Washington No on 1639 SW Washington Organization and messaging

[quneur]

Need to put an in the newspaper:

Willing to buy any old Marlins, Remingtons, etc .22 semi-auto rifles or shotguns. Did you inherit the old gun from grandpa or dad? With the new gun laws you helped pass, all semiauto gun owners need to pass gun safety training. So, let me take those guns off your hands so you won't have to pay with your time and money for training.

You pay transfer fees.

 

[flydipper]

A proactive suggestion is that everyone who gives any sort of a rats a// about the outcome of this initiative to make a whole hearted effort to engage with the under 21 generation and get them out to teach them how to shoot and be safe with firearms. Educate the youth that what they read in the media about firearms is not the truth. Support your local gun club, they will be and already are being targeted for extermination. Once they are gone there will be no other place than property you own to use these firearms.

 

[Pops1911]

Well, there's Bourbon in my coffee this morning. Personally not at all happy with the results of last night. I am a life long Dallas Cowboys fan. At some point I had to accept that they wouldn't win everything. I guess the same thing could be said for politics. That's as philosophical as I can get this morning.

 

[shibbershabber]

Maybe a silver lining might be increased awareness....... Since everyone will have to take classes they will start to get it?

Probably be a boost for the NRA too since they are really the only show in town when it comes to training.

Or maybe the inteded purpose of the law will succeed.... Inconveniencing people to the point they lose interest....

 

[Geardo]

I-940 was labeled "Police De-escalation" in the news.

No, its the "charge police with murder if, in someone's monday morning QB opinion, they didnt do enough to de-escalate armed people before defending their selves".

All the initiatives were presented extremily confusing. It took me a while to read and dijest them, as well as discussing with wife.

I am not dissapointed with my fellow WA because I understand how good people can be duped, but I am very sad. I am angry at the people behind the curtain, dumping money into our poor state.

 

[ACO]

How will it affect trusts is what i want to know. A trust cant take a training course, and the trustees don't own the firearms, so how are they responsible for the safe storage nonsense? How will it affect out of state tusts and in state trustee possession?

 

[Vendor Hidden]

Maybe a silver lining might be increased awareness....... Since everyone will have to take classes they will start to get it?

Probably be a boost for the NRA too since they are really the only show in town when it comes to training.

Or maybe the inteded purpose of the law will succeed.... Inconveniencing people to the point they lose interest....

Like I said in another thread, there are three or four firearms I'm interested in buying, and I will likely do so before 1639 takes effect in July. I don't want to deal with the new regulations with regard to purchasing if at all possible.

After that, I'm done. Guns are fun and all, but they aren't the most important thing to me (not important enough for me to want to play the state's stupid games), and I can easily live without any more once I have my set… I hope.

 

[Geardo]

What I really want to know is does this affect current gun owners? I thought it was future purchases of semi auto rifles?

Basically buy all the semi auto rifles or lowers you will ever want the next 2 months.

Can still buy handguns later on.

 

[JeremyK]

Well, there's Bourbon in my coffee this morning. Personally not at all happy with the results of last night. I am a life long Dallas Cowboys fan. At some point I had to accept that they wouldn't win everything. I guess the same thing could be said for politics. That's as philosophical as I can get this morning.

That analogy was perfect.

 

[shibbershabber]

Also, what is the fate of 18-21 year olds who currently own one?????

 

[11Charlie]

Also, what is the fate of 18-21 year olds who currently own one?????

Good question.

 

[Boss]

Well, perhaps in their wisdom and experience, the NRA/SAF/etc. knew that no matter how hard we campaigned, it was a 'lost cause.' There was ALOT of grassroots efforts...there were NO signs everywhere (great job BTW), and yet the Puget Sound corridor with a handful of others, stood and proudly shouted 'Shut up and take my Rights!' with their votes. You're not going to change 1M+ voters' minds that simply hate guns and/or are too lazy to learn the facts. You're not. They're not going to wake up and go 'Ya know, blaming the inanimate mechanical object being misused by a criminal makes as much sense as blaming spoons for obesity.' They just aren't going to have that epiphany.

Which is why I am hoping that the $$ the NRA/SAF didn't spend on TV commercials featuring all the LE and other official opposition has been war-chested for the legal battle. Hopefully the Gun Safety Alliance gets to experience the same feeling as we did when Judge Dixon's appropriate ruling was kicked to the curb. Really with all the flaws, a first-year law student should be able to win in court on this thing without breaking a sweat (of course, we know it won't be that easy, as 'the will of the people has spoke!!'.

In the mean time, this would appear to land, in no small part on the large chunk of registered conservatives who did NOT vote. I mean really, in this state, with mail-in ballots, it doesn't get much easier...open, mark, mark, mark...put back in envelope and sign, put back in mail box. What maybe 5 minutes? If you can't get people to do that TINY amount of work? Jeez...talk about horse and water...our conservative nature is our own weakness.

In the mean time, IMHO:

1. Law suit needs to be filed ASAP.
2. Some type of pro-2A initiative needs to start being developed NOW...hire Tim Eyman if we have too...
3. Gun owners and the NRA/SAF/etc. need to evolve and start promoting a more positive self-image (things free range days, training, BBQ's...go back to 'Faces of the NRA' showing good, upstanding law-abiding members, etc...and fresh, young, new faces from all walks of life...they're out there).

Realize folks, that this isn't anywhere close to over. This is just the next step, and its gonna get worse. Especially now that their more liberal control in Olympia. Look at what's being proposed in other parts of the country (like LE review of years of your social media and internet searches to determine eligibility to make a purchase). As much as was done, next time we need to more/better and get those who didn't vote to vote.

Maybe, hopefully, this will shake some folks out of their stupor...because it doesn't, we're well on the way to be coming 'NY West...'

BOSS

 

[CountryGent]

Also, what is the fate of 18-21 year olds who currently own one?????

Good question.

I have been reading through this monstrosity this morning. Regarding the age change, most of the language is about transferring a pistol or "assault weapon" to someone 18-21. There is a section on page 22 that implies those that already have those items can keep them, but only in their home, fixed place of business, etc. There appears to be no provision for owners in that age range to take their firearms out for practice, hunting, et al. Anyway, I am not done studying it yet, but thought I would pass along what I found.

 

[11Charlie]

I have been reading through this monstrosity this morning. Regarding the age change, most of the language is about transferring a pistol or "assault weapon" to some 18-21. There is a section on page 22 that implies those that already have those items can keep them, but only in their home, fixed place of business, etc. There appears to be no provision for owners in that age range to take their firearms out for practice, hunting, et al. Anyway, I am not done studying it yet, but thought I would pass along what I found.

Wait so if I own one I can't take it to the range? Please tell me I read that wrong!

 

[bentoncity]

Since this will need to be fought in the courts, I started a go-fund-me page to help fund the fight. I encourage people from everywhere to do what you can to help raise some $$ to fight this in the courts. This isn't just a one state battle, it's a National battle!

I threw some $ into it because I'm willing to put my $ where my mouth is. Everything collected will 1st be going to Washington based organizations that take 1639 to the courts. SAF & CCRKBA are two of those I believe need funding. If I'm wrong, just tell me!

The reality is this needs to be stopped here and now in the courts. If you believe these anti-gun groups are going to stop here, you're gravely mistaken. They WILL take it to every other state they can. This go-fund-me battle needs support from everyone located everywhere.

Let's raise some $ to take the fight to the courts.

Dan

 

[Boss]

^^Outstanding x 1000!!

 

[CountryGent]

Wait so if I own one I can't take it to the range? Please tell me I read that wrong!

I'm not seeing any exceptions for that in the list:

Sec. 13. RCW 9.41.240 and 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 423 are each amended
to read as follows:
(1) A person under twenty-one years of age may not purchase a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle, and except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, no person may sell or transfer a semiautomatic assault rifle to a person under twenty-one years of age.

(2) Unless an exception under RCW 9.41.042, 9.41.050, or 9.41.060 applies, a person at least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a pistol only:
(a) In the person's place of abode;
(b) At the person's fixed place of business; or
(c) On real property under his or her control.

(3) Except in the places and situations identified in RCW 9.41.042 (1) through (9) and 9.41.060 (1) through (10), a person at
least eighteen years of age, but less than twenty-one years of age, may possess a semiautomatic assault rifle only:
(a) In the person's place of abode;
(b) At the person's fixed place of business;
(c) On real property under his or her control; or
(d) For the specific purpose of (i) moving to a new place of abode; (ii) traveling between the person's place of abode and real property under his or her control; or (iii) selling or transferring the firearm in accordance with the requirements of this chapter; provided that in all of these situations the semiautomatic assault rifle is unloaded and either in secure gun storage or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm.

 

[Boss]

The VERY key here is this part (at least potentially for the 18-sub 21 year olds that own):

(3) Except in the places and situations identified in RCW 9.41.042 (1) through (9) and 9.41.060 (1) through (10)

Particularly, in part, 9.41.042 (6)…

So it would appear, after July 1,2019 it'll have to be clarified if 'possession' in an approved/protected activity under 9.41.042 constitutes a 'transfer.' The fact there's specific distinct sections regarding in each, would seem to indicate/suggest in and of itself, it does not.

The flip side is 9.41.042 is specifically about children under 18...so if enforced as ACTUALLY, literally written, potentially a 17 year old could take a Ruger 10/22 to the range, but an 20 year old who bought an AR couldn't?. So put another way, under 18 children may have potentially more 'rights' than 18-20+364 day year olds when it comes to firearms??? Totally legit...

Yeah, this is what happens when people who don't know what they're doing try to write laws...pesky details.

Hopefully this is just one of several arguments that gets made here very soon...

Again...not an attorney nor do a I play one on TV...

Boss

 

[shibbershabber]

What about severability?

For example, if it's challenged on the grounds of violating the rights of 18-2yr olds...

Could the court invalidate only that part of the law while leaving the rest intact?

 

[Boss]

What about severability?

For example, if it's challenged on the grounds of violating the rights of 18-2yr olds...

Could the court invalidate only that part of the law while leaving the rest intact?

Potentially...anything is possible...

The reality is this thing is just so fundamentally flawed and technically non-compliant, in multiple ways...signatures, multiple enactments, and so on and so forth, IMHO, any reasonable, legal-based opinion would be that this needs to be completely dismissed and proponents need to go back to the drawing board, all they way to getting the proper petition forms approved, and try again...

My $.02 worth...

BOSS