I'll bring an 1894 Mauser.

LOL I wouldn't bring anything I would not want to rot in an evidence locker.





 

What if one put all their guns in a trust?  The trust isn't a person.  Could one then shoot with friends and avoid felonies?

The idiocy of the pro-594 people is just insane, the King5 Facebook report on it passing makes it evident.

I'd be down for a hi-point purchase...I mean glock fo-tay

Might as well get the .45, fo' fifth the truth son!*
*actual comment from a customer at the Everett DGS store I worked at. **
**Tried to up sell him on an HK MK23...  it was HILARIOUS!  



 

I'm surprised your brain hasn't imploded

LOL wasn't there very long, and didn't work the stores much, was CRSO of the range for about 8 months before they started pushing me to the stores.





Half the thug wanna be's that came into Everett and actually made purchases were Navy dudes who'd drop the act like a hot rock as soon as I mentioned being prior service and seeing their ID.



 

This is part of the problem. People not educating themselves on the issues. In my opinion if someone did not vote they have no right to complain.

FUCKING Fascists and Marxists won the day!

Looks like Washington state is now 'behind enemy lines'. Up to this point this liberal state has mostly remained hands-off where law-abiding gun owners are concerned. With the passing of Initiative 594 this is no longer the case.

I wish that I were surprised by the outcome of this vote but I'm not. I've been party to way too many discussions, online and in person, where people insist on parroting the misleading information disseminated through mainstream media, news publications, and various sources online summarizing the initiative as 'a "common sense measure" to help reduce gun violence' or 'a means by which to "close the gun show loophole" for gun sale background checks'. When presented with detailed information (read: the entirety of the initiatives text and the RCW it references to define 'family members') some naively state that they don't believe that the state has any intention of actually charging and prosecuting law abiding gun owners for any of the many now legal transfers that would become illegal by definition should the initiative pass. Others seem to have trouble wrapping their brain around the legal difference between transfer and sale as defined in I-594 and default back to 'background checks for all gun "sales. ", regardless of the very clear definition of the word transfer provided within the initiatives text. The folks that leave me scratching my head are those who speak confidently from a completely uninformed standpoint. These folks are armed only with what they see on TV,  hear on the radio, and read in publications - the vast majority of which present information with a bias and in oversimplified soundbites. Nonetheless they will claim to be fully informed while showing no comprehension for the initiatives text and it's potential real-world impact. Most of these folks will freely admit not having read the entire initiative.

The thing that gets me here is that most of these folks hold jobs that require training or higher education and some measure of continued education, be it through documentation, classes, seminar, or on the job training. This requires one be able to comprehend the provided information and put it to practical use. Worse still a fair number of these folks are themselves gun owners (mostly hunters). None of these folks seem to comprehend that their chosen ignorance, blind faith, and laziness regarding their responsibility as a voting citizen may well have far-reaching impact on their own civil liberties (nevermind the potential impact to their childrens liberties).

I've always found it difficult to comprehend how otherwise intelligent people are easily led to believe that placing restrictions on law abiding citizens will somehow reduce crime. For that matter it's difficult to comprehend the idea that passing new laws will somehow help resolve a perceived issue not currently addressed by existing but unenforced related laws.

The intent behind Initiative 594 is certainly not lost on me and I voted accordingly. Even if the intent were not disingenuous (and unconstitutional besides) I cannot understand why anyone would vote for an initiative they haven't read, nor do I understand why anyone would ever be willing to compromise their own liberties for any reason. If one Constitutionally protected liberty is deemed by the people to be negotiable or expendable the state will eventually justify compromising other protected liberties.

The good news for today, of course, is that the GOP now holds a majority in the House and in the Senate. Let's hope something positive follows at the federal level. Time will tell. This won't have any positive impact on I-594 of course but it's great news nonetheless.

In the meantime I'll be in regular contact with the NRA-ILA inquiring about the possibility of legally challenging I-594 (one can hope).

Wow WA.  I thought for sure this kind of nonsense that's obviously been a big joke in CO/CT etc would have failed.

On the ballot it said "Closes a loop hole in transfers at gun shows....." if you were not a gun person you would just vote for it because the wording did not indicate transfers include any type of possession.  So right now as its written (and i have read it a few times to nite) looks like I cant teach anyone to shoot, have some one test a load with my rifle or have it at there house overnight if I go to the hospital.  
I used to pity people in Cali and other ban states, now I am one of them.

That's precisely how it passed so handily. Even the voters pamphlet downplayed the transfer requirements and restrictions where it listed the oppositions counterpoint. The big money behind the initiative (Bloomberg, Gates, Allen...) did a remarkable job of keeping the public convinced that I-594 was just a gun show and private firearms 'sale' background check requirement. I know several hunters / gun owners who bought into this lie.

Given the specified requirement that all firearms transfers be reported to the WA Depot. Of Licensing where records are required to be kept, I have purchased my last firearm here (I'm in no need of another firearms so this won't put me out at all). I won't have my name voluntarily added to state gun owner regisyry

1) they fully trust their government
2) or they're lazy/complacent and would rather #1

And the sheep, easily swayed by emotional arguments that only tell half the story.

When does this go into effect?

so are ya'll fucked or what? sorry I'm a curious ignorant out of stater

I've lived here for 27 years, and have watched the Liberals take over. This is the last straw, I plan on retiring in the next ten years.
I will leave skid marks on my way out of this place.

This-------^

I have a crappy .380 I would donate to this cause.

Seeing people saying they will leave makes me . It would be nice to flood the state with gun owners and push our own initiatives through. When we were done, move on to the next state and do the same thing.

We never had a chance with this one, the BASIC wording was just too good. So now we loose private "transfers" after gaining the use of our silencers and can legally own SBRs. Interesting times in WA

Outside money coming in messing with our state

What's next Bloomberg?  A 16oz soda limit?

Same here.  The door will not hit me on the way out.

In Washington, initiatives usually become enacted on July 1. Ijust can't decide whether the next 9 months will be a buyers' or sellers' market. But, it WILL be a fucked up place to live.

I voted... I just refused to read the bill I knew I would already be voting against. But now that the impossible has happened....



 

With Commiefornia to the south of us and now the People's Republic of Washington to the north of us, Oregon will inevitably follow the same path of increasing infringements on citizen's rights to keep and bear arms...

That's what I'm fearing, especially considering Dems have a majority in both the OR senate and house along with another round of Kitzhaber.  

I'm pretty damn sure this goes into effect 30 days after certification.  So mid December, just in time for Christmas.

Since "we" still hold the State Senate, MAYBE we can get the actual law modified for clarity (two big swing GOP seats were retained...mine for one with Steve O'Ban keeping his seat after the passing of Mike Carrell).  But not right away.

Rob

Need to push for the legislature to ammend the onerous transfer provisions of this thing.

Dec. 4th (maybe the 5th) of THIS year. Like 30 days.

Been here since shortly after getting out of .mil, been planning on retirement to ID anyway, this ensures it. Four more years-ish.

won't happen without NRA support.

amending within 2 years requires 2/3 majority in both houses. after 2 years its simple majority.

just remember to avoid the 24 states with initiative processes. they're gonna get screwed as well unless the NRA gets involved asap.

Based on reading the exemption section of the bill, it sounded like:
1. You can teach someone under the age of 18 as long as there's adult supervision.

2. You can lend a firearm for hunting as long as the person is able to legal own a firearm, and has hunting licenses and such.

3. Can do a temporary transfer of the firearm to your spouse/partner.  
What the hell is "temporary"??

4.  If you die, the spouse, or family member has 60 days to report they are keeping the firearm whether transferring it or report it to dept of licensing.

5. "(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;"  
This sounds like at a legal shooting range you can let a person use your firearm..  
But it also sounds like if your outdoors in the boonies (and not hunting), you can't let someone use your firearm.  
Am I wrong about this?

FYI I voted against 594.  

Don't give up, keep it a constant part of the conversation.
If the resistance dies down they will assume capitulation and acceptance of the new status quo.

December 14th, 2014

Before 14 December you should make any FTF transfers/sales extremely obvious and public.

Torches and Pitchforks at the transfer rally?

This.

Since the antis loved to trot out the domestic violence angle in their 594 ads,
Here's a scenario for post 594 discussion:

A woman is being targeted, stalked by an exboyfriend.
She doesn't have a CPL so buying a gun incurs a 10 day wait period.
A friend offers to lend her a gun, but now thanks to 594 she incurs that same 10 day wait.
She gets murdered at the 9 day point.
She's dead because 594 imposed itself into what was previously a lawful transfer.

Is there a waiting period on Torches and Pitchforks now too!?

I just thought it would be fitting for us peasants.  



 

In!

This is crucial.

So, if I'm flying out to Texas for a hog hunt, how do I transfer my firearms to the TSA without running afoul of 594?
That transfer happens on the non-sterile State controlled side of the airport.
And upon my return, how do I transfer the firearms back to my custody?

 

Can't do the same for an adult though, unless they are licensed, a spouse, or are at a rifle range where the gun is kept at all times.


The exemption only applies WHILE HUNTING.  This might mean you have to loan the gun and take it back while in the GMU, not the day before or at the beginning and end of the hunting season.


Partly.  The gun has to be kept at the range at all times to make the transfer legal without a bkgd check.

Randy

Remember though…this will only work if all have a CPL.  If not, then you will have to wait the five day waiting period.

Found Here

By my math that'd be December 5th, 2014?