The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 16, 2018, 06:14 PM   #51
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 367
Have to wonder if WA may change their reciprocity rulings for concealed carry sometime in the future.
__________________
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 16, 2018, 07:39 PM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
The text of 1639 (as written in the WA voter pamphlet) contains no language about carry, open or concealed, by state or out of state residents. Carry is not addressed at all.

SO, 1639 creates no changes in carry law or policy.

If the people involved make changes to WA state policy about reciprocity, that's entirely their own decision, not something driven by 1639, except as its passage emboldens further gun control enthusiasts.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 17, 2018, 06:31 AM   #53
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 367
Never said it was part of the proposal, just noted it is may come; that's all!
__________________
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 25, 2018, 08:31 AM   #54
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
Does this mean what I think it means? You now must release all of your medical records before you can purchase?

Quote:
Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.094 and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to read as follows:

A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and
written request that the health care authority, mental health
institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an
inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to
the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.
steve4102 is offline  
Old November 25, 2018, 02:15 PM   #55
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
Quote:
Does this mean what I think it means? You now must release all of your medical records before you can purchase?
I had not noticed that section before, but what I get from the quoted text is that by APPLYING to purchase you are giving consent for all your medical (and mental health) records to be released to investigating agencies. What ever the investigators deem necessary.

What's the harm in that???


here's a possible example;
untrained, unqualified people making decisions using medical records they don't understand.

hmmm, says here, you were on anti-depressants for four months in 1993...clearly you are an unstable person, no pistol or semiautomatic assault weapon for YOU!!!!

Do remember, human nature being what it is, at least some of those people will have a personal agenda against private firearms ownership, and will act on it at every opportunity. Someone like that, could potentially "downcheck" hundreds, perhaps thousands of applications, before their obvious bias becomes known, if it ever does. Until/unless there is an actual investigation into their integrity, even the flimsiest of excuses can pass muster.

In the example I used, their report could just say "applicant on medication for behavioral control" and leave out the small detail that it was for a limited time 25 years ago!!
Got a chronic pain issue? On meds (Opioid dependent?)
Did you go to grief counseling after your mother unexpectedly dropped dead on the kitchen floor at age 52?
Are you a VETERAN???
you might be classified as someone with a PTSD problem and NOT by the medical profession, but by an investigator! And once they put you in that box on their forms, good luck getting out. Reality matters less than you think, sometimes.

Things like that could very well happen.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 25, 2018, 11:49 PM   #56
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,075
If this is allowed to stand, then the constitution is meaningless now.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 26, 2018, 11:47 AM   #57
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
Oh, come on now. Kavanaugh will save you.

Seriously, there is more to the Constitution than an initiative. When antigun laws were passed in many states and SCOTUS wouldn't take up the cases, was the Constitution meaningless?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 26, 2018, 12:17 PM   #58
Dano4734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 712
Wow speechless and that’s saying a lot for me
Dano4734 is offline  
Old January 30, 2019, 07:36 PM   #59
Bart Noir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2000
Location: Puget Sound, USA
Posts: 2,152
The "21-year old" requirement has kicked in, and I believe the rest of the changes become effective at the end of June.

I'm hoping that somebody has a link to the entirety of the new legal changes. The previous links don't work anymore.

I want to read about any wording concerning already owned firearms. So far I think the new rules are only concerning further purchases but don't really know.

Bart Noir
__________________
Be of good cheer and mindful of your gun muzzle!
Bart Noir is offline  
Old January 30, 2019, 08:05 PM   #60
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,075
Not clear to me either and I’m seeing reports that more restrictions are in the works.
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 31, 2019, 07:54 PM   #61
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
Quote:
I want to read about any wording concerning already owned firearms.
I don't have a link, sorry, but the text was in the Voter Phamphlet last year before the election.

As to changes about already owned firearms, they're in there, not only storage requirements, but also the fact that should a thief steal your gun(s), no matter how much or how little security they had to defeat in order to do so, if they steal your gun and commit a crime with it, then YOU are going to be charged with whatever crime THEY committed with your STOLEN gun!!!

FWIW, the Franklin County Sheriff was on tv last night, flatly stating he is instructing his officers NOT to enforce the law. Also had the County Commissioner, stating they fully support the Sheriff on this matter.

This is a good thing, of course, but there is a down side. Even though not enforced NOW, the law stays on the books until a court rules on it. And administrations and attitudes about enforcement could change before a case finally works its way through the court system.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 1, 2019, 08:01 AM   #62
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick View Post
If this is allowed to stand, then the constitution is meaningless now.
Exactly the "constitution" is meaningless to these wannabe tyrants.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old February 1, 2019, 03:26 PM   #63
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
Update from last night's late tv news;
Yakima County Sherriff is also not going to enforce the law, either.

There are now 7 law enforcement agencies in the state REFUSING to enforce this law, according to last night's news. I fully expect more to refuse to enforce the law, just as they have done with the horridly written background check law, passed the election before last, and still not be enforced by numerous LEOs in the state.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 2, 2019, 05:11 AM   #64
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
Update from last night's late tv news;
Yakima County Sherriff is also not going to enforce the law, either.

There are now 7 law enforcement agencies in the state REFUSING to enforce this law, according to last night's news. I fully expect more to refuse to enforce the law, just as they have done with the horridly written background check law, passed the election before last, and still not be enforced by numerous LEOs in the state.
But it will be enforced here in King and Thurston Counties where it will only hurt "law abiding citizens".
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 10:03 AM   #65
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,789
And the politicians that want to take our guns away from us, have armed body guards around them.
rebs is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 09:50 PM   #66
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
While sheriffs won't, what will be the role of the state police in those areas?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 2, 2019, 11:28 PM   #67
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
I'm not certain at this time, the State Patrol did refuse to enforce the background check initiative passed election before last, along with Sheriffs, AND the Conservation Dept., "until they get clarification" of what is, and is not a covered transfer. Been over 3 years now, and to date, such clarification from the State has not yet been forthcoming.

The State Attorney General has said they will support the law, because it is the legal will of the people. No one has said so, but I get the impression they aren't terribly happy with that position.


Challenges have been filed, we'll just have to see where it goes...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 3, 2019, 03:47 AM   #68
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
While sheriffs won't, what will be the role of the state police in those areas?
Like i posted Glenn, it depends on the county if the sheriff will enforce it, in fact Mitzi Johanknecht was one of the biggist proponents of I-1639.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2019, 01:06 AM   #69
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
Someone on Facebook has threatened to shoot the Spokane Country Sherriff (and others, apparently) if he doesn't enforce 1639.

Look how far we've come,....some wackjob threatening to shoot the sheriff, (and on social media, no less) if the sheriff doesn't enforce gun control!

it was on the 10pm local news...also apparently the same guy said he wanted to shoot Trump, so I hope he gets to chat with some friendly LEOs and Secret Service types very soon...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 6, 2019, 03:49 AM   #70
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
Someone on Facebook has threatened to shoot the Spokane Country Sherriff (and others, apparently) if he doesn't enforce 1639.

Look how far we've come,....some wackjob threatening to shoot the sheriff, (and on social media, no less) if the sheriff doesn't enforce gun control!

it was on the 10pm local news...also apparently the same guy said he wanted to shoot Trump, so I hope he gets to chat with some friendly LEOs and Secret Service types very soon...
I wouldn't bet on it there
AMP 44, leftist are rarely prosecuted these day, just look at ANTIFA's shenanigans.
__________________
Rugers:SR1911 CMD,MK 3 .22lr 6",Sec. Six '76 liberty .357 4",SRH .480 Ruger 7.5",Mini-14 188 5.56/.233 18.5", Marlins: 795 .22lr 16.5",30aw 30-30 20",Mossberg:Mav. 88 Tact. 12 ga, 18.5",ATR 100 .270 Win. 22",S&W:SW9VE
9mm 4",Springfield:XD .357sig 4", AKs:CAI PSL-54C, WASR 10/63, WW74,SLR-106c
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2019, 12:30 PM   #71
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,075
I don’t display any political anything at all. I also don’t display anything gun related. Took the American flag down that used to fly in my yard because I don’t want my front porch fire bombed.
rickyrick is offline  
Old February 6, 2019, 02:31 PM   #72
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,228
The news showed a few snippets of the texts. These were not "he ought to be shot" they were "I will shoot him in the head" messages.

I'm not certain, but I think the "I will shoot him in the head" rises to the legal level of an actual threat. Even if not, I doubt this one will be swept under the rug.

Think all those people demanding "red flag" laws and all such measures can ignore that level of "warning"? They'll be shooting themselves in the foot in the court of public opinion if they do.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old February 8, 2019, 08:18 AM   #73
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs View Post
And the politicians that want to take our guns away from us, have armed body guards around them.
That may be true but remember, there are more guns in the US than TVs..

393 million(guns-estimate), 301 million(TVs, estimate)..2017
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old February 8, 2019, 08:55 AM   #74
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,075
I guess that suggests that law abiding citizens owning more guns means celebrities and politicians need more protection.
I’m not sure why those that have a little more social status has the right to protect themselves but a lowly blue collar family man does not.

Back to the topic at hand, Clark County sheriff stated that he will enforce I1639 or whatever it’s known by now.
rickyrick is offline  
Old February 9, 2019, 09:35 AM   #75
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 705
Quote:
And the politicians that want to take our guns away from us, have armed body guards around them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick View Post
I guess that suggests that law abiding citizens owning more guns means celebrities and politicians need more protection.
I’m not sure why those that have a little more social status has the right to protect themselves but a lowly blue collar family man does not.

Back to the topic at hand, Clark County sheriff stated that he will enforce I1639 or whatever it’s known by now.
You miss my point..that blue collar gent has every right, today, to protect himself and his family..with a gun, if he wishes. BUT lotsa guns, so 'some' choose to either CCW or employ an armed team to protect themselves. It may be of interest,sorry for thread drift, but vast majority or 'politicians' DON'T have armed body guards.
Quote:
The Secret Service typically protects the president, vice president, their immediate families, former presidents (along with spouses and children under 16), foreign heads of states, and major presidential and vice-presidential candidates and spouses. Press secretaries are not generally on the list
They may employ their own but not auto-'politician=armed guard'...Speaker of the House, Senate President Pro-Tem does, as they are direct line of succession to the POTUS.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 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 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.09037 seconds with 8 queries