"Official" i594 Rally Thread - December 13, 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
That Gavin fellow sounds dangerous. To himself, to others (particularly LEOs), and to 2nd Amendment rights. Yikes.

Add my voice to the chorus saying this rally is a bad idea. 594 passed. Overwhelmingly, in my county (King: 75%). 591 lost by a similar margin. These were citizen initiatives. I'm a citizen, and I respect my fellow citizens' voices. I'm willing to see how 594 works out in practice before getting riled up about alarmist hypotheticals.

Personally, if I'm going to attend a rally Saturday, it'll be this one. More impact to me on a day-to-day basis, and to US society in general.
 
Quote:
It will accomplish making it clear that we WILL NOT COMPLY.
More effective would have been attending the previous rally and making it clear that WE WILL VOTE.

The new rally is an exercise in futility. Our only redress now is through the courts.




Exactly. The train has left the station. Of course the law says you can peacefully demonstrate and many feel it is effective, but it is 10X more effective to understand the initiatives and vote.

I will use an example. I'm not changing the subject, just trying to get people to see a correlation here. In Ferguson there exists a similar problem. It has been reported that the voter turnout for the last 3 municipal elections in St Louis was 12%. Well, there sure were a lot of people protesting after the shooting. I wonder how many of those who were protesting actually took the time to vote in the last election? A fair guess would be not many.

Same thing is going on here. No one cared enough to vote except in the populated metro areas. So my guess is no one is going to care about that demonstration. Just like no one really cares about the demonstrations in Furguson. I certainly don't.

Laws last a long time and demonstrations last a day or two.
 
I went today. First rally I ever attended. I was apprehensive to go, and didn't make the decision to go until last night. I was worried there might be a few armed people with poor/unsafe gun handling skills, or a few nut jobs saying stupid things that could discredit gun owners.

I went anyway as it seemed it was just the right thing to do.

I found observing hundreds of citizens congregating at the state capitol packing long guns and loaded mags to be quite a powerful experience. It made me feel very proud as I approached, seeing people streaming in with ARs, AKs, etc from the middle of downtown Olympia and on to the Capitol grounds. I found such a profound display of real freedom to be personally invigorating.

There were a couple of really good speakers.... I really liked Elizabeth Scott (WA state District 39 Representative) and Sheriff Mack (former Sheriff of Graham County AZ).

I was there for the whole rally and I never saw an unsafe act or anyone behaving in a shameful manner. Everyone I saw was polite and cool headed, including the WA State Patrol working the event. It was a very positive experience. I am glad I went.

For me, just seeing so many young guys, 18 - 25 or so, carrying ARs or whatever to the public event, being safe and respectful, and clearly caring about freedom's future, gave me a bit more hope and was worth the trip.
 
Seattleimport said:
That Gavin fellow sounds dangerous. To himself, to others (particularly LEOs), and to 2nd Amendment rights. Yikes.

Add my voice to the chorus saying this rally is a bad idea. 594 passed. Overwhelmingly, in my county (King: 75%). 591 lost by a similar margin. These were citizen initiatives. I'm a citizen, and I respect my fellow citizens' voices. I'm willing to see how 594 works out in practice before getting riled up about alarmist hypotheticals.

Personally, if I'm going to attend a rally Saturday, it'll be this one. More impact to me on a day-to-day basis, and to US society in general.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if an "unintended consequence" of -594 might be a resurgence in the "kitchen table" ffl here in WA. I know a few guys who had ffls in the past and had to give them up as they didn't deal enough volume so the BATF made renewals difficult.
There has always been a "registry" in WA as long as I've been here; I had access years ago to WACIC and was able to "run" my permit. Saw everything I'd bought via dealers listed.
While I don't like the direction -594 is turning it will do two things. Force "fence-sitters" to take a side when they see the law does very little to reduce crime/shootings and it will also solidify resistance to future restrictive legislation.
The Stumbo crowd is already pushing more crap for initiatives and after seeing the media run-up with the scary gun narrative maybe now is the time to get going on effective counter strategies...
 
EmGeeGeorge said:
There has always been a "registry" in WA as long as I've been here; I had access years ago to WACIC and was able to "run" my permit. Saw everything I'd bought via dealers listed.
Click to expand...
No, that's only for handguns. The state gets a copy of the state pistol form when you buy a handgun, so they have a record of every handgun sold through a dealer. But they have no way of collecting information on all other firearm purchases.
 
Another rally is scheduled for 15 January at the Capitol.

A case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While I applaud the efforts after the fact to hold rallies, it both saddens and angers me that a HUGE percentage of gun owners just were too lazy to vote. It's easy to get registered, the state will mail you your ballot which takes a few minutes to complete, seal, and stamp and mail. Just infuriated over this stupid law that really clamps down on the hobby of collecting and shooting, adding significant hassle and expenses, and devaluing a gun collection immediately. Used guns just took a huge hit in value. Now you're at the mercy of an FFL and his business hours and fees.

The threat of voting folks out is relatively meaningless when gun owners can't even manage to vote on the darn initiative. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners failed to vote in lots of rural and urban areas... so infuriating. Now the anti-gun crowd has a wedge, and we can fully expect 1) registration, and 2) magazine bans, and 3) other pet project bans in our future.

The fact that handing a gun to a friend in your own home to examine now is a misdemeanor offense the first time, and a felony the second time, is simply mind boggling.

Text of I594. There are exceptions such as family members, domestic partners, state sanctioned ranges, and hunting partners. But it's an abomination. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113

RCW 9.41.113
Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions.

(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
(a) The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted. If the seller or transferor removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing the sale or transfer.
(b) Except as provided in (a) of this subsection, the licensed dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law that would apply if the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee, including but not limited to conducting a background check on the prospective purchaser or transferee in accordance with federal and state law requirements and fulfilling all federal and state recordkeeping requirements.
(c) The purchaser or transferee must complete, sign, and submit all federal, state, and local forms necessary to process the required background check to the licensed dealer conducting the background check.
(d) If the results of the background check indicate that the purchaser or transferee is ineligible to possess a firearm, then the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor.
(e) The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm.
(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official;
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws. Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person knowingly violating RCW 9.41.113 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent knowing violation of RCW 9.41.113. A person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or transferred without complying with the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer satisfied one of the exceptions in RCW 9.41.113(4).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
*"I WILL NOT Comply Rally" Dec. 13, 2014, OLYMPIA*
Replies
2
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
M
  • Locked
2ND Amendment Rally's April 5th.. Check Your State!
Replies
1
Views
885
SAGEEN
S
P
  • Locked
Pro 2A Rally in Every State Capitol - Feb. 8, 10:00 AM
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Pyzik
P
D
  • Locked
Minuteman border group plans D.C. rally
Replies
0
Views
319
Desertdog
D
L
  • Locked
Anti gun rally near Chicago
Replies
5
Views
653
Texan Scott
T
Back
Top