Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration

Discussion in 'Activism' started by savage1r, Jul 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,370
    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.
     
  2. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
    That is why I will not sell to a known criminal. I 594 does nothing to meet your statement. It is gun registration period.
     
  3. stonecutter2

    stonecutter2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,180
    Location:
    Bloomington, IL
    That's starting early.

    Good luck with this fight.
     
  4. stonecutter2

    stonecutter2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,180
    Location:
    Bloomington, IL
    Forgot to include the quote with my reply, oops. :eek:

    Good luck!!
     
  5. stonecutter2

    stonecutter2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,180
    Location:
    Bloomington, IL
    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.
     
  6. bikemutt
    • Contributing Member

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,060
    Location:
    Renton, WA
    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.
     
  7. David4516

    David4516 Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    WA State
    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?)
     
  8. bikemutt
    • Contributing Member

    bikemutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,060
    Location:
    Renton, WA
    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.
     
  9. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
    He has already given them 30,000. to get started.
     
  10. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    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.
     
  11. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
    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!
     
  12. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
  13. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
    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/exclusive-wacops-votes-to-oppose-gun-control-initiative-back-i-591
     
  14. ohbythebay

    ohbythebay Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Messages:
    644
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA
    I love it !!!

    WHat can we do to get the word out more about 591 YES/594 NO ?
     
  15. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
  16. ohbythebay

    ohbythebay Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Messages:
    644
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA
    we need to spread the word

    Tell me how I can help....thanks
     
  17. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
  18. The_Next_Generation

    The_Next_Generation Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    Washington State
    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!
     
  19. R.Greene

    R.Greene Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Federal Way, WA
    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.
    How do you get someone to not say, "Sounds like a good idea, why not?" Yes [x] CHECK!
     
  20. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
  21. Theohazard

    Theohazard Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Western WA
    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.
     
  22. Leanwolf

    Leanwolf Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,087
    Location:
    Idaho
  23. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,586
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    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 ...
     
  24. TMCCOY

    TMCCOY Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    51
    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.
     
  25. 2bfree

    2bfree Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page