User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 2:00:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Along these lines, what happens if an officer decides to hang onto your firearm during a stop for "officer safety". Was that an illegal transfer? How about when he gives it back? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What of hospitals? I was recently treated for an arm injury (I got in a fight with a table saw. Final score was Table Saw: 1, Me: 0); I normally carry a pocket knife and that night was no exception. With my arm VISIBLY deformed from swelling (I suspected it was fractured) they would not let me past the front door until I struggled to remove the knife despite being in pain and barely able to move my arm. The knife was placed in a locker by a generic security officer - not a WSP, local PD or Sheriff. Now, if we change knife to gun, and move forward in time to when 594 is in effect, won't I be faced with the decision of either committing a misdemeanor (or felony) AND causing the security officer to do the same, or going without treatment? What happens when I'm on a gurney and unconscious because I was in a car accident and armed when I arrive in the ambulance at the hospital? Won't all of these constitute transfers? Along these lines, what happens if an officer decides to hang onto your firearm during a stop for "officer safety". Was that an illegal transfer? How about when he gives it back? I suspect an officer is exempted. (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; The hospital security role MIGHT be covered, as they're acting in the "scope of their duties"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 2:15:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect an officer is exempted. The hospital security role MIGHT be covered, as they're acting in the "scope of their duties"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What of hospitals? I was recently treated for an arm injury (I got in a fight with a table saw. Final score was Table Saw: 1, Me: 0); I normally carry a pocket knife and that night was no exception. With my arm VISIBLY deformed from swelling (I suspected it was fractured) they would not let me past the front door until I struggled to remove the knife despite being in pain and barely able to move my arm. The knife was placed in a locker by a generic security officer - not a WSP, local PD or Sheriff. Now, if we change knife to gun, and move forward in time to when 594 is in effect, won't I be faced with the decision of either committing a misdemeanor (or felony) AND causing the security officer to do the same, or going without treatment? What happens when I'm on a gurney and unconscious because I was in a car accident and armed when I arrive in the ambulance at the hospital? Won't all of these constitute transfers? Along these lines, what happens if an officer decides to hang onto your firearm during a stop for "officer safety". Was that an illegal transfer? How about when he gives it back? I suspect an officer is exempted. (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; The hospital security role MIGHT be covered, as they're acting in the "scope of their duties"? That would exempt the law enforcement officer from taking the individuals firearm but it still does not address the individual receiving their firearm back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 2:21:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, how do we go about getting that? Write a letter to the AG? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
you need a WA AG published opinion stating that those are transfers under 594. otherwise, you're going to hand guns around in a circle and LEO will do absolutely nothing. you'll simply hand a PR victory to MDA/WAGR who have been saying all along that "marely handing a gun to someone is not a transfer". and you'll look foolish. get the WA AG opinion that handing a gun is a transfer. THEN do your civil disobedience. otherwise, your plan with backfire. you'll play right into their hands. So, how do we go about getting that? Write a letter to the AG? the AG does not give opinions to individuals. your elected state representative would have to do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 3:28:15 PM EDT
[#4]
I called the NRA-ILA this morning and according to the rep I spoke with, as many may have expected, they simply did not have the money to compete with the financial sponsors for Initiative 594 and support the many mid-term election campaigns around the country needed to win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While it doesn't feel like it sitting here in Washington State post election it was a sound decision to pick the national battle over a state battle (especially one with extremely deep pockets in a state with a liberal majority).
A GOP majority will keep the president from succeeding in appointing a radical left Justice to the Supreme Court and it will keep any proposed anti-2A legislation from succeeding as well. This is a win that we all needed and it should help to strengthen the NRA's efforts at the state level. The NRA-ILA told me that they expect to have something to say publicly regarding I-594 very soon but have decided to remain quiet until they have readied their response. He had no more information to offer but it sounded to me like we might see more than just a statement. We may yet see some active response from the NRA. I'm guessing that the cost to challenge the I-594 initiative (in part or whole) is far, far less than the cost of a head-to-head marketing battle with Bloomberg/Gates/Allen & Co. in what would likely be an uphill battle even if it were on a level financial playing field. This may well have been their approach from early on, assuming they see something in I-594 that they believe would not hold up in a legal challenge. All speculation at this poin, of course. Let's hope the NRA has more than a statement of position to offer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 3:38:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Deaj,
That's very interesting, and encouraging. Thank you. It's still a huge strategic gamble though, as this loss has already galvanized the antis to similar action here and elsewhere. Face it, they have momentum now. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 3:56:26 PM EDT
[#6]
I've written to my Senator and two Reps congratulating them on their re-election and asking that they request an opinion from the AG on exactly what transfers and temporary transfers are. I provided examples such as shipping a firearm via UPS or an airline. I-594 says that all transfers without limitation (except for those exempt) are subject to the backgoround checks; this would make the action of shippers and the TSA illegal unless they obtained a background check as they are not exempt. I also asked for an explaination of the "while hunting" exception.
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 4:30:03 PM EDT
[#7]
As an Oregon resident, I see a lot of similarities between our states as far as voting goes. Oregon is often held captive by a geographically small, heavily left leaning voter concentration in one county that sways most election cycles. I also see us as likely being in the sights of Bloomberg for something similar to what you have all suffered. I have a question regarding this ballot measure that I didn't see answered anywhere, but I could quite possibly have missed. What happens if you transfer ownership of your firearms to a trust? Similar to how many people purchase NFA items.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 4:39:12 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I called the NRA-ILA this morning and according to the rep I spoke with, as many may have expected, .... Thanks for the info....but I find this in no way reassuring. I honestly think letting this pass will snowball to other states (staff at the firing line thinks Nevada is next). Some simple ads run every so often highlighting issues with 594 would have helped. They didn't even have to push 591 per se. Now, it's an uphill battle in the state courts to get this partially or fully overturned, or at the very least some guidance from the AG (which frankly isn't enough.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 4:42:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the info....but I find this in no way reassuring. I honestly think letting this pass will snowball to other states (staff at the firing line thinks Nevada is next). Some simple ads run every so often highlighting issues with 594 would have helped. They didn't even have to push 591 per se. Now, it's an uphill battle in the state courts to get this partially or fully overturned, or at the very least some guidance from the AG (which frankly isn't enough.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I called the NRA-ILA this morning and according to the rep I spoke with, as many may have expected, .... Thanks for the info....but I find this in no way reassuring. I honestly think letting this pass will snowball to other states (staff at the firing line thinks Nevada is next). Some simple ads run every so often highlighting issues with 594 would have helped. They didn't even have to push 591 per se. Now, it's an uphill battle in the state courts to get this partially or fully overturned, or at the very least some guidance from the AG (which frankly isn't enough.) I think it's a toss-up between Oregon and Nevada. Probably will depend on who has the next school shooting or perhaps who has a shooting at a shopping mall during Christmas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 5:09:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Crap, I have a company trip on Dec. 13.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 6:42:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the info....but I find this in no way reassuring. I honestly think letting this pass will snowball to other states (staff at the firing line thinks Nevada is next). Some simple ads run every so often highlighting issues with 594 would have helped. They didn't even have to push 591 per se. Now, it's an uphill battle in the state courts to get this partially or fully overturned, or at the very least some guidance from the AG (which frankly isn't enough.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I called the NRA-ILA this morning and according to the rep I spoke with, as many may have expected, .... Thanks for the info....but I find this in no way reassuring. I honestly think letting this pass will snowball to other states (staff at the firing line thinks Nevada is next). Some simple ads run every so often highlighting issues with 594 would have helped. They didn't even have to push 591 per se. Now, it's an uphill battle in the state courts to get this partially or fully overturned, or at the very least some guidance from the AG (which frankly isn't enough.) I agree that getting the GOP the senate majority is a huge priority, especially with the lower Fed court packing that the regime has been doing (see DC circuity, for example). However, we really could've used a couple of ad buys here in WA, pointing out the lies/deceptions of the pro-594 ads, and showing widespread LE support for no-on-594. We need to get organized now, and be ready for 2016 to fight with or without NRAs help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 8:07:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Link? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 8:24:28 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's posted on their facebook wall yesterday, don't know how to link to it. Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". OK, so no more trips there then... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 9:36:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's time to break the state into two (not at the mountains tho). Just make king County it's own and leave the rest of the state alone. How about I-599 - Liberal Reduction Zone. All of Pugetropolis needs to secede. King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston and Kitsap counties all voted yes on 594. (I quit searching after those five county results were confirmed.) 
ETA: 11 of 12 counties on Puget Sound voted yes on I-594. Mason Co. was the 1 that voted no. Mostly the same demographic that keeps Murry and Cantwell in the Senate and sent Obama to the White House twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 10:12:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK, so no more trips there then... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". OK, so no more trips there then... " First off, don't fall into doom and gloom. It's not a good law, but frankly it will have more affect on current non-gun owning folks than gun owning folks." "Next, please don't flaunt the law. The law is what the law is. We will be adding a section related to I-594 in our Self-Defense Law class (starting back up in January) to fully apprise you of how to live lawfully under I-594." "The bottom line is that we are the law abiding community, and we need to have faith in our democratic system that some of the more draconian parts of I-594 will be adjusted over time through good legislation." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 10:30:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of Pugetroplis needs to secede. King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston and Kitsap counties all voted yes on 594. (I quit searching after those five county results were confirmed.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's time to break the state into two (not at the mountains tho). Just make king County it's own and leave the rest of the state alone. How about I-599 - Liberal Reduction Zone. All of Pugetroplis needs to secede. King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston and Kitsap counties all voted yes on 594. (I quit searching after those five county results were confirmed.) With the exception of King, I'd like to just believe they were simply uninformed and duped, but with the failing of even 591, I just have no hope :( It's depressing. How much worse will it get (not just talking gun rights) in the next 5-10 years or will the tide change? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 10:33:01 PM EDT
[#17]
360-664-6616 is apparently the firearm desk at the WA DOL in Olympia. A Gal was refered there for 594 questions.
So, you know, in your spare time if you have scenario's you want to run by "an expert".  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 10:57:31 PM EDT
[#18]
the NRA had better be working on a strategy to defeat these initiatives. the NRA doesn't have enough money to fight all these state initiatives head on.
the only realistic defense against these initiatives is to have the NRA lobby for some federal laws in our favor. with the fully red congress, this is now much more feasible. sadly it will take some time to reverse the damage from 594. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 10:59:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the NRA had better be working on a strategy to defeat these initiatives. the NRA doesn't have enough money to fight all these state initiatives head on. the only realistic defense against these initiatives is to have the NRA lobby for some federal laws in our favor. with the fully red congress, this is now much more feasible. sadly it will take some time to reverse the damage from 594. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 11:15:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL here's some highlights "First off, don't fall into doom and gloom. It's not a good law, but frankly it will have more affect on current non-gun owning folks than gun owning folks." "Next, please don't flaunt the law. The law is what the law is. We will be adding a section related to I-594 in our Self-Defense Law class (starting back up in January) to fully apprise you of how to live lawfully under I-594." "The bottom line is that we are the law abiding community, and we need to have faith in our democratic system that some of the more draconian parts of I-594 will be adjusted over time through good legislation." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 11:18:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LOL here's some highlights "First off, don't fall into doom and gloom. It's not a good law, but frankly it will have more affect on current non-gun owning folks than gun owning folks." "Next, please don't flaunt the law. The law is what the law is. We will be adding a section related to I-594 in our Self-Defense Law class (starting back up in January) to fully apprise you of how to live lawfully under I-594." "The bottom line is that we are the law abiding community, and we need to have faith in our democratic system that some of the more draconian parts of I-594 will be adjusted over time through good legislation." http://thumbs.newschoolers.com/index.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmofilia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Frobertdjr.jpg&size=400x1000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 11:31:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:A GOP majority will keep the president from succeeding in appointing a radical left Justice to the Supreme Court.... flush the head gear out new guy, the GOP sells the country down the river on SCOTUS nominations ALL the time. Ginsberg was approved 96-3. Breyer 87-9. With Sonya Sodomizer the party did show SOME backbone, it was 68-31 in that one, with 9 repubs voting to approve her. IMO, that vote was calculated by leadership, and designed to convince people that the party "fought the good fight". Kagan was 63-37. While I agree that the numbers appear better more recently, I doubt it will matter. The dems will have 45-ish votes, and any Obama nominee will get 100% of them. Throw in the 'usual suspects' from the GOP...McCain, Graham, Snow, etc. and they'll get over 50 for any Obama nominee, no matter how radical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/6/2014 11:43:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Damn. And I used to shoot IDPA at Norpoint.
What a bag of dicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 12:19:33 AM EDT
[#24]
So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back.
Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 12:22:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's posted on their facebook wall yesterday, don't know how to link to it. Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". Vote no on 594.......Oh, it passed? Come on down to our newly opened transfer desk where we'll charge for each transfer and try to hard sell you on our overpriced wares. Need some Lancer magazines? Only 29.99 per mag. Limit 6 per customer with coupon from your transfer receipt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 12:23:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back. Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 8:47:10 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We need to start a thread/list of the local shops that have said shit like this. Vote no on 594.......Oh, it passed? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". Vote no on 594.......Oh, it passed? Come on down to our newly opened transfer desk where we'll charge for each transfer and try to hard sell you on our overpriced wares. Need some Lancer magazines? Only 29.99 per mag. Limit 6 per customer with coupon from your transfer receipt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 10:14:05 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea, it would be nice to get a running tally on those that capitalize, who stays neutral, and who helps actively oppose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". Come on down to our newly opened transfer desk where we'll charge for each transfer and try to hard sell you on our overpriced wares. Need some Lancer magazines? Only 29.99 per mag. Limit 6 per customer with coupon from your transfer receipt. Yea, it would be nice to get a running tally on those that capitalize, who stays neutral, and who helps actively oppose. Second the motion! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 10:23:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back. Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. What do you mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 11:33:46 AM EDT
[#30]
Senator Sheldon told me they are already working on requesting an AG opinion on I-594.
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 3:22:11 PM EDT
[#31]
I am a Florida boy but I lived in Washington State for seven years while working at Hanford. Beautiful state with lots of good people there.
I had a lot of good times shooting and going to the gunshows and trading/buying firearms while living there. I have many good memories. I really feel sorry that the initiative was passed. Those flannel pajama wearing Libtards on the Left side of the Cascades once again showed what idiots they are. This initiative won't do a damn thing to stop any crime. It also opens the door for more stupid ineffective gun regulation. The worse thing about it is that now the people of Washington State have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right guaranteed under the Constitution. That is a major loss of freedom right there. Democracy is a terrible form of government when it infringes on the rights of the people and this is a great example. God bless you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 5:19:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back. Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. What do you mean? He means (according to federal law) you can't buy from a private party that is not a resident of the same state as you and take possession directly. You can buy a long gun from any FFL anywhere in the US and take possession. Otherwise you can only take possession of anything else you purchase outside your state through an FFL in your state. So if you buy a handgun outside your home state, it must be sent to a FFL in your state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 5:37:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Second the motion! Third! I'm down for having a list of gun shops that are kowtowing because they're seeing the dollar signs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 7:00:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He means (according to federal law) you can't buy from a private party that is not a resident of the same state as you and take possession directly. You can buy a long gun from any FFL anywhere in the US and take possession. Otherwise you can only take possession of anything else you purchase outside your state through an FFL in your state. So if you buy a handgun outside your home state, it must be sent to a FFL in your state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back. Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. What do you mean? He means (according to federal law) you can't buy from a private party that is not a resident of the same state as you and take possession directly. You can buy a long gun from any FFL anywhere in the US and take possession. Otherwise you can only take possession of anything else you purchase outside your state through an FFL in your state. So if you buy a handgun outside your home state, it must be sent to a FFL in your state. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that for long guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 7:52:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that for long guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back. Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. What do you mean? He means (according to federal law) you can't buy from a private party that is not a resident of the same state as you and take possession directly. You can buy a long gun from any FFL anywhere in the US and take possession. Otherwise you can only take possession of anything else you purchase outside your state through an FFL in your state. So if you buy a handgun outside your home state, it must be sent to a FFL in your state. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that for long guns. You're welcome. I should add, that naturally, there are exceptions - for example if you're in the military you are a resident of where you are stationed, in addition to a resident of your home address, and so could live in WA but be stationed in AZ and buy from private parties in AZ (no FFL involved). Or you could inherit a firearm from a death anywhere in the US, and go pick it up and bring it home again with no FFL involved. There's probably more exceptions, I'm just an amateur reader of laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 9:15:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Senator Sheldon told me they are already working on requesting an AG opinion on I-594. Randy what questions are they asking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 10:37:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So I suppose an end around for border people (for long guns only probably) would be to go to Oregon or Idaho, transfer or sell then come back. Pure spitballing ideas there. Same as if I go to a gunshow in AZ, buy from a private seller, and then come home. except that's not supposed to happen if you're a WA state resident. Yep, you trip over federal law there.... By buying in a state you are not a resident of, you engage in 'interstate commerce' and the 68 GCA applies. FFL & background check required... 6-1/12-other as to which one is more likely to get you busted (if either)... The only loophole left, is an 80% receiver build. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2014 11:22:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
what questions are they asking? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Senator Sheldon told me they are already working on requesting an AG opinion on I-594. Randy what questions are they asking? "Who the FRACK wrote THIS abortion of a law!?!?!?!?!?" (But in a professional way...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 2:33:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Come on down to our newly opened transfer desk where we'll charge for each transfer and try to hard sell you on our overpriced wares. Need some Lancer magazines? Only 29.99 per mag. Limit 6 per customer with coupon from your transfer receipt. Yea, it would be nice to get a running tally on those that capitalize, who stays neutral, and who helps actively oppose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip Norpoints post pissed me off. Link? Basically it was more or less "Just follow the law and be good kids, and make sure you do your transfers at FFL's so you don't get in trouble". Come on down to our newly opened transfer desk where we'll charge for each transfer and try to hard sell you on our overpriced wares. Need some Lancer magazines? Only 29.99 per mag. Limit 6 per customer with coupon from your transfer receipt. Yea, it would be nice to get a running tally on those that capitalize, who stays neutral, and who helps actively oppose. FFLs need to tread very lightly in this area, and it would be wise for them to publicly say that people should follow the law, because that is what "law-abiding gun owners" do. They certainly should NEVER tell someone to ignore the law, break or bend the law. That puts their FFL in jeopardy. Remember, a condition of having the FFL is that we follow ALL local, state and federal laws with respect to firearms transactions. Now, that is not to say that FFLs can't have an opinion on the law (it's bullshit!), or actively work to get it changed through available legal channels. But an FFL encouraging or participating in any sort of "firearm hand-around" is a very bad idea, and only jeopardizes their entire operation. Yes, the consequences to non-licensee for participating in such an event can be pretty severe (a class c felony is no joke), but an FFL would also likely layer on a few federal felonies too...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 6:17:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FFLs need to tread very lightly in this area, and it would be wise for them to publicly say that people should follow the law, because that is what "law-abiding gun owners" do. They certainly should NEVER tell someone to ignore the law, break or bend the law. That puts their FFL in jeopardy. Remember, a condition of having the FFL is that we follow ALL local, state and federal laws with respect to firearms transactions. Now, that is not to say that FFLs can't have an opinion on the law (it's bullshit!), or actively work to get it changed through available legal channels. But an FFL encouraging or participating in any sort of "firearm hand-around" is a very bad idea, and only jeopardizes their entire operation. Yes, the consequences to non-licensee for participating in such an event can be pretty severe (a class c felony is no joke), but an FFL would also likely layer on a few federal felonies too...... I completely understand. But... Eventually, you gotta sit down in the front of the bus and refuse to move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 6:49:19 AM EDT
[#41]
Meh.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 11:19:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I completely understand. But... Eventually, you gotta sit down in the front of the bus and refuse to move. Where is that like button at? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 12:46:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is that like button at? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I completely understand. But... Eventually, you gotta sit down in the front of the bus and refuse to move. Where is that like button at? I think Scollins' point is that it's for the citizens to do that and not the FFLs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 1:21:45 PM EDT
[#44]
The news coverage always referred to "sales"
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or Gunshows - FFLs have to NICS no matter where they sell (gunshow, shop, kitchen table), and WAC requires it for membership and requires WAC membership to buy or sell. The word transfer was never uttered in the ads, yet is makes up the bulk of the legislation. Sheep can be manipulated by emotional pleas very easily. My wife just ran in to one this evening (a Millennial girl of course) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to hear this guys. I read the OP's post and it just kills me how they falsely lead people to believe that online sales don't require a background check. Or Gunshows - FFLs have to NICS no matter where they sell (gunshow, shop, kitchen table), and WAC requires it for membership and requires WAC membership to buy or sell. The word transfer was never uttered in the ads, yet is makes up the bulk of the legislation. Sheep can be manipulated by emotional pleas very easily. My wife just ran in to one this evening (a Millennial girl of course) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 2:15:55 PM EDT
[#45]
K
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The news coverage always referred to "sales" Quote HistoryQuoted:
The news coverage always referred to "sales" Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to hear this guys. I read the OP's post and it just kills me how they falsely lead people to believe that online sales don't require a background check. Or Gunshows - FFLs have to NICS no matter where they sell (gunshow, shop, kitchen table), and WAC requires it for membership and requires WAC membership to buy or sell. The word transfer was never uttered in the ads, yet is makes up the bulk of the legislation. Sheep can be manipulated by emotional pleas very easily. My wife just ran in to one this evening (a Millennial girl of course) Willing co-conspirators |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2014 5:43:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think Scollins' point is that it's for the citizens to do that and not the FFLs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I completely understand. But... Eventually, you gotta sit down in the front of the bus and refuse to move. Where is that like button at? I think Scollins' point is that it's for the citizens to do that and not the FFLs. No, I'm saying FFLs need to consider that they might be held accountable for ADDITIONAL FEDERAL violations that non-licensees wouldn't be. Everyone is risking arrest and charges at these rallies, but the scope and breadth of those charges could be much higher for an FFL should the federal government decide to make an example of them. And this administration has repeatedly shown a willingness to go after groups they feel are easy targets and don't share their same viewpoints, so the likelihood that the BATFE would more aggressively enforce regulations against FFLs is higher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 1:37:43 PM EDT
[#47]
hey washington people......
i grew up in spokane and moved out in '86 after high school and dont have much contact with people i grew up with that still live there, what are the local sheriffs saying about this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 2:35:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Well before the election they were over 2/3 in the against 594, pro 591 camp... Haven't really heard much new...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 3:45:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am a Florida boy but I lived in Washington State for seven years while working at Hanford. Beautiful state with lots of good people there. I had a lot of good times shooting and going to the gunshows and trading/buying firearms while living there. I have many good memories. I really feel sorry that the initiative was passed. Those flannel pajama wearing Libtards on the Left side of the Cascades once again showed what idiots they are. This initiative won't do a damn thing to stop any crime. It also opens the door for more stupid ineffective gun regulation. The worse thing about it is that now the people of Washington State have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right guaranteed under the Constitution. That is a major loss of freedom right there. Democracy is a terrible form of government when it infringes on the rights of the people and this is a great example. God bless you.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2014 4:47:11 PM EDT
[#50]
So riddle me this, I saw an article in the Seattle Times where they are saying that 1315 is garnering more votes as ballots are being counted, why isn't the numbers on 591/594 changing than???
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
