SOME VERY INTERESTING 594 IMPLICATIONS COMING TO LIGHT

[SX200]

Is there no way the bare face lies can be brought up to repeal the 594 after all it looks
to me the majority of WA voters got "Grubered" voting for something we already have.

 

[Dave Workman]

And now for the "good news"

Anti-gunners hint at next moves in Washington State

The gun control lobby behind Initiative 594 is already hinting at its next moves in Washington State, which, according to the disturbing report on Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza that was released yesterday, might have become home for him and his mother.

<broken link removed>

 

[BoatRanch]

If the future of the NRA's help in Washington remains what it has, then I'd say we're in an up hill battle. There is no way SAF and Washington gun owners who actually take the 2A to heart can combat ultra wealthy elites at the voting booth, standing alone

 

[RW-Ore]

Money can buy anything!!!
Until they pass a law that bans outside state influence and funding for state bills
the under educated will be bought.

 

[Dave Workman]

Money can buy anything!!!
Until they pass a law that bans outside state influence and funding for state bills
the under educated will be bought.

Right, and at the same time you'll prohibit the NRA or GOA or any other national gun rights group not based in Washington from doing likewise.
You need to think this stuff through before making such pronouncements.

 

[U201491]

If the future of the NRA's help in Washington remains what it has, then I'd say we're in an up hill battle. There is no way SAF and Washington gun owners who actually take the 2A to heart can combat ultra wealthy elites at the voting booth, standing alone

If you continue to poke fingers in the eyes of a friend they will continue to ignore you and probably sit back and let you ferment. Very smart. :/\/

 

[BoatRanch]

If you continue to poke fingers in the eyes of a friend they will continue to ignore you and probably sit back and let you ferment. Very smart. :/\/

So are you saying that SAF has been poking the eye of the NRA?
I keep hearing that they have been at odds with each other but admit that I myself do not know of such a thing

 

[U201491]

So are you saying that SAF has been poking the eye of the NRA?
I keep hearing that they have been at odds with each other but admit that I myself do not know of such a thing

As do many Washington gunowners right here on this forum.
I did not mention SAF.
I do not know how their relationship is with the NRA right now.

But simple logic dictates if you want help from someone the way to
get it is not poking fingers in their eyes and slicing at them with not
so kind remarks. The NRA has done more than a hundred times as
much for gun owners in America than all the firearms orgs combined.
But the selfish want 100% of their attention or they call them names.
Only Anti's call pro gun groups names and ridicule them. Any of them.

Well that is what it makes people that do so, like it or not ! An anti aid.
Anti's use name calling all the time toward the NRA.
Those that do not want to be viewed as one shouldn't act like one.

And if you want help from the NRA, stop spitting in their face.

Like I said Very Smart :/\/\/


.

 

[BoatRanch]

As do many Washington gunowners right here on this forum.
I did not mention SAF.
I do not know how their relationship is with the NRA right now.

But simple logic dictates if you want help from someone the way to
get it is not poking fingers in their eyes and slicing at them with not
so kind remarks. The NRA has done more than a hundred times as
much for gun owners in America than all the firearms orgs combined.
But the selfish want 100% of their attention or they call them names.
Only Anti's call pro gun groups names and ridicule them. Any of them.

Well that is what it makes people that do so, like it or not ! An anti aid.
Anti's use name calling all the time toward the NRA.
Those that do not want to be viewed as one shouldn't act like one.

And if you want help from the NRA, stop spitting in their face.

Like I said Very Smart :/\/\/


.

 

[BoatRanch]

Calling the NRA names serves no good purpose.
Wanting answers to legitimate concerns and questions is in fact a right of a member of the NRA.

 

[U201491]

Calling the NRA names serves no good purpose.
Wanting answers to legitimate concerns and questions is in fact a a right of a member of the NRA.

Then get on the phone, call and talk to them, Write them a letter. They get thousands of letters a day. I always get responses, sometimes they are slow just because they get swamped, but they always respond.

To ridicule them or call them out on a board that is public with 40+ thousand members does the NRA no good and does the Pro gun cause no good. It is precisely what the bloomer groupies love to see. ...................

The more funding they get the more they do, and that is the only thing that limits their ability. Want a court case, raise the money and support the people that will bring that case.

No one works for free, not even the NRA. Court fees alone run in the tens of thousands.

They have 50 states to cover. They do not have the funds near enough to cover all 50 states on all cases.

Think a bit.....

They also have a global watch keeping an eye on the UN and its efforts to undermine the country.

They still maintain training for nearly every LE and even Mil training and gun Safety and Youth programs on a national level, they fight to open new and keep open old ranges all over the country.

They fight to keep public lands accessible to all of us, and a couple hundred other lil tasks, so does anyone think all this is just free volunteer work.
It isn't and it is all expensive to continue to maintain.

T.H.I.N.K !!!

 

[RW-Ore]

Right, and at the same time you'll prohibit the NRA or GOA or any other national gun rights group not based in Washington from doing likewise.
You need to think this stuff through before making such pronouncements.

Dave , the NRA of which I am a card carrying life member did nothing compared to Blumberg and gates . They pretty much left it up to Washington to make it on their own . Can't say much for gates but if it had not been for Blumberg gates wouldn't have had a clue as to what to do I don't think he is real smart on his own , Blumberg has a rash on his keester that he has to let the word know he has.

 

[Scott F]

I still put the blame on the 65% of registered voters who were to lazy to vote. It sickens me to think about it.

 

[U201491]

Right, and at the same time you'll prohibit the NRA or GOA or any other national gun rights group not based in Washington from doing likewise.
You need to think this stuff through before making such pronouncements.

Dave,
An even bigger problem is the gun owners won't pull enough $$ out of their pocket and put into the NRA and bring them on par with the extreme wealth of azzes like Bloomberg and that will cost us all in the end. The financial playing field must be equalized by restriction or the Organizations like the NRA be made as wealthy and as powerful as this POS that throw their billions around like confetti. LIMIT THE MONEY OR SUPPORT OUR ORGS. There are really no other choices. Obviously getting people off their azzes to vote didn't work.

APATHY HAS BEEN AN EVEN BIGGER ENEMY THAN THAT WART BLOOMBERG.

 

[usagi]

one of the problems i see is that gun rights groups have fundamentally been reactive, not proactive. we have historically been on the defense most of the time. only recently has the NRA started taking a more aggressive proactive role with the constitutional amendments in MO and LA.

the other problem is that there are far too many gun rights groups. divided, fragmented, and uncoordinated. we need to regroup and unite forces.

while we face the threat of deep pockets, we do have the advantage that gun owners are a true diverse group with real people behind it, not an astroturf organization like bloomberg. our membership is real, not purchased.

 

[Kid@Heart]

Calling the NRA names serves no good purpose.
Wanting answers to legitimate concerns and questions is in fact a right of a member of the NRA.

Then you should go to the NRA Annual Meeting and bring the issue up on the floor in front of the membership. Whining and trying to convince folks on a forum to withhold support is not productive.

 

[ak56]

Boy, the indian tribes just lost their gold mine, didn't they.........

Probably not.

RCW 9.41.320
Fireworks.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the possession, sale, or use of fireworks when possessed, sold, or used in compliance with chapter 70.77 RCW.

Fireworks are exempted from Chapter 9.41 (where the bulk of I594 will reside) when possessed, sold, or used in compliance with chapter 70.77.

Our little party-poppers are safe.

 

[8ball]

Two pages later, nobody has pointed out that 594 did not change the definition of firearm in the RCW.

The OP's point isn't valid because WA has never considered those devices firearms.

 

[Slobray]

Two pages later, nobody has pointed out that 594 did not change the definition of firearm in the RCW.

The OP's point isn't valid because WA has never considered those devices firearms.

You are correct that I594 didn't "change the definition of firearm in the RCW" but it does amend the RCW. The OP is correct. People just never interpreted the meaning as literally as they do now because of I594.

Sec. 2. RCW 9.41.010 and 2013 c 183 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:


Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.


(10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.

Ray

 

[BoatRanch]

Then you should go to the NRA Annual Meeting and bring the issue up on the floor in front of the membership.

That's a great idea. I've been to one convention but never gave a thought to being heard publicly. I'll try and be heard this next convention.

Whining

I'm not whining, as you put it. I'm basically stating exactly what had happened, and expressed my dismay at the NRA's near inaction.

...and trying to convince folks on a forum to withhold support is not productive.

And that I've never done so, with all due respect do not falsely accuse me of doing such a thing. It's flat out wrong, and makes you look like the fool