User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/11/2015 11:12:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good luck with living that ideal. But Bill Gates Drinks Poop Water http://gawker.com/bill-gates-drinks-poop-water-1677884677 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:I hope Washington gun owners will review this list and consider it every time they are thinking about buying a product from Microsoft, Costco, or Amazon. Good luck with living that ideal. But Bill Gates Drinks Poop Water http://gawker.com/bill-gates-drinks-poop-water-1677884677 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2015 11:30:51 PM EDT
[#2]
I haven't seen any statistics from the WAC about how many checks they've been doing, but I've done a grand total of 3. THREE. Well, you might call it 4, since I received an out-of-state shipment from an individual, and I logged it in on my "private party transfer" book since I'm not required to collect the Use Tax. But I don't count that one because it wasn't a change in process required by I-594.....
Of the three, two were pretty smooth but the last one was a bit of trainwreck. Seller couldn't keep to a schedule (showed up 2.5 hours late), so it almost killed the whole deal. If I wasn't trying to earn future NFA business from the buyer, I wouldn't have made this particular deal work out in the end..... I've talked with a few shops, and they aren't doing them at all. So either the compliance rate is damn near zero, or their simply aren't that many transactions actually happening out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 3:35:03 AM EDT
[#3]
I did one sorta. I had a shotgun for sale that was personally owned and transfered it at a friends shop instead of through my own ffl. The guy was further away and I was gonna be down south over the weekend anyways. I haven't done any for customers and haven't had any requests, not that I want to do them, and definitely shouldn't have to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2015 4:45:14 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NRA doesn't have 15 million to fight state issues. They are a national organization with state affiliates. It's the state groups that are supposed to focus on state issues. the NATIONAL Rifle Association itself actually can't legally do anything, which is why they have the ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, which focuses on NATIONAL issues. A sweeping wave of initiative based legislative action (that they were very open about mind you) seems like a pretty pressing national concern to me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2015 4:10:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A sweeping wave of initiative based legislative action (that they were very open about mind you) seems like a pretty pressing national concern to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The NRA doesn't have 15 million to fight state issues. They are a national organization with state affiliates. It's the state groups that are supposed to focus on state issues. the NATIONAL Rifle Association itself actually can't legally do anything, which is why they have the ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, which focuses on NATIONAL issues. A sweeping wave of initiative based legislative action (that they were very open about mind you) seems like a pretty pressing national concern to me. How much money should the NRA have thrown at 594? WAGR spent-$10,398,916.03 Everytown spent-$923,540.07 Open secrets says for the NRA -Grand Total Spent on 2014 Federal Elections: $27,998,636 I don't have a ready source for state level spending. $8,278,879 spent supporting 27 candidates who won $13,278,103 spent opposing 20 candidates who lost $25,126,399 total spent in general election on 67 candidates Success rate:by candidate: 70.1% by money: 85.8% |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2015 6:20:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much money should the NRA have thrown at 594? WAGR spent-$10,398,916.03 Everytown spent-$923,540.07 Open secrets says for the NRA -Grand Total Spent on 2014 Federal Elections: $27,998,636 I don't have a ready source for state level spending. $8,278,879 spent supporting 27 candidates who won $13,278,103 spent opposing 20 candidates who lost $25,126,399 total spent in general election on 67 candidates Success rate:by candidate: 70.1% by money: 85.8% Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The NRA doesn't have 15 million to fight state issues. They are a national organization with state affiliates. It's the state groups that are supposed to focus on state issues. the NATIONAL Rifle Association itself actually can't legally do anything, which is why they have the ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, which focuses on NATIONAL issues. A sweeping wave of initiative based legislative action (that they were very open about mind you) seems like a pretty pressing national concern to me.
How much money should the NRA have thrown at 594? WAGR spent-$10,398,916.03 Everytown spent-$923,540.07 Open secrets says for the NRA -Grand Total Spent on 2014 Federal Elections: $27,998,636 I don't have a ready source for state level spending. $8,278,879 spent supporting 27 candidates who won $13,278,103 spent opposing 20 candidates who lost $25,126,399 total spent in general election on 67 candidates Success rate:by candidate: 70.1% by money: 85.8% How many times does this question need to be answered? It wasn't WHAT the NRA spent, it was HOW they spent it. The NRA claims to have spent around $500k in WA. For that money, I saw nothing in any TV, radio or print media. No anti-594 ads. None. Advertisements are what actually get into the heads of the average undecided voter - not lobbyists, bumper stickers, or lawn signs. Some people claim to have seen anti-594 ads on FOX News and on the NRA Youtube channel. In other words, preaching to the choir. Meanwhile the pro-594 camp had a commercial on every single commercial break on major local TV & radio stations, and in every local print/online news media. So the NRA spent millions in other states? Great. Out of $25 mil spent on a general election, WA allegedly received $500k and got basically nothing useful out of it. The money was wasted in whatever the NRA spent it on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2015 11:04:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much money should the NRA have thrown at 594? WAGR spent-$10,398,916.03 Everytown spent-$923,540.07 Open secrets says for the NRA -Grand Total Spent on 2014 Federal Elections: $27,998,636 I don't have a ready source for state level spending. $8,278,879 spent supporting 27 candidates who won $13,278,103 spent opposing 20 candidates who lost $25,126,399 total spent in general election on 67 candidates Success rate:by candidate: 70.1% by money: 85.8% Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The NRA doesn't have 15 million to fight state issues. They are a national organization with state affiliates. It's the state groups that are supposed to focus on state issues. the NATIONAL Rifle Association itself actually can't legally do anything, which is why they have the ILA, Institute for Legislative Action, which focuses on NATIONAL issues. A sweeping wave of initiative based legislative action (that they were very open about mind you) seems like a pretty pressing national concern to me.
How much money should the NRA have thrown at 594? WAGR spent-$10,398,916.03 Everytown spent-$923,540.07 Open secrets says for the NRA -Grand Total Spent on 2014 Federal Elections: $27,998,636 I don't have a ready source for state level spending. $8,278,879 spent supporting 27 candidates who won $13,278,103 spent opposing 20 candidates who lost $25,126,399 total spent in general election on 67 candidates Success rate:by candidate: 70.1% by money: 85.8% To be honest I wouldn't be bitching quite as much had there been even one anti-594 tv ad, but they couldn't be bothered and dodged all my correspondence asking about it.. Which is odd cause they spent millions on fighting trigger locks in the late 90's on tv ads, radio ads, etc. Then there's the fact they didn't even endorse 591. They're endorsements and political clout carry more weight than their contributions which are peanuts to a lot of major candidates, and a lot of that money was also spent on candidates who were already locks for election IIRC or were favored to have positive outcomes. The youtube ad they produced had something like 11-12,000 views during the elections. TOTAL. Most of them probably from gun owners too judging by how social media works. That's a pretty pathetic effort. Having both houses doesn't mean shit if they just ram stuff down our throat by bypassing the legislative process. When there's an immediate threat you should act on it. Obviously the blame doesn't fall on the NRA, but I do think we should hold them accountable for their apathetic behavior. As a 10+ year contributing member and gun owner I'm extremely disappointed in the effort I saw, and it makes me less inclined to donate in the future. Lots of things went wrong. We did a horrible job of spreading our message, and we also need much stronger and better organized state organizations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2015 8:54:50 PM EDT
[#8]
You may need to be a member to read it, but an FFL over on Waguns is saying that UPS has seized a customer's rifle, which was being shipped back to Ruger for warranty repairs. UPS turned over the rifle to King co. Sheriff dept, now both parties are apparently claiming to have no idea where the rifle actually is.
Previously, UPS stated that 594 would not change their policies. Customers have always been able to ship a firearm to manufacturers AFAIK. The customer had an RA label. http://waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=51200&start=15 So, this just in.
Data as currently known: New AR556 from ruger. User has issues. Calls Ruger. Gets call tag from Ruger to send it in. Sends it in UPS. Package hits Redmond. Carrier intercepts and delivers to the "King County". Person Calls (IMPORTANT CHANGE HERE) King Co SD, says they are now going to face charges under i594 if this is true. King Co SD will not release firearm. UPS puts a hold on it. The exception notes say "Held for King County" Now the firearm is not being tracked, and can not be located and was signed out by "king county". Second follow up calls to King Co SD say "We have nothing. The previous person did not understand the prior question. We do not generally release firearms in anything other than face to face pickup." King County is not what seems to be at fault. It seems to be UPS playing police. Will update as I get more information. Updated. Updated OP. This is flat on UPS, and not the police at this time.
An employee/supervisor seems to have flagged the package for some sort of check. The person at UPS did not specify WHY it was flagged and held. However it was held in the Redmond transfer station for a minimum of 2 days. Tracking info is no longer updating for the package. No one knows where the gun is, after the hold was placed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 12:49:02 AM EDT
[#9]
A few days ago the DOL sent out an email with a survey link for the Application to Transfer pistol process and their online option. It has actually prompted a few FFLs to reply to the "list" with their comments, all of which have been "don't put the burden on us FFLs to enter data into your ILLEGAL registration database." But one reply caught my attention, which got me thinking about the following.....
RCW 9.41.113 says: (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. Here's the thing, federal law specifically exempts those with a Washington Concealed Pistol License issued after 7/22/2011 from needing a NICS background check on firearms transfers. BAM!!!! But, I'm not a lawyer, and it seems that RCW 9.41.090 conflicts with RCW 9.41.113 with regards to handguns. At the least, it should mean those with CPLs won't have to have a NICS check for long guns, suppressors, SBRs or anything that gets classified as an "other" on the form. But handguns will likely still need it due to conflicting language in the two RCW sections. In reality, just another example of how the initiative passing has created contradictory law within the same chapter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 1:12:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Sic the ATF on the Hub... They don't like when Carriers lose guns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 3:26:15 AM EDT
[#11]
probably stolen by a UPS employee.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 7:36:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're way behind the information curve on the 594 money. This is just the top 45 cash contributions EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $1,000,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $1,000,000.00 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $650,000.00 ALLEN PAUL $500,000.00 GATES MELINDA $500,000.00 GATES WILLIAM III $500,000.00 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $360,000.00 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $300,000.00 BLOOMBERG MICHAEL $285,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $165,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $150,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $100,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $70,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $50,000.00 HANAUER LENORE M. $50,000.00 HANAUER LENORE M. $50,000.00 HANAUER NICK $50,000.00 SHIRLEY JON $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS $30,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $25,000.00 BARTON FAMILY TRUST $25,000.00 BELLEW DONNA $25,000.00 BELLEW MATTHEW $25,000.00 CAMPION THOMAS AND SONYA $25,000.00 CLAPP WILLIAM H. $25,000.00 GATES MELINDA $25,000.00 GATES WILLIAM III $25,000.00 LARSON CHRISTOPHER R. $25,000.00 LARSON CHRISTOPHER R. $25,000.00 LARSON CHRISTOPHER R. $25,000.00 Are there no pro gun billionaires? Only anti gun billionaires? Why don't pro gun multi-millionaires and billionaires donate money to SAF, GOA, etc.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 8:44:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are there no pro gun billionaires? Only anti gun billionaires? Why don't pro gun multi-millionaires and billionaires donate money to SAF, GOA, etc.? probably could count them on one hand if there are any. that sort of wealth represents a massive coalescence of power into one individual or a small group firearms represent a distribution of power to all individuals, sort of diametrically opposed really |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:19:38 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
probably could count them on one hand if there are any. that sort of wealth represents a massive coalescence of power into one individual or a small group firearms represent a distribution of power to all individuals, sort of diametrically opposed really Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are there no pro gun billionaires? Only anti gun billionaires? Why don't pro gun multi-millionaires and billionaires donate money to SAF, GOA, etc.? probably could count them on one hand if there are any. that sort of wealth represents a massive coalescence of power into one individual or a small group firearms represent a distribution of power to all individuals, sort of diametrically opposed really Just like the liberal domination of the entertainment industry, conservatives remain quiet so they can continue to work or they are mega stars. Same in business. They want to be invited to the "right" parties and continue networking to build their empires. The libs love to play whack-a-mole with anyone with a contrary opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 2:58:55 PM EDT
[#15]
State reps are working on exemptions for 594.. Unfortunately they are, as one might expect, targeted only at LEO/military/corrections.
I voiced a complaint about CPL holders not being considered for an exemption, considering the extensive background checks and fingerprinting required to obtain a CPL. While I received a response from Jan Angel stating that she's doing what she can to chip away at 594, she did not respond to this specific complaint. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-lawmakers-mull-changes-to-gun-background-check-law-291266091.html?mobile=y You can leave comments or contact your reps at the SB 5615 page here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5615&year=2015 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:14:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Ugh, those exemptions are lame. I pointed out they need to add licensed security guards as well. And that they should add CPL holders but I'm not holding my breath on that one. That would make it much less onerous, but it is still crap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 3:58:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Both sides probably want to get an LEO exemption on there to get brownie points, with their own unique reasons for doing so. Even the pro-594 groups would probably be wise to do it, so that LE unions and advocacy groups are less likely to be actively fighting on our side against 594, since they will have their slice of the pie carved out for them.
Attempting to add the "unwashed masses" of CPL holders would probably kill the bill, even if it's a completely reasonable thing to do. Why? Because it would invalidate 594 for a huge chunk of the gun owning population, and 594's supporters know this. They would fight this bill tooth and nail. CPL holders receive exceptional scrutiny and deserve an exemption from the awful wreck that is 594, which needless to say should be tossed out in its entirety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 2:55:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are there no pro gun billionaires? Only anti gun billionaires? Why don't pro gun multi-millionaires and billionaires donate money to SAF, GOA, etc.? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're way behind the information curve on the 594 money. This is just the top 45 cash contributions EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $1,000,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $1,000,000.00 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $650,000.00 ALLEN PAUL $500,000.00 GATES MELINDA $500,000.00 GATES WILLIAM III $500,000.00 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $360,000.00 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY ACTION FUND $300,000.00 BLOOMBERG MICHAEL $285,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $165,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $150,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 BALLMER STEVEN $125,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $100,000.00 HANAUER NICOLAS $70,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $50,000.00 HANAUER LENORE M. $50,000.00 HANAUER LENORE M. $50,000.00 HANAUER NICK $50,000.00 SHIRLEY JON $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 WYCKOFF ANN P. $50,000.00 MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS $30,000.00 BALLMER CONNIE $25,000.00 BARTON FAMILY TRUST $25,000.00 BELLEW DONNA $25,000.00 BELLEW MATTHEW $25,000.00 CAMPION THOMAS AND SONYA $25,000.00 CLAPP WILLIAM H. $25,000.00 GATES MELINDA $25,000.00 GATES WILLIAM III $25,000.00 LARSON CHRISTOPHER R. $25,000.00 LARSON CHRISTOPHER R. $25,000.00 LARSON CHRISTOPHER R. $25,000.00 Are there no pro gun billionaires? Only anti gun billionaires? Why don't pro gun multi-millionaires and billionaires donate money to SAF, GOA, etc.? Let's start calling them what they really are....Oligarchs, not billionaire's, which is a nice term for Oligarch here in America and the West. These assholes have bought off the system for years, then write hand-wringing puff pieces like that Hanauer douche saying how "worried" he is us little people are going to revolt and they he and his ilk should do more (most of you have probably read it last summer). Same guy who doesn't believe we should have guns has private security armed with full-auto and calls the mayor and police chief on their personal cell phones to yell at them because cops caused a disturbance down the street when they busted someone. And most people think this guy and Bill and Warren and all these other douche-bags are one of them. These people LOVE guns, just not with the regular unwashed masses. They all know history and that angry armed mobs are bad for their health. They are united and they lie cheat and steal to take them away from us.... Ok rant done |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 2:35:13 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few days ago the DOL sent out an email with a survey link for the Application to Transfer pistol process and their online option. It has actually prompted a few FFLs to reply to the "list" with their comments, all of which have been "don't put the burden on us FFLs to enter data into your ILLEGAL registration database." But one reply caught my attention, which got me thinking about the following..... RCW 9.41.113 says: Here's the thing, federal law specifically exempts those with a Washington Concealed Pistol License issued after 7/22/2011 from needing a NICS background check on firearms transfers. BAM!!!! But, I'm not a lawyer, and it seems that RCW 9.41.090 conflicts with RCW 9.41.113 with regards to handguns. At the least, it should mean those with CPLs won't have to have a NICS check for long guns, suppressors, SBRs or anything that gets classified as an "other" on the form. But handguns will likely still need it due to conflicting language in the two RCW sections. In reality, just another example of how the initiative passing has created contradictory law within the same chapter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few days ago the DOL sent out an email with a survey link for the Application to Transfer pistol process and their online option. It has actually prompted a few FFLs to reply to the "list" with their comments, all of which have been "don't put the burden on us FFLs to enter data into your ILLEGAL registration database." But one reply caught my attention, which got me thinking about the following..... RCW 9.41.113 says: (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. Here's the thing, federal law specifically exempts those with a Washington Concealed Pistol License issued after 7/22/2011 from needing a NICS background check on firearms transfers. BAM!!!! But, I'm not a lawyer, and it seems that RCW 9.41.090 conflicts with RCW 9.41.113 with regards to handguns. At the least, it should mean those with CPLs won't have to have a NICS check for long guns, suppressors, SBRs or anything that gets classified as an "other" on the form. But handguns will likely still need it due to conflicting language in the two RCW sections. In reality, just another example of how the initiative passing has created contradictory law within the same chapter. There's a long thread on this on NW Firearms. Basically the post 2011 NICS exemption for CPL holders doesn't apply because WA law has to be adjusted to allow for this exemption, and no bill has been successful to do this. You can see the unsuccessful bill from 2013 at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1839.pdf and a WA backgrounder at http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1839%20HBA%20JUDI%2013.pdf There is an ATF letter on the topic at https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/08/081211-open-lettter-to-washington-ffls.pdf I doubt we will see any progress on this soon, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 3:22:39 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's a long thread on this on NW Firearms. Basically the post 2011 NICS exemption for CPL holders doesn't apply because WA law has to be adjusted to allow for this exemption, and no bill has been successful to do this. You can see the unsuccessful bill from 2013 at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1839.pdf and a WA backgrounder at http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1839%20HBA%20JUDI%2013.pdf There is an ATF letter on the topic at https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/08/081211-open-lettter-to-washington-ffls.pdf I doubt we will see any progress on this soon, unfortunately. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A few days ago the DOL sent out an email with a survey link for the Application to Transfer pistol process and their online option. It has actually prompted a few FFLs to reply to the "list" with their comments, all of which have been "don't put the burden on us FFLs to enter data into your ILLEGAL registration database." But one reply caught my attention, which got me thinking about the following..... RCW 9.41.113 says: (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. Here's the thing, federal law specifically exempts those with a Washington Concealed Pistol License issued after 7/22/2011 from needing a NICS background check on firearms transfers. BAM!!!! But, I'm not a lawyer, and it seems that RCW 9.41.090 conflicts with RCW 9.41.113 with regards to handguns. At the least, it should mean those with CPLs won't have to have a NICS check for long guns, suppressors, SBRs or anything that gets classified as an "other" on the form. But handguns will likely still need it due to conflicting language in the two RCW sections. In reality, just another example of how the initiative passing has created contradictory law within the same chapter. There's a long thread on this on NW Firearms. Basically the post 2011 NICS exemption for CPL holders doesn't apply because WA law has to be adjusted to allow for this exemption, and no bill has been successful to do this. You can see the unsuccessful bill from 2013 at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1839.pdf and a WA backgrounder at http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1839%20HBA%20JUDI%2013.pdf There is an ATF letter on the topic at https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/08/081211-open-lettter-to-washington-ffls.pdf I doubt we will see any progress on this soon, unfortunately. But I'd like to provide a counterpoint to that argument. Who said that State Law still requires the background check, regardless of what the ATF and FBI say regarding CPL exemption? Mr. Tanaka from the Department of Licensing Firearms Section!!!!! That's who sent me the letter stating as such. The same section that now says "they don't provide legal advice or interpretation of the RCWs". So it would seem that we need an actual AG opinion on the matter, NOT the determination of a department director who has since stated their only function is to maintain paperwork..... Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmmm......" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2015 9:24:28 PM EDT
[#21]
The status quo, how do you maintain it, that is the question they are hopefully struggling with
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2015 2:38:20 AM EDT
[#22]
Apparently there is a mechanism for the legislature to send an initiative back to the people with modifications, it only requires a simple majority. They are thinking to use it to send 1351 back with funding attached to watch it crash and burn.
What nobody has brought up yet because they only just 'discovered' this power, is that they could send 594 back with modifications and funding for the DOL recording work that they're a year behind on, and maybe it wouldn't pass again either. They could get an explicit cpl exemption in that way... It won't happen because there isn't enough out cry over it, but it would be nice. |
|
|
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.
