- Messages
- 661
- Reactions
- 431
There is a law on the books that allows the Governor to confiscate firearms during times of emergency. There have been attempts to nullify it as unconstitutional however because it has never been exercised there are no damages and therefore no basis to do so. It's like Obamacare, until there were real damages from it these companies were unable to file suits. Now that there are they are doing so. This specifically would prevent that by making it illegal to do so without due process being served. As for property as a whole it is already protected from confiscation without due process.
Washington already meets (and exceeds) national background requirement standards. Those standards are only applied to sales through FFL's. Whether we like it or not they will continue to regulate firearm sales through FFL's because of the Supremacy clause and Commerce clause. Therefore this is not creating anything new. What it does do is prevent anything new that would not apply equally to everyone in the nation and actually may loosen up some things. (We currently have a longer holding period than required if a check hasn't had a response for instance) Now originally this actually concerned me as it seemed that we were giving up state sovereignty if it passes. This is not the case though as we are talking about an inherent right and therefore it isn't within the realm of state sovereignty. The tenth amendment (read it carefully) only applies to rights not already protected so it doesn't play a part in it. Or at least it should not. It would be like saying free speech can be allowed in Nevada, but not in Arizona. Or that the Heller and McDonald cases don't apply to us because they were not in our state. Either they do and all people should share the same right or they don't and we are not entitled to the protection of those decisions. Note: There currently is no regulation on a national level of firearm transfers within states (Other than NFA regulated firearms) by private parties that requires background checks. If someone has indicated otherwise then that would be incorrect.
Washington already meets (and exceeds) national background requirement standards. Those standards are only applied to sales through FFL's. Whether we like it or not they will continue to regulate firearm sales through FFL's because of the Supremacy clause and Commerce clause. Therefore this is not creating anything new. What it does do is prevent anything new that would not apply equally to everyone in the nation and actually may loosen up some things. (We currently have a longer holding period than required if a check hasn't had a response for instance) Now originally this actually concerned me as it seemed that we were giving up state sovereignty if it passes. This is not the case though as we are talking about an inherent right and therefore it isn't within the realm of state sovereignty. The tenth amendment (read it carefully) only applies to rights not already protected so it doesn't play a part in it. Or at least it should not. It would be like saying free speech can be allowed in Nevada, but not in Arizona. Or that the Heller and McDonald cases don't apply to us because they were not in our state. Either they do and all people should share the same right or they don't and we are not entitled to the protection of those decisions. Note: There currently is no regulation on a national level of firearm transfers within states (Other than NFA regulated firearms) by private parties that requires background checks. If someone has indicated otherwise then that would be incorrect.
