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: 6,831
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: 72
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: 6,831
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: 6,831
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: 360
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: 683
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: 683
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: 1,713
No, where do you get that?
__________________
Just shoot the damn thing.
Chainsaw. is offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 09:48 AM   #35
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 683
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: 652
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: 18,656
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: 2,131
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: 1,713
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 offline  
Old November 7, 2018, 09:31 PM   #40
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,831
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: 4,425
Quote:
addresses most of the root causes of mass violence.

Or none.... for would lov to see the analysis on that!
Nathan is offline  
Old November 14, 2018, 07:50 PM   #42
FunGramps
Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2018
Posts: 16
Oddly enough (not), these measures do not address any further deterrents or punitive measures geared toward the criminal who obtains illegally gained weapons, or uses them in the commission of a crime. We need to implement draconian punishment for the perps. Our liberal judicial system doesn't make them squirm while considering the illegal use or purchase of a firearm.

Instead, WA state focuses on the influx of funds gained through lawful purchases, and the implementation of measures which are geared toward a liberal judicial system pining to make criminals of LEOs who THEY deem made a bad shoot. Cops have enough to worry about as it is today. Now they have further reason to make a split second doubt about using deadly force, when they are trained to act upon training and observation. Any more delay will get more of our cops killed.
FunGramps is offline  
Old November 15, 2018, 09:25 AM   #43
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,745
Quote:
We need to implement draconian punishment for the perps
In many cases "draconian" punishments are encoded in law but are not being applied. It's common for a prosecutor to rubber stamp a plea bargain even when the perp is a repeat offender.
thallub is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 01:07 AM   #44
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,831
KATU posted on a their Facebook page that the NRA has sued to stop 1639.

I know no details yet and it’s late and I’m tired lol
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 06:38 AM   #45
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 360
NRA along with the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-right...shington-state
__________________
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, 11:47 AM   #46
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,831
Why does even Fox News make this law sound so benign?
It’s 30 pages long, it does way more than this. They’ve managed to classify virtually all common weapons as assault weapons.


Quote:
The law known as Initiative 1639 was approved by 60 percent of voters in last week’s election. It calls for buyers of semi-automatic rifles to be age 21 or older, pass an enhanced background check and show proof of having taken a firearms training course, Q13 FOX of Seattle reported.
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 02:35 PM   #47
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,656
Quote:
They’ve managed to classify virtually all common weapons as assault weapons.
Under the definition used in I-1639, ALL semiautomatic firearms are now legally "semiautomatic assault weapons".

Every one. From your Marlin Glenfield .22 to your AR, from your Browning Buckmark through your Glock and all the way to Desert Eagles, even Olympic match target pistols, ALL OF THEM are now "semiauto assault weapons".

There was no exemption for rimfires, no mention of magazine type or capacity, no requirement for X number of features, none of that at all. The definition they used in 1639 was the base definition of all semi autos. Under that law, if a gun uses energy from a fired round to reload itself, (no matter how, or from what) it is now legally a semi auto ASSAULT WEAPON.

Period.

There was a blurb on the late (local) tv news last night, (I doubt it will be repeated) mentioning the NRA, and others opposition and legal challenges to the new "law". At least one Sheriff is publicly stating he will NOT enforce the law.

the sound byte used focused on the section of the law that prohibits 18-20yr olds from buying a semi auto rifle. He had a rather good point , that we do not remove or deny "constitutionally protected rights because the majority of the people think its a good idea."

they claim the measure requires "enhanced background checks" yet NO ONE can (or will?) say what that is. It also require "proof" of approved training, and yet, there is no such approved training existent at this time. The common Hunter Safety training (provided through the NRA) is NOT "approved" under the law. Nor is anything else that currently exists.

The law changes the way ALL HANDGUNS and semi auto rifles are purchased. It not only requires proof of training that doesn't exist, but REQUIRES such proof to be sent to the Sheriff or local Chief of Police, (of your home residence) by the firearms dealer, and that dealer cannot transfer possession of the firearm to you until he receives IN WRITING, approval from the police, allowing him to proceed. Even if you already HAVE a concealed weapons permit.

Forget about CHL letting you buy a pistol and take it home the same day. Forget about being able to buy a pistol anywhere is the state except right where you live, (and maybe not even there) in a reasonable amount of time.
1639 gives the local Chief LEO the ability to deny your purchase, without requiring any justification, and without providing ANY appeal process, at all.

Forget about "shall issue" being of any value now. They now can, under 1639, issue you all the permits you want, and DENY you every single purchase at the same time!

In short, and among its other requirements, 1639 includes a list of requirements THAT CANNOT BE MET in order to purchase a handguns or semi auto long arm.

The entire law is a huge reeking pile of excrement, passed by people who didn't look any further than the title and selected sound bytes.

Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner IS democracy, but majority agreement doesn't mean its right, only that 50%+1 were conned into agreeing with it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 04:13 PM   #48
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 732
How does the law effect people travelling through Washington with semi-auto firearms?
JN01 is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 04:25 PM   #49
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 309
And this isn't going to help that situation, at least for now, but as the Supreme court makes narrow decisions on narrow subjects, is this broad enough, bad enough and far enough for it to bring all of this to a head?
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 06:12 PM   #50
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho
Posts: 360
A police chief who gets it right....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washingto...itizens-rights
__________________
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  
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 03:31 PM.


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 0.13940 seconds with 10 queries