Edited: Washington’s Ballot Initiative 1639 has passed. What now?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If Wa. state doesn't understand that then the people of Wa. state need to take it to a level that their local government understands. Right now looks like a good time test those waters. The Supreme Court is primed and waiting. It's a shame you can't hold individuals responsible for the cost of this effort. Because when you hit someone in their wallet they tend to remember the lesson and it serves as an example to others.
 
more devil int the details...

I've just finished the text of I-1639, as given in the WA voter pamphlet, and there is more "devil" in the details that what we have already been warned about.

For example, say goodbye to picking out any pistol and going home with it that day. Forget worrying about Fed instant system, the proposed law will forbid delivery of a pistol until you produce to the dealer, a valid concealed pistol license, he records the data on it, and then receives IN WRITING a statement from the local chief of police or sheriff in the country the purchaser resides, that you are still eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff.

Got that? In addition to all current laws, in order for a dealer to deliver a pistol, you HAVE to have a concealed pistol license, the dealer has to sent your application to your chief of police or sheriff, and get approval from them IN WRITING before they can deliver to you the pistol.

Another section provides that the state will "verify on a annual or more frequent bases" that everyone who bought a pistol or semiauto assault rifle under the act remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal laws.."

What I get from that is that the state DOL would have to run a background check, annually, or more often, on EVERY PERSON who buys a pistol or semi auto rifle, from the date of the act, on, forever...Who do you think is going to have to pay for that?? Not to mention the ever increasing scope of resources needed. What do you think it will cost in terms of resources if a bit down the road, some "well intentioned" bureaucrat bumps the frequency of the required "verification" to semi annual, or quarterly? or even monthly? For the children!!!

every time someone new buys a pistol or semi auto rifle, a new person is added to the list of people who have to be checked, at what ever interval is set, for the rest of their natural lives. (one would assume that if they ever became prohibited persons the check requirement would end, but I found no language in the initiative stating that.

There are a number of other detestable things in the text, its a bit worse than initially reported.

Don't overlook the sections where all govt "actors" are legally blameless for both wrongful denial and failing to deny to a prohibited person. And the section describing the fact that the monetary cost of the measure cannot be calculated.
 
Well, that’s very bleak.

The people want more than this. It’s a good first step.
I rarely see traffic laws being enforced anymore, with rising crime and population levels... I don’t see where the manpower is coming from.
 
44 AMP said:
I've just finished the text of I-1639, as given in the WA voter pamphlet, and there is more "devil" in the details that what we have already been warned about.

For example, say goodbye to picking out any pistol and going home with it that day. Forget worrying about Fed instant system, the proposed law will forbid delivery of a pistol until you produce to the dealer, a valid concealed pistol license, he records the data on it, and then receives IN WRITING a statement from the local chief of police or sheriff in the country the purchaser resides, that you are still eligible to possess a firearm under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff.

Got that? In addition to all current laws, in order for a dealer to deliver a pistol, you HAVE to have a concealed pistol license, the dealer has to sent your application to your chief of police or sheriff, and get approval from them IN WRITING before they can deliver to you the pistol.

Another section provides that the state will "verify on a annual or more frequent bases" that everyone who bought a pistol or semiauto assault rifle under the act remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal laws.."

What I get from that is that the state DOL would have to run a background check, annually, or more often, on EVERY PERSON who buys a pistol or semi auto rifle, from the date of the act, on, forever...Who do you think is going to have to pay for that?? Not to mention the ever increasing scope of resources needed. What do you think it will cost in terms of resources if a bit down the road, some "well intentioned" bureaucrat bumps the frequency of the required "verification" to semi annual, or quarterly? or even monthly? For the children!!!

every time someone new buys a pistol or semi auto rifle, a new person is added to the list of people who have to be checked, at what ever interval is set, for the rest of their natural lives. (one would assume that if they ever became prohibited persons the check requirement would end, but I found no language in the initiative stating that.

There are a number of other detestable things in the text, its a bit worse than initially reported.

Don't overlook the sections where all govt "actors" are legally blameless for both wrongful denial and failing to deny to a prohibited person. And the section describing the fact that the monetary cost of the measure cannot be calculated.
Click to expand...

Sounds like reasonable, common sense measures. :eek:
 
I think the government is in it deep enough without getting involved more than it is now.

After all, look how much government has screwed thing up already.
Click to expand...
The government creates some really awful problems, but the 'solutions' they implement are often far worse.
 
rickyrick said:
We will find out soon.

Hope this doesn’t turn into a “What Now?” Thread.
Click to expand...



432c442c414b76da786dfe07fcbd61d0.png




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I didn’t see whether or not this covers 80% lowers. If not aren’t we all just gunna bust out ye’ole router and jigs and make our own toys.

Also I see this facing a whole host of legal challenges. Do we see this ending up in front of SCOTUS?
 
I would bet the lawyers are warming up their computers at this time, getting ready to file suits against the measure; that is if they have not already have them sitting and ready to file.
 
44 AMP said:
What I get from that is that the state DOL would have to run a background check, annually, or more often, on EVERY PERSON who buys a pistol or semi auto rifle, from the date of the act, on, forever...Who do you think is going to have to pay for that?? Not to mention the ever increasing scope of resources needed. What do you think it will cost in terms of resources if a bit down the road, some "well intentioned" bureaucrat bumps the frequency of the required "verification" to semi annual, or quarterly? or even monthly?
Click to expand...
Here in Illinois everyone with a FOID card gets a background check every single day.
 
So now any anti-gun police chief or sheriff in Washington can effectively ban the sale of pistols and semi-auto rifles to everyone in their jurisdiction by simply refusing to give permission?
 
Chainsaw. said:
No, where do you get that?
Click to expand...
From the ballot measure.
Sec. 3. ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS. RCW 9.41.090 and 2018 c
201 s 6003 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:

...(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
4
that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW
9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
chief of police or sheriff

...(b) The dealer is notified in writing by (i) the chief of police
or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides
that the purchaser is eligible to possess a firearm under
RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the
chief of police or sheriff;
Click to expand...

There must be written permission from the police chief or sheriff before any pitol or semi-auto rifle is delivered to the purchaser. What if they simply refuse to give permission out of principle? There's a provision for a 30 day hold if the chief or sheriff has "reasonable grounds" based on a few factors which automatically expires, but I see nothing that allows the delivery to be made if the chief or sheriff refuses on other grounds than those enumerated in the initiative, such as they just don't want people buying pistols or semi-auto rifles in their jurisdiction.

Of course I'm no lawyer, that's just the way I'm reading it maybe some other principles are at play.
 
Do you have to register your handguns in your state? In Ny you can only own a handgun if you have a license and before you can pick it up you have to have it added to your permit and it is registered with the sheriff. It’s a pain but the law. I don’t think it does anything to keep guns from the bad guys as they could care less about laws . I wish more experienced and knowledgeable people would be consulted before states try things
 
I didn’t see whether or not this covers 80% lowers. If not aren’t we all just gunna bust out ye’ole router and jigs and make our own toys.
Click to expand...

No, we all aren't.
#1) some of us like other things than build it yourself ARs.
#2) Enjoy fondling your 80% lump of metal. Its not useful for anything but a paperweight. As soon as you turn it into a gun, its a semiautomatic assault weapon under the state law, and you're just as screwed as the rest of us.

You don't get a pass just because you made it yourself. In fact, you MAY be violating the new STATE law just by making it. DO you think, even for a moment that the people who created and support 1639 will let you off the hook just because you didn't violate any FEDERAL law when you router'd out your new toy?

I don't. I see a wonderful opportunity for their side to get a ruling that making a semiautomatic assault weapon is,

A) subject to the same license, tax, storage, background checks, and training requirements as a purchased semiautomatic assault weapon
or
B) a clear case of conspiracy to violate the law. You built it, "only" to avoid those requirement. They don't even need to make an argument about "unlicensed manufacture", (but they probably will try that angle too..), they'll argue that you "transferred" the gun to yourself (by making it), and did so WITHOUT a background check (on yourself), without the waiting period, without paying the semiauto tax, without proving you have been to and passed approved training within the last 5 years, without getting the Chief of Police or Sheriff's written approval before taking delivery, and without every other thing they can think of to add to that list.

Oh, and I do hope you are over 21...because if not, you're toast automatically, NOW....


All it takes is one court ruling. What ever that ruling is, its the way the law is applied from then on, until/unless a higher court overturns it.

I-1639 is yet another example of the victory of "sound-byte lawmaking". Passed by true believers with the aid of the un, and under informed. And everyone who didn't read the proposal ALL THE WAY THROUGH was underinformed!!! We were all told, repeatedly, that the law was about background checks and raising the minimum legal purchase age to 21 for semiautomatic assault weapons.
The rest of what the law does wasn't mentioned. And it does a LOT!

None of it good, that I can see...:(
 
Dano, here in WA State we have to fill out a State form only for purchase of a pistol from a dealer. The long-guns do not require the form, until this initiative goes into effect. And all those years of private purchases of pistols did not require the form.

So it is not full registration for pistols but it has been sorta-registration since some time in the 1970's, I think it was. Not sure about the date of the form starting to be required. Let's just say I am rather careful of selling any pistol which I purchased years ago by lawful private sale.

The billionaires keep pumping in the money so the gun-control screws can be tightened on us again and again.

Bart Noir
Who expects no noticeable positive effect from this new gun control.
 
unclejack37 said:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If Wa. state doesn't understand that then the people of Wa. state need to take it to a level that their local government understands. Right now looks like a good time test those waters. The Supreme Court is primed and waiting. It's a shame you can't hold individuals responsible for the cost of this effort. Because when you hit someone in their wallet they tend to remember the lesson and it serves as an example to others.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting a few key points, this is a citizens initiative that the citizens voted in. NRA had already sued for the illegal manner in which the signatures were gathered, THEN a clearly biased court system allowed it to go on the ballot. So unless this gets elivated its not gonna go anywhere.

Utter horse hockey.
 
The few articles I’ve read today are still deceptive. They mention raising the age limit, requirement of safe storage and that any legal challenge will be fought off.

They say this addresses most of the root causes of mass violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top