The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 19, 2018, 04:37 PM   #26
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,823
Ballots should be in the mail today
rickyrick is offline  
Old October 20, 2018, 09:41 AM   #27
105kw
Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2017
Posts: 70
Received mine yesterday, voted, mailing out today.
105kw is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 06:35 PM   #28
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,823
We will find out soon.

Hope this doesn’t turn into a “What Now?” Thread.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 6, 2018, 11:50 PM   #29
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick View Post
We will find out soon.

Hope this doesn’t turn into a “What Now?” Thread.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 01:17 AM   #30
ADIDAS69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 330
I didn’t see whether or not this covers 80% lowers. If not aren’t we all just gunna bust out ye’ole router and jigs and make our own toys.

Also I see this facing a whole host of legal challenges. Do we see this ending up in front of SCOTUS?
__________________
"...I would walk with my people if I could find them..."
ADIDAS69 is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 06:38 AM   #31
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 355
I would bet the lawyers are warming up their computers at this time, getting ready to file suits against the measure; that is if they have not already have them sitting and ready to file.
__________________
You ask a question, I will answer with my opinion; don't like it, don't use it. I won't care!
RETG is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 08:26 AM   #32
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
What I get from that is that the state DOL would have to run a background check, annually, or more often, on EVERY PERSON who buys a pistol or semi auto rifle, from the date of the act, on, forever...Who do you think is going to have to pay for that?? Not to mention the ever increasing scope of resources needed. What do you think it will cost in terms of resources if a bit down the road, some "well intentioned" bureaucrat bumps the frequency of the required "verification" to semi annual, or quarterly? or even monthly?
Here in Illinois everyone with a FOID card gets a background check every single day.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 08:56 AM   #33
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 682
So now any anti-gun police chief or sheriff in Washington can effectively ban the sale of pistols and semi-auto rifles to everyone in their jurisdiction by simply refusing to give permission?
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 09:07 AM   #34
Chainsaw.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2015
Location: Issaquah WA. Its a dry rain.
Posts: 1,711
No, where do you get that?
__________________
Just shoot the damn thing.
Chainsaw. is online now  
Old November 7, 2018, 09:48 AM   #35
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsaw.
No, where do you get that?
From the ballot measure.
Quote:
Sec. 3. ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS. RCW 9.41.090 and 2018 c
201 s 6003 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

...(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
4
that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW
9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
chief of police or sheriff

...(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under
RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
chief of police or sheriff;
There must be written permission from the police chief or sheriff before any pitol or semi-auto rifle is delivered to the purchaser. What if they simply refuse to give permission out of principle? There's a provision for a 30 day hold if the chief or sheriff has "reasonable grounds" based on a few factors which automatically expires, but I see nothing that allows the delivery to be made if the chief or sheriff refuses on other grounds than those enumerated in the initiative, such as they just don't want people buying pistols or semi-auto rifles in their jurisdiction.

Of course I'm no lawyer, that's just the way I'm reading it maybe some other principles are at play.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 10:55 AM   #36
Dano4734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 636
Do you have to register your handguns in your state? In Ny you can only own a handgun if you have a license and before you can pick it up you have to have it added to your permit and it is registered with the sheriff. It’s a pain but the law. I don’t think it does anything to keep guns from the bad guys as they could care less about laws . I wish more experienced and knowledgeable people would be consulted before states try things
Dano4734 is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 11:43 AM   #37
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,623
Quote:
I didn’t see whether or not this covers 80% lowers. If not aren’t we all just gunna bust out ye’ole router and jigs and make our own toys.
No, we all aren't.
#1) some of us like other things than build it yourself ARs.
#2) Enjoy fondling your 80% lump of metal. Its not useful for anything but a paperweight. As soon as you turn it into a gun, its a semiautomatic assault weapon under the state law, and you're just as screwed as the rest of us.

You don't get a pass just because you made it yourself. In fact, you MAY be violating the new STATE law just by making it. DO you think, even for a moment that the people who created and support 1639 will let you off the hook just because you didn't violate any FEDERAL law when you router'd out your new toy?

I don't. I see a wonderful opportunity for their side to get a ruling that making a semiautomatic assault weapon is,

A) subject to the same license, tax, storage, background checks, and training requirements as a purchased semiautomatic assault weapon
or
B) a clear case of conspiracy to violate the law. You built it, "only" to avoid those requirement. They don't even need to make an argument about "unlicensed manufacture", (but they probably will try that angle too..), they'll argue that you "transferred" the gun to yourself (by making it), and did so WITHOUT a background check (on yourself), without the waiting period, without paying the semiauto tax, without proving you have been to and passed approved training within the last 5 years, without getting the Chief of Police or Sheriff's written approval before taking delivery, and without every other thing they can think of to add to that list.

Oh, and I do hope you are over 21...because if not, you're toast automatically, NOW....


All it takes is one court ruling. What ever that ruling is, its the way the law is applied from then on, until/unless a higher court overturns it.

I-1639 is yet another example of the victory of "sound-byte lawmaking". Passed by true believers with the aid of the un, and under informed. And everyone who didn't read the proposal ALL THE WAY THROUGH was underinformed!!! We were all told, repeatedly, that the law was about background checks and raising the minimum legal purchase age to 21 for semiautomatic assault weapons.
The rest of what the law does wasn't mentioned. And it does a LOT!

None of it good, that I can see...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 07:50 PM   #38
Bart Noir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 2,130
Dano, here in WA State we have to fill out a State form only for purchase of a pistol from a dealer. The long-guns do not require the form, until this initiative goes into effect. And all those years of private purchases of pistols did not require the form.

So it is not full registration for pistols but it has been sorta-registration since some time in the 1970's, I think it was. Not sure about the date of the form starting to be required. Let's just say I am rather careful of selling any pistol which I purchased years ago by lawful private sale.

The billionaires keep pumping in the money so the gun-control screws can be tightened on us again and again.

Bart Noir
Who expects no noticeable positive effect from this new gun control.
__________________
Be of good cheer and mindful of your gun muzzle!
Bart Noir is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 08:25 PM   #39
Chainsaw.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2015
Location: Issaquah WA. Its a dry rain.
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclejack37 View Post
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If Wa. state doesn't understand that then the people of Wa. state need to take it to a level that their local government understands. Right now looks like a good time test those waters. The Supreme Court is primed and waiting. It's a shame you can't hold individuals responsible for the cost of this effort. Because when you hit someone in their wallet they tend to remember the lesson and it serves as an example to others.
You are forgetting a few key points, this is a citizens initiative that the citizens voted in. NRA had already sued for the illegal manner in which the signatures were gathered, THEN a clearly biased court system allowed it to go on the ballot. So unless this gets elivated its not gonna go anywhere.

Utter horse hockey.
__________________
Just shoot the damn thing.
Chainsaw. is online now  
Old November 7, 2018, 09:31 PM   #40
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,823
The few articles I’ve read today are still deceptive. They mention raising the age limit, requirement of safe storage and that any legal challenge will be fought off.

They say this addresses most of the root causes of mass violence.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 8, 2018, 05:35 AM   #41
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 4,411
Quote:
addresses most of the root causes of mass violence.

Or none.... for would lov to see the analysis on that!
Nathan is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08600 seconds with 10 queries