9.41.042 is specifically identified in the changes per 1639 that grants certain acceptable activities for children under 18 to possess and even travel with unloaded firearms...in other words, it certainly looks like 9.41.042 may grant children more firearms rights than a 20 year and 11 month old who legally purchased a semi-auto rifle...
I hope 1639 goes down in flames, but with the Dems in full control in Olympia now, the battle went from uphill to up-avalanche...not just for 1639, but what's most likely coming in a few months. This has been a well-orchestrated and well funded plan in the works for some time, with no apparent intention of stopping soon.
And yes, as said earlier, 1639 is exceedingly destructive...it will turn people away from buying firearms (win for them), which will put a hurting on gun shops (win for them), and turn people against each other (as we're seeing). They have successfully vilified the #1 firearms safety training organization in the country (NRA).
The only real ways I see it being stopped is by the courts actually recognizing the Federal and State Constitutions or we get a pro2A initiative in the works to counter what's going on.
Otherwise, the extremists are not going to stop until all shooting ranges are golf courses, strip malls or condos...and they don't give a d@mn how badly it effects 'evil' gun owners.
BOSS
I hope 1639 goes down in flames, but with the Dems in full control in Olympia now, the battle went from uphill to up-avalanche...not just for 1639, but what's most likely coming in a few months. This has been a well-orchestrated and well funded plan in the works for some time, with no apparent intention of stopping soon.
And yes, as said earlier, 1639 is exceedingly destructive...it will turn people away from buying firearms (win for them), which will put a hurting on gun shops (win for them), and turn people against each other (as we're seeing). They have successfully vilified the #1 firearms safety training organization in the country (NRA).
The only real ways I see it being stopped is by the courts actually recognizing the Federal and State Constitutions or we get a pro2A initiative in the works to counter what's going on.
Otherwise, the extremists are not going to stop until all shooting ranges are golf courses, strip malls or condos...and they don't give a d@mn how badly it effects 'evil' gun owners.
BOSS
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reactions
- 6,934
I have a feeling that 1639 is mild to what I expect to see in Oregon very soon. After an easy defeat of all conservative ballot measures in this election, the libs will feel empowered to hit us with a major gun safety bill. Sorry to say.
- Messages
- 5,297
- Reactions
- 4,917
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reactions
- 5,883
Au contraire mon ami, the dance is just beginning!
I'm really looking forward to the court battles ahead. Depending on how a paper is written to challenge this nasty thing in the courts, I can see us coming out winners. And I find a lot of satisfaction in defeating foul actions by disgusting individuals in a court of law. We lost a battle but haven't lost the war.
That being said, I certainly do not look forward to the costs that will be forced upon us due to the vehemently disgusting decisions made by Kim Wyman and the so named Supreme Court. I wish I had sufficient funds to hire a batch of attorneys to challenge every little aspect of the initiative but...& until I hit the lottery... I sent more $ to SAF.
As I previously stated, I started a go-fund-me page to raise funds to fight this and asked another member here to be a part of the GFM team so they could disperse funds as well or as needed. I know some $ gets used by the fund me site but it's my hope that the familiarity of the fund me thing would make it easier for supporters from outside, and unfamiliar with the Northwest, that would like to help. No matter how or where one chooses to donate, it's all beneficial in this fight.
I'm firm in my belief this is no longer a state issue but a national issue. I have no doubt 'everytown', and their like minded ilk, will be taking their show on the road. When I-1491 (Ye Olde Extreme Risk Protection Order) got pushed through, $1,099,680.51, out of $3,690,754.83 raised, came from out of state supporters. That's the type of support I'm looking for in this battle against 1639.
If this isn't defeated here in the courts, the "you're next band wagon" will be knocking on your door no matter what state you live in. It's just a matter of time.
Remember these???... I-594 (2014) mandating a "universal background check" for gun sales, loans, gifts and other "transfers," and I-1491 (2016), imposing gun surrender and seizure based on allegations of threats of harm...
Fight 1639
Dan
- Messages
- 959
- Reactions
- 1,301
Here is my take on this law: Underlined is taken from the law.
Sec. 3 (1) "In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) "The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license..."
This is for every pistol purchase? What if the pistol isn't made for CPL?
(2) "In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle..."
Does this include a secondary CPL background check? Its in the same chapter and would be consistent with a quick hack job. 1/2 the chapter deals with pistols and 1/2 deals with rifles.Section (3) (1) concerns pistols.(3) (2) concerns rifles. All subsections below (3)(2)(a)(b) etc concerns rifles. By the way its structured, training is required only for rifles and none for CPL or pistols, semiauto or otherwise..
If this was their intent then it would be easier for them to argue for required training for all pistols including getting a CPL. Most gun crime is done with handguns then rifles. So, it would be 'common sense' that handgun training would be needed more then rifles.
(2)(b) "The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff..."
This single statement effectively makes WA a 'may issue' state of semi-autos. The CoP or sheriff are 'are immune from liability' if 'acting in good faith'. Basically, they're free to do whatever.
Also, my last purchase NICS check was returned as no purchase even as a week earlier it was clear. Shop said mine was not unique as several others were refused. The very next day, the shop called and told me it was clear. If the same thing happens again under this law, it would require a written request to clear it and I would have to wait weeks or months as it jumps through the system.
"(b) "The state...may enact a statewide firearms background check system...Once a state system is established..."
Registry? This law requires the chief of police, an appointee, to hold a copy of an application.
(6)(a) At the time of applying for the purchase ..., the purchaser shall sign … and deliver to the dealer an application containing:
(i) His or her full name, residential address, date and place of birth, race, and gender;
Race and gender? Turn that around against the gun control crowd? Race discrimination? 100+ genders?
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5.SECURE GUN STORAGE.
Sec. 10.(3) "No dealer may sell or otherwise transfer, or expose for sale or transfer...any ammunition without being licensed..."
(11) "...a single license form which shall indicate the type or types of licenses granted."
Is this where they are headed? Trying to control where we may purchase ammunition? I'm surprised nobody is bringing this up. If a FFL needs a licsense to sell ammunition, wouldn't it make sense that only licensed establishments may sell ammunition vs non-licensed establishments? The cost for this license is $125 and displayed. So a hardware store which do not sell firearms but occasionally ammunition won't go thru the hassle.
Which also means coming to the future, no direct internet sales of ammunition but through a FFL..Same with reloading supplies.
Sec. 3 (1) "In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) "The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license..."
This is for every pistol purchase? What if the pistol isn't made for CPL?
(2) "In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle..."
Does this include a secondary CPL background check? Its in the same chapter and would be consistent with a quick hack job. 1/2 the chapter deals with pistols and 1/2 deals with rifles.Section (3) (1) concerns pistols.(3) (2) concerns rifles. All subsections below (3)(2)(a)(b) etc concerns rifles. By the way its structured, training is required only for rifles and none for CPL or pistols, semiauto or otherwise..
If this was their intent then it would be easier for them to argue for required training for all pistols including getting a CPL. Most gun crime is done with handguns then rifles. So, it would be 'common sense' that handgun training would be needed more then rifles.
(2)(b) "The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police or the sheriff..."
This single statement effectively makes WA a 'may issue' state of semi-autos. The CoP or sheriff are 'are immune from liability' if 'acting in good faith'. Basically, they're free to do whatever.
Also, my last purchase NICS check was returned as no purchase even as a week earlier it was clear. Shop said mine was not unique as several others were refused. The very next day, the shop called and told me it was clear. If the same thing happens again under this law, it would require a written request to clear it and I would have to wait weeks or months as it jumps through the system.
"(b) "The state...may enact a statewide firearms background check system...Once a state system is established..."
Registry? This law requires the chief of police, an appointee, to hold a copy of an application.
(6)(a) At the time of applying for the purchase ..., the purchaser shall sign … and deliver to the dealer an application containing:
(i) His or her full name, residential address, date and place of birth, race, and gender;
Race and gender? Turn that around against the gun control crowd? Race discrimination? 100+ genders?
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5.SECURE GUN STORAGE.
Sec. 10.(3) "No dealer may sell or otherwise transfer, or expose for sale or transfer...any ammunition without being licensed..."
(11) "...a single license form which shall indicate the type or types of licenses granted."
Is this where they are headed? Trying to control where we may purchase ammunition? I'm surprised nobody is bringing this up. If a FFL needs a licsense to sell ammunition, wouldn't it make sense that only licensed establishments may sell ammunition vs non-licensed establishments? The cost for this license is $125 and displayed. So a hardware store which do not sell firearms but occasionally ammunition won't go thru the hassle.
Which also means coming to the future, no direct internet sales of ammunition but through a FFL..Same with reloading supplies.
- Messages
- 959
- Reactions
- 1,301
I wanted to post separately so it would get lost. But I think we could generate funds by targeting what it would hurt: sales. Gun sales will be hit hard. What company would it hurt? Semi-auto shotgun manufacturerss (Benelli, Remington, Beretta, etc.), semi-auto .22LR makers (Ruger, Marlin, etc.) and semi-auto sporting rifle manufacturers (many many).
Even ammunition manufacturers (CCI, Federal, etc) will have a stake in this. Remember, when the measure passes in one state, it starts in every blue and purple states. Start an email campaign to manufacturers for legal funds specific for this fight so as to stop this from spreading into other states?
I believe they made the language purposely vague because the description is vague. If someone would start a White House petition to direct the BATF to define 'assault' or 'sporting' as pertaining to rifles. If the BATF separates the definition between 'sporting' and 'assault' then the language of 1639 would mean the language is wrong. Would it require another vote to change the wording? The petition should include 'common usage' clause used by experts (owners) vs ignorance of the public or non-experts. Its like an ignorant person calls out an object as a noise maker but the artist calling the same instrument a trumpet. That's what the gun control crowd is trying to do; defining an object over expert knowledge.
'Assault' in this content would be 'during a war' which would mean an enemy exists. Whereas, 'sporting' in this content sporting 'equipment'. 1639 only defines 'semi-auto rifle' in the definition yet uses 'semiautomatic assault rifle." thoughout. Again, vague language because they don't know how to define these rifles. It wouldn't be overstepping State law just defining the specifics.
Even ammunition manufacturers (CCI, Federal, etc) will have a stake in this. Remember, when the measure passes in one state, it starts in every blue and purple states. Start an email campaign to manufacturers for legal funds specific for this fight so as to stop this from spreading into other states?
I believe they made the language purposely vague because the description is vague. If someone would start a White House petition to direct the BATF to define 'assault' or 'sporting' as pertaining to rifles. If the BATF separates the definition between 'sporting' and 'assault' then the language of 1639 would mean the language is wrong. Would it require another vote to change the wording? The petition should include 'common usage' clause used by experts (owners) vs ignorance of the public or non-experts. Its like an ignorant person calls out an object as a noise maker but the artist calling the same instrument a trumpet. That's what the gun control crowd is trying to do; defining an object over expert knowledge.
'Assault' in this content would be 'during a war' which would mean an enemy exists. Whereas, 'sporting' in this content sporting 'equipment'. 1639 only defines 'semi-auto rifle' in the definition yet uses 'semiautomatic assault rifle." thoughout. Again, vague language because they don't know how to define these rifles. It wouldn't be overstepping State law just defining the specifics.
- Messages
- 164
- Reactions
- 72
Did not have time to stop but saw a typical scumbag Craigslist type petitioner outside Walmart with about 5 petitions ? Anyone know what's up with that ?
- Messages
- 2,893
- Reactions
- 7,949
At some point like minded people will have to rise up and say NO, we are not the problem and disregard anything further in mass protest. They can pick off individuals, but they can't mess with large group(s)...Bundy standoff in Nevada for example.
If people aren't willing to do that, then yes all is lost. But this country didn't come into being with people caving in.
