Quantcast
Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration - Page 3 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Activism

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 21, 2014, 12:58 PM   #51
silicosys4
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 29, 2012
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgejeanlouis View Post
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
which is why we have laws that specify which criminal acts cause one to lose their gun rights. If you mean incrementally giving up our rights via a series of erosions that do nothing to address the problem being named as "responsible" than you will find opposition here.
First post...I smell troll.
silicosys4 is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 01:11 PM   #52
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
Quote:
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
That is why I will not sell to a known criminal. I 594 does nothing to meet your statement. It is gun registration period.
2bfree is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 04:16 PM   #53
stonecutter2
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 29, 2009
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 792
That's starting early.

Good luck with this fight.
__________________
"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him" Exodus 22:2
stonecutter2 is online now  
Old April 21, 2014, 04:17 PM   #54
stonecutter2
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 29, 2009
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bfree View Post
Got my first pro 594 phone call Friday, started out telling me why I should support it, predictably he left a lot out. In the end he asked if I would support them. When I said no he asked why ? When I started to explain it to him he just hung up. It has started, and vote is not till November !
Forgot to include the quote with my reply, oops.

Good luck!!
__________________
"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him" Exodus 22:2
stonecutter2 is online now  
Old April 21, 2014, 04:23 PM   #55
stonecutter2
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 29, 2009
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgejeanlouis View Post
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
Right, but the trick is to not just create more criminals out of people who are doing nothing but obeying the law and enjoying their freedoms. Registration schemes have the potential for that.

I've started huge debates elsewhere regarding registration, that ended up full of scathing accusations and rhetoric ...so all I'll say here is - if you don't want it, defend your position and take action.

Every American can work to make this country whatever they want it to be.
__________________
"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him" Exodus 22:2
stonecutter2 is online now  
Old April 21, 2014, 06:16 PM   #56
bikemutt
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 2,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgejeanlouis View Post
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
That's all fine and good, problem is, with the lone exception of the Sandy Hook nutcase, those crazies all passed the background check when they bought their guns. Sandy Hook didn't feel like waiting so he killed his mom first, then took her guns.

All the background checks in the world aren't worth a thing if mentally unstable individuals aren't known to the system. And it's almost a sure bet if an effort is made to enroll more of them earlier, the ACLU will be up in arms.

And criminals, what to do with those pesky persons, they don't even know what a background check is, no more so than bank robbers know what a withdrawal slip is.

In summary, this initiative will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of crazies or criminals.
__________________
They were just a bunch old dead white guys but they invented this country, and they meant what they said. The Second Amendment isn't about the National Guard or the police...It is about law-abiding, private U.S. citizens. Period. - Charlton Heston
bikemutt is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 07:03 PM   #57
David4516
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 29, 2003
Location: Yelm, WA
Posts: 905
Quote:
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals
I mostly agree with this. But I think you could change this to read:

"We are responsible for keeping criminals out of society"

What I mean by that is, if you have a person who is so dangerous that you cannot trust them with a weapon, then why are we letting them out of jail and back into society?

Some folks have such a high probability of becoming a "repeat offender" that it just boggles my mind they get let out at all.

I also don't see how this law would be effective at all in stopping crime. Bad guys will continue to obtain their weapons by either theft or the black market. The is no way that they're going to do a background check. And on those rare times when a criminal is dumb enough to try a background check, and fail it, they are almost never prosecuted.

I think this law, if passed, will only do two things:

#1: Create a registry of all gun owners (to be used for later confinscation I'm sure)

#2: Raise alot of revenue for the goverment (what is the background check fee these days? $10?)
David4516 is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 08:26 PM   #58
bikemutt
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 2,673
I'm sure some of Bloomberg's $50M will find it's way here, watch their new language, now they talk about "illegal" guns. They will try to tie this to "illegal" guns, you know, not "legal" guns. I guess they don't want to offend "legal" gun owners. Too bad we're just collateral damage on hizzoner's highway to heaven.
__________________
They were just a bunch old dead white guys but they invented this country, and they meant what they said. The Second Amendment isn't about the National Guard or the police...It is about law-abiding, private U.S. citizens. Period. - Charlton Heston
bikemutt is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 08:53 PM   #59
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
Quote:
I'm sure some of Bloomberg's $50M will find it's way here
He has already given them 30,000. to get started.
2bfree is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 09:53 PM   #60
Hacker15E
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 1, 2005
Location: Heartland, America
Posts: 1,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgejeanlouis View Post
As a society we are responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ...
The burden of proof is on the ones proposing the new laws to explain exactly how those new laws would do this.

As of currently, I have yet to see a cogent explanation of that.
__________________
"Do ordinary things extraordinarily well"

OIF vet 2003
OEF vet 2007/2011
Hacker15E is offline  
Old May 13, 2014, 01:02 PM   #61
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
Just keeping it on your Minds.
" virtually every firearm transfer - with very few and limited exceptions - would be required to go through a licensed firearms dealer under the provisions of I-594. I-594 will specifically regulate transfers, not sales. Under the language of I-594, in virtually all cases, a person merely handing his or her firearm to a family member or a friend cannot do so without brokering the transfer through a gun dealer with the accompanying paperwork, fees, and in the case of handguns, state registration. I-594 also doubles the state waiting period on handgun sales from five to ten days and extends it to every private transfer of any handgun!
2bfree is offline  
Old May 31, 2014, 12:33 PM   #62
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
Another I 594 Kick Off
"Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman asks in his article on May 15 Just How Many Kick-off’s does a gun control group need? – citing several kick-off’s thrown by the anti-gun Seattle liberal elitists and I-594 promoters populating “Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility” over the last year or so."
https://washingtonarmscollectors.org...ol-group-need/
2bfree is offline  
Old July 4, 2014, 02:49 PM   #63
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS), the state’s largest and oldest law enforcement group representing more than 4,500 active duty police officers and sheriff's deputies, dealt a serious blow to Evergreen State gun prohibitionists this morning, confirming to Examiner via telephone that it will oppose Initiative 594 and support Initiative 591, making it the second statewide law enforcement group to take that position.
http://www.examiner.com/article/excl...ive-back-i-591
2bfree is offline  
Old July 7, 2014, 02:51 PM   #64
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 522
I love it !!!

WHat can we do to get the word out more about 591 YES/594 NO ?
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 05:52 PM   #65
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
Poll shows I594 in the lead, likely to pass. hard to overcome the big money behind it.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/0.../99/289/&ihp=1
2bfree is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 06:02 PM   #66
ohbythebay
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 5, 2014
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 522
we need to spread the word

Tell me how I can help....thanks
__________________
Be the person your dog thinks you are...
ohbythebay is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 08:51 PM   #67
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
You can tell all you know what is bad about I594 and good about I 591 + donate here. http://wagunrights.org/
2bfree is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 09:14 PM   #68
The_Next_Generation
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 27, 2011
Location: Hometown: Maple Valley, WA
Posts: 626
Tell has many fence-sitters as you can to vote no on 594. Yeah, a vote for 591 would be great, but at this point its probably easier to just get them to vote no on 594.

If this passes, it'll be an all-time low for WA...if it weren't for the climbing opportunities on Mt. Rainier and programming jobs in the Puget Sound area, I would move. The rest of the state is in good-shape, I will stay and fight for my rights!
__________________
Oh boy, another cheap hobby...
The_Next_Generation is offline  
Old July 18, 2014, 05:03 PM   #69
R.Greene
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Federal Way, WA
Posts: 13
Someone please help me - how do you explain to the average person who is not a gun owner/shooter/enthusiast that prop 594 is a bad idea? You know someone who doesn't care about guns is not going to read the 18+ pages of the actual proposition text.
Quote:
This measure would apply currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales, with specific exceptions.
Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
How do you get someone to not say, "Sounds like a good idea, why not?" Yes [x] CHECK!
R.Greene is offline  
Old July 18, 2014, 06:24 PM   #70
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
You might listen to this for a few ideas.
http://kiroradio.com/listen/9974473/#
2bfree is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 04:02 PM   #71
Theohazard
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 24, 2014
Location: Western WA
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Greene
Someone please help me - how do you explain to the average person who is not a gun owner/shooter/enthusiast that prop 594 is a bad idea?
Just point out that merely handing a gun to a friend would be illegal under most circumstances. Lots of non-gun people are still interested in going shooting, but taking them shooting at a non-officially-sanctioned range would be illegal.

I have a bunch of non-gun-owning friends whose politics lean toward the anti-gun side of the spectrum. But they've still expressed interest in going shooting. And since I don't shoot at an official range, I've been pointing out to them that we need to go shooting before I-594 makes it illegal.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is online now  
Old August 13, 2014, 11:58 PM   #72
Leanwolf
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 25, 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,832
Another left wing mega-billionaire (Microsoft) and his wife donate upward of one million $$$$ to the I-594 campaign to destroy Second Amendment Rights in Washington.

Wannabee tyrants can't allow the worker peasants, serfs, and slaves to be armed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-S...ng-Gun-Control

L.W.
__________________
Always go straight forward. If you meet the devil, cut him in half and go between the pieces. (Wm. Sturgis, clipper ship captain.)
Leanwolf is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 03:32 PM   #73
Old Dog
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Location: somewhere on Puget Sound
Posts: 3,449
Washington state has long had a great tradition of no laws that hamper private transactions involving firearms. Alas, this appears ready to come to a screeching halt.

Should this law pass (and it looks most regrettably this will happen), there will be so many unintended consequences it won't be funny.

There is so much of this law as written that will be unenforceable. As always, it will be the normally law-abiding citizen that will suffer.

Not all that long ago, I had occasion to loan a pistol to a woman who'd suffered horrific long-term physical abuse at the hands of an ex-boyfriend ... She felt compelled to arm herself as this cretin kept stalking her. We took her shooting, gave her a gun to keep with her in her home. A restraining order was in effect, yet as a non-CPL holder, she was subject to the waiting period. With 594, guess what'll happen ...
__________________
Will
Old Dog is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 11:17 AM   #74
TMCCOY
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 12, 2014
Posts: 44
I sent an email off to a few of my "valued" democratic leaders here in WA state and in return, I rec'd one form response from Maria Cantwell that espoused all the efforts of the anti-gun group. Clearly, they don't intend to listen to the people on the other side of the issue.
TMCCOY is offline  
Old August 24, 2014, 02:55 PM   #75
2bfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 19, 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 198
Yes she is also for an assault weapon ban and 10 round mags.
Remember, I 594 is a public vote, our state leaders had a chance to vote on I 594 and I 591 and decided not to and send it to the people.
2bfree is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

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 -4. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.