Washington: NRA Backs Lawsuit to Prevent Public Database of Gun Owners

[Spats McGee]

Fair enough. In AR, we actually do call ours the FOIA. As a result, in casual conversation (as casual as conversations about the FOIA and federal law can be) one often hears reference to "FOIA" and "the federal FOIA." And I've run across FOIA references to several other states' laws over the years.

FWIW, I decided to do a little digging. It's called the Public Records Act in WA and can be found at Revised Code of Washington, 42.56.001 et seq..

[Jack Ryan]

The NRA is opposing this? Aren't you concerned it is just a trick for Wayne to scam a new pair of socks?

Where is GOA on this? What about all the never been a members and never gonna be a members? How about those "not another dollar until Wayne is gone" guys?

What are ya'll doing to oppose this grievous infringement?

[rickyrick]

I think this action was defeated, but I think other rules have passed.
Been too busy to check into new Washington rules. I just assume that gun ownership in WA is going to change dramatically in the next few years.

[Prndll]

What about all the never been a members and never gonna be a members? How about those "not another dollar until Wayne is gone" guys?

a) Bumpstocks are silly range toys
b) Federally Banning bumpstocks is a silly waist of good red tape
c) Creating a database of 'I used to have a bumpstock' gun owners accomplishes nothing actually worth having
d) There truly are many other things that need attention instead of focusing so much (on all sides) on this. Time and money are better spent elsewhere. It's a red herring.
e) This plays no role in any decision I might make other than choosing against such silliness, such ridiculous non-sense.

My vote with my dollar:
If we could actually focus a bit on something a bit more serious, there would not be any reason to be so paranoid about giving 'one more inch' to the anti-gun left. This is just another one in a line of let-them-eat-cake examples of twitter following twits that never seem to understand how social media is NOT a national consensus.

[silvermane_1]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Well, there you go! With a name like that, they have GOT to be a terrorist!! No double standard here, at all!!

(yes, deliberate sarcasm)




Like the "no fly" list??

Exactly, these kinds of "lists" are completely arbitrary and capricious, and IMHO "Orwellian" in nature and purpose.

[Tom Servo]

Federally Banning bumpstocks is a silly waist of good red tape

Sure, until they decide to use the same method to ban something I might deem important.

Remember: this was done via executive order, with no participation by the legislature. It's not so much about what was banned as how it was banned.

[Prndll]

I'm not in favor of the way it was done....at all. I've voiced my disagreement with 'the way' this entire thing has been handled via TFL from the beginning. There is not a singled aspect of bumpstocks that has been treated with the appropriate level of discernment. It has ALL been an emotional rolercoaster foisted upon us. If anything, it is a political tool at this point. Any database created is not going to be accurate or secure. It really is just a feel-good move that no one will actually be able to use. Kinda like New York wanting to tie Facebook the 2A with no regard for what happens after Facebook disappears. But that's another topic of conversation. In the grand scheme of things, VERY FEW people ever owned bumpstocks (or had even heard of them before this mess). The overwhelming percentage of gun owners would never be touched by any of this at all aside from forum discussions.

This is that 'slippery slope' the NRA was warned about when they publicly stated their opposition to these devices. The NRA gave weight and importance to something that really was nothing at all.

The man could have bought full auto M16's. He certainly had the money. But he went this route. That indicates to me that in his mental derangement, he was screwin' around with peoples' lives and ended up creating such a big mess for the entire country.

Personally, I think it would have made more sense to ignore bump stocks in the first place and move on. Frankly, I'm tired of even thinking about it.

[zukiphile]

Certainly, it would have made a lot of sense to ignore the irrelevance of bumpstocks to murder in Vegas, but good sense wasn't the loudest response to the event.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It's not so much about what was banned as how it was banned.

That's the issue in the bumpstock ban, not whether many shooters liked the stocks. An object is subject to NFA regulation if we say it is, even if we've previously said it isn't is not anything like a real standard. If standardless regulatory fiat is fine in one matter, what would be the principled barrier to it in other matters?

[44 AMP]

An object is subject to NFA regulation if we say it is, even if we've previously said it isn't is not anything like a real standard.

The ATF has a history of doing just that. Particularly with pistol stocks, for one example. For a long time the rule was "pistol + (attachable) stock = short barrel rifle=NFA weapon.

More than a few Lugers and others had their mounting hardware cut or ground off so a collector could own both the pistol and the stock without being NFA items.

Then the ATF decided that stocked pistols that were curio & relic were ok, non-NFA. More than a few of us with those guns got stocks, usually reproduction stocks. Then a couple decades later, ATF decided that only original period stocks qualified as exempt, so if you had an original pistol and a repro stock, it was an NFA item.

Which is one reason I find foolish those taking joy in the ATF's current ruling allowing those ridiculous "pistol braces". Enjoy it while it lasts, fellows, your turn will come...

The point here is that the Executive Branch of government decided that the previous administration's ruling was "incorrect".

Not the Judicial Branch
Not the Legislative Branch

They've done it before, and I'm confident they will do it again.