JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Again, how does it make someone a special class by recognizing they fulfill the requirements of a really a loose standard?

Say we refuse, as a populace, to not abide by or recognize the requirement, who and where do we get our guns from? If you sidestep a law or policy, there is no proof of harm and you have no standing. At worst, you break a law that gets affirmed and you pay a penalty in fines or liberty.

The best bet is to vote, which most gun owners in the state of WA don't seem to do. You get the government you didn't vote for, the appointed policy makers that favor their ideology, and the enforcement that will work in their philosophy.

For those of us who were factually economical about our leanings and got hired anyway, you get a certain level of non-compliance through plausible deniability and all sorts of .gov employee tricks.

But its funny when people who didn't vote or didn't get others to vote, then give LE the dick-eye for the enforcement of the law they didn't fight. "We all failed by means of apathy....but how dare you NOT fix it!"

I appreciate your candid discussion of this topic but I don't believe we are all understanding each other.

Are you suggesting that despite the law being unconstitutional the best bet is to go along to get along?

What I hear you saying is you meet or exceed the training required and that training should be acknowledged as the proposed legislation suggests. I'm trying to understand why your training and qualifications are better than mine just because of your occupation.

Once we get this law what prevents the lawmakers from moving the goal posts?
Where do we draw the line with regard to qualifications? Can we write in an acknowledgment for active duty military, retired LEO, or retired military? How about trained security guards? This is why the proposed law is self serving.
This is why the underlying unconstitutional law should be enforced equitably upon ALL citizens.

We clearly don't agree so I'm really trying to understand your position. My position is that LEO everywhere should reject this proposal because the underlying law it supports is unconstitutional and is the antithesis to liberty and freedom.

So.... lets get down to the brass tacks of purchasing a so called "assault rifle". How do LEO get the traingin acknowledgement at the gun counter? Do you have a certificate to present or do you simply display a government issued ID and a badge?

~Whitney
 
If a certificate was issued to LEOs that complies with current law after required annual LEO training, what would be the drawback? If all LEOs go through training that exceeds the requirements more often than is required, aren't they in the same boat as everyone else? Maybe I am at a loss as to why something like what I am hearing is actually neccessary. We all seem to agree that 1639 is bad, it seems more like folks are getting hung up on the word "exemption". Yes, I hear the slippery slope idea, but pick the battle that is worth fighting. This isn't as much an exemption but an acknowledgement that the requirements are already being met.
 
I believe this thread shows how decisive the appearance of special treatment can be.

99% of the people on this forum are SOLIDLY Pro 2A, yet look at how this issue has divided our group into Us vs Them.

Edit, devisive not decisive.
 
If a certificate was issued to LEOs that complies with current law after required annual LEO training, what would be the drawback? If all LEOs go through training that exceeds the requirements more often than is required, aren't they in the same boat as everyone else? Maybe I am at a loss as to why something like what I am hearing is actually neccessary. We all seem to agree that 1639 is bad, it seems more like folks are getting hung up on the word "exemption". Yes, I hear the slippery slope idea, but pick the battle that is worth fighting. This isn't as much an exemption but an acknowledgement that the requirements are already being met.

I wish I could figure out how to express this more clearly. Exempting ProfessionX because they already get training, endorses the foundational notion that a training requirement for a Constitutional right is OK.

As a side issue, a law like this which does nothing real for citizens, is the type the Anti side will agree with and then say "see -- we are rational and willing to negotiate". So it is bad publicity as well.
 
I wish I could figure out how to express this more clearly. Exempting ProfessionX because they already get training, endorses the foundational notion that a training requirement for a Constitutional right is OK.

As a side issue, a law like this which does nothing real for citizens, is the type the Anti side will agree with and then say "see -- we are rational and willing to negotiate". So it is bad publicity as well.
I can appreciate that you are trying to be clear. If the title of the proposal was "acknowledging alternate firearms safety safety trainings to satisfy 1639 requirements" it would closer match the reality. It would also make your side argument moot, and weaken this unconstitutional legislation more, not less. Next, hunting safety would satisfy, then current military, then veterans, maybe private security. When enough people aren't required to take the stupid class, it becomes a useless requirement.

And don't think for a minute the antis won't fight this proposal as they did last session. They really, as a generalization, don't like police to get any perceived special treatment. Dropping the serving military out of it this time won't make a bit of difference.

When an initiative serves their agenda, it does no wrong, but pass a tax restriction...3 times...all hell hath frozen over.
 
I appreciate your candid discussion of this topic but I don't believe we are all understanding each other.

Are you suggesting that despite the law being unconstitutional the best bet is to go along to get along?

What I hear you saying is you meet or exceed the training required and that training should be acknowledged as the proposed legislation suggests. I'm trying to understand why your training and qualifications are better than mine just because of your occupation.

Once we get this law what prevents the lawmakers from moving the goal posts?
Where do we draw the line with regard to qualifications? Can we write in an acknowledgment for active duty military, retired LEO, or retired military? How about trained security guards? This is why the proposed law is self serving.
This is why the underlying unconstitutional law should be enforced equitably upon ALL citizens.

We clearly don't agree so I'm really trying to understand your position. My position is that LEO everywhere should reject this proposal because the underlying law it supports is unconstitutional and is the antithesis to liberty and freedom.

So.... lets get down to the brass tacks of purchasing a so called "assault rifle". How do LEO get the traingin acknowledgement at the gun counter? Do you have a certificate to present or do you simply display a government issued ID and a badge?

~Whitney

We have this list of training requirements that we have met for the year. Its itemized based on classes we have attended and completed. We would print these certifications off and provide them. Its the same as when I get my OR ccw license. I can use my printed training record to satisfy the training requirement. The credential doesn't matter, its the training record.

My position is that if I have a verifiable record that I have met the subject requirements, it should count. When the law was first passed, there was no language allowing for that.

I totally agree the law is unconstitutional with the state and federal constitution. What I am saying is that I have to provide something to buy a semi-auto rifle regardless of how I feel about it. If we make work-arounds, we will have no proof of harm in order to have standing for a lawsuit. Many work-arounds put us in legal peril if a prosecutor were to decide to make you a target.

My position has nothing to do with the enforcement or investigation of supposed violations. It has all to do with the recognition of a documented training record as having satisfied the requirement for the training portion.
 
We have this list of training requirements that we have met for the year. Its itemized based on classes we have attended and completed. We would print these certifications off and provide them. Its the same as when I get my OR ccw license. I can use my printed training record to satisfy the training requirement. The credential doesn't matter, its the training record.

My position is that if I have a verifiable record that I have met the subject requirements, it should count. When the law was first passed, there was no language allowing for that.

I totally agree the law is unconstitutional with the state and federal constitution. What I am saying is that I have to provide something to buy a semi-auto rifle regardless of how I feel about it. If we make work-arounds, we will have no proof of harm in order to have standing for a lawsuit. Many work-arounds put us in legal peril if a prosecutor were to decide to make you a target.

My position has nothing to do with the enforcement or investigation of supposed violations. It has all to do with the recognition of a documented training record as having satisfied the requirement for the training portion.
I could agree if my certification as an NRA rifle and pistol instructor.OR my graduate certificates from Front Sight (or from any other firearm training )would carry the same weight.
But then, that would be yet another exemption.
Better to just get the whole damn law thrown out.
 
Its not an exemption, its a recognition that the training we get more than meets the "standard" as much as any made-up powerpoint being used to satisfy the requirement.

If the state wrote curriculum like hunter safety, I wouldn't support an "exemption" to that class.

The problem is that none of that is anywhere in the bill. Even the title of the bill is "Exempting law enforcement from firearm safety training requirements for semiautomatic assault rifle purchases or transfers." Below are all of the proposed changes to I-1639:

HB 2202 said:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (10) of this section, the purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
HB 2202 said:
(iii) Local law enforcement agencies for state-mandated local costs resulting from the requirements set forth under ((RCW 9.41.090 and)) this section.
HB 2202 said:
(10) The firearm safety training requirement in subsection (2)(a) of this section does not apply to the sale or transfer of a semiautomatic assault rifle to a person who is a law enforcement officer.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/2202.pdf

We have this list of training requirements that we have met for the year. Its itemized based on classes we have attended and completed. We would print these certifications off and provide them. Its the same as when I get my OR ccw license. I can use my printed training record to satisfy the training requirement. The credential doesn't matter, its the training record.

My position is that if I have a verifiable record that I have met the subject requirements, it should count. When the law was first passed, there was no language allowing for that.

I totally agree the law is unconstitutional with the state and federal constitution. What I am saying is that I have to provide something to buy a semi-auto rifle regardless of how I feel about it. If we make work-arounds, we will have no proof of harm in order to have standing for a lawsuit. Many work-arounds put us in legal peril if a prosecutor were to decide to make you a target.

My position has nothing to do with the enforcement or investigation of supposed violations. It has all to do with the recognition of a documented training record as having satisfied the requirement for the training portion.

I believe that we all understand where you're coming from in regards to the BS training requirements (you already do it and you should get credit for it) and agree, but the reality of this specific bill, is that it does create an exemption, is making a special carve out for LEO's and nothing in the wording of it says otherwise. Now if it stated something to the effect "due to the state training requirements for LEO's, which exceed I-1639 training, so LEO credentials meet the requirements......", then I believe there wouldn't be such push back and most would say it makes sense.



Ray
 
The problem is that none of that is anywhere in the bill. Even the title of the bill is "Exempting law enforcement from firearm safety training requirements for semiautomatic assault rifle purchases or transfers." Below are all of the proposed changes to I-1639:



http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/2202.pdf



I believe that we all understand where you're coming from in regards to the BS training requirements (you already do it and you should get credit for it) and agree, but the reality of this specific bill, is that it does create an exemption, is making a special carve out for LEO's and nothing in the wording of it says otherwise. Now if it stated something to the effect "due to the state training requirements for LEO's, which exceed I-1639 training, so LEO credentials meet the requirements......", then I believe there wouldn't be such push back and most would say it makes sense.



Ray

Isn't that semantics? If not, I suppose someone could ask the bill author how they arrived at that decision. Common sense, or a desire to exempt LE. That may sway my opinion.
 
Isn't that semantics? If not, I suppose someone could ask the bill author how they arrived at that decision. Common sense, or a desire to exempt LE. That may sway my opinion.

I'm not saying which one it is, either way, but with Kippert being a LEO combined with the language of the bill, makes it look like he just wants to exempt himself and his buddies.

If he would have explained it as clarifying that LEO training meets the standards at the beginning of the bill (like they do with so many of them), then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.



Ray
 
I'm not saying which one it is, either way, but with Kippert being a LEO combined with the language of the bill, makes it look like he just wants to exempt himself and his buddies.

If he would have explained it as clarifying that LEO training meets the standards at the beginning of the bill (like they do with so many of them), then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.



Ray
But they never really set any standards for the training, did they? So what's to say my training from Joe Fibbeetz down the block shouldn't exempt me from the law's requirements as well?
If the law needs exemptions, the law is poor. Exemptions are inherently unfair and divisive.
If Mr Klippert feels the law needs exemptions then he should sue to get the law repealed, not work on special favors for his particular group.
 
... I believe that we all understand where you're coming from in regards to the BS training requirements (you already do it and you should get credit for it) and agree, but the reality of this specific bill, is that it does create an exemption, is making a special carve out for LEO's and nothing in the wording of it says otherwise. Now if it stated something to the effect "due to the state training requirements for LEO's, which exceed I-1639 training, so LEO credentials meet the requirements......", then I believe there wouldn't be such push back and most would say it makes sense. ...

I'll still be over here gritting my teeth about the presumption that training is a valid requirement to a Constitutional right even if the language was broader, along the lines of "any training by a certified instructor, hunter safety course, LEO or military trainer meets the requirements." But I've said my piece more than once. Repitition won't make it better. ;)

... And don't think for a minute the antis won't fight this proposal as they did last session. They really, as a generalization, don't like police to get any perceived special treatment. ...

Jay and Bob's proposed legislation for the next term which includes mag bans, banning ARs, and requiring NICS checks for ammo purchases as soon as the Feds allow it, contain exemptions for LEOs from the get go. I think the Antis are more keen on creating this division than you might think because, at least in my view, the exemptions act as way to keep a lid on resistance to enforcement. Gov. Inslee, AG seek 'assault weapons' ban, more gun laws to fight mass shootings
 
Greetings,

I didn't read every post, so if this repetitive, apologies. Exemptions are worth discussing, but y'all saw the call for semi-auto rifle registration:eek: under HB2241, right?


(2)(a) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for,8 or completed an application to purchase an assault weapon before9 January 1, 2021, and who has registered the assault weapon with the Washington state patrol may: icon_smile_blackeye.gif

And remember, the new speaker will work to get these up for a vote.


No time to waste, folks need to we educating/informing others, writing, etc. And if at all possible, attend the rally on Jan 17, 2020 in Olympia to make sure the 2A side is well represented.

Boss
 
Greetings,

I didn't read every post, so if this repetitive, apologies. Exemptions are worth discussing, but y'all saw the call for semi-auto rifle registration:eek: under HB2241, right?


(2)(a) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for,8 or completed an application to purchase an assault weapon before9 January 1, 2021, and who has registered the assault weapon with the Washington state patrol may:View attachment 642197

And remember, the new speaker will work to get these up for a vote.


No time to waste, folks need to we educating/informing others, writing, etc. And if at all possible, attend the rally on Jan 17, 2020 in Olympia to make sure the 2A side is well represented.

Boss


Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am calling my reps today.
I'm sure those idiots in Olympia are aware of just how useless registrations are, but at least they'll be happy to create a new class of criminals.:s0054:
 
^^ Aww, you're just being paranoid...history teaches us that only peace, harmony, utopia, and sprinkle-covered unicorns follow firearm registration.:rolleyes:

Boss
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top