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

Oddly enough (not), these measures do not address any further deterrents or punitive measures geared toward the criminal who obtains illegally gained weapons, or uses them in the commission of a crime. We need to implement draconian punishment for the perps. Our liberal judicial system doesn't make them squirm while considering the illegal use or purchase of a firearm.

Instead, WA state focuses on the influx of funds gained through lawful purchases, and the implementation of measures which are geared toward a liberal judicial system pining to make criminals of LEOs who THEY deem made a bad shoot. Cops have enough to worry about as it is today. Now they have further reason to make a split second doubt about using deadly force, when they are trained to act upon training and observation. Any more delay will get more of our cops killed.
 
We need to implement draconian punishment for the perps
Click to expand...

In many cases "draconian" punishments are encoded in law but are not being applied. It's common for a prosecutor to rubber stamp a plea bargain even when the perp is a repeat offender.
 
KATU posted on a their Facebook page that the NRA has sued to stop 1639.

I know no details yet and it’s late and I’m tired lol
 
Why does even Fox News make this law sound so benign?
It’s 30 pages long, it does way more than this. They’ve managed to classify virtually all common weapons as assault weapons.


The law known as Initiative 1639 was approved by 60 percent of voters in last week’s election. It calls for buyers of semi-automatic rifles to be age 21 or older, pass an enhanced background check and show proof of having taken a firearms training course, Q13 FOX of Seattle reported.
Click to expand...
 
They’ve managed to classify virtually all common weapons as assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Under the definition used in I-1639, ALL semiautomatic firearms are now legally "semiautomatic assault weapons".

Every one. From your Marlin Glenfield .22 to your AR, from your Browning Buckmark through your Glock and all the way to Desert Eagles, even Olympic match target pistols, ALL OF THEM are now "semiauto assault weapons".

There was no exemption for rimfires, no mention of magazine type or capacity, no requirement for X number of features, none of that at all. The definition they used in 1639 was the base definition of all semi autos. Under that law, if a gun uses energy from a fired round to reload itself, (no matter how, or from what) it is now legally a semi auto ASSAULT WEAPON.

Period.

There was a blurb on the late (local) tv news last night, (I doubt it will be repeated) mentioning the NRA, and others opposition and legal challenges to the new "law". At least one Sheriff is publicly stating he will NOT enforce the law.

the sound byte used focused on the section of the law that prohibits 18-20yr olds from buying a semi auto rifle. He had a rather good point , that we do not remove or deny "constitutionally protected rights because the majority of the people think its a good idea."

they claim the measure requires "enhanced background checks" yet NO ONE can (or will?) say what that is. It also require "proof" of approved training, and yet, there is no such approved training existent at this time. The common Hunter Safety training (provided through the NRA) is NOT "approved" under the law. Nor is anything else that currently exists.

The law changes the way ALL HANDGUNS and semi auto rifles are purchased. It not only requires proof of training that doesn't exist, but REQUIRES such proof to be sent to the Sheriff or local Chief of Police, (of your home residence) by the firearms dealer, and that dealer cannot transfer possession of the firearm to you until he receives IN WRITING, approval from the police, allowing him to proceed. Even if you already HAVE a concealed weapons permit.

Forget about CHL letting you buy a pistol and take it home the same day. Forget about being able to buy a pistol anywhere is the state except right where you live, (and maybe not even there) in a reasonable amount of time.
1639 gives the local Chief LEO the ability to deny your purchase, without requiring any justification, and without providing ANY appeal process, at all.

Forget about "shall issue" being of any value now. They now can, under 1639, issue you all the permits you want, and DENY you every single purchase at the same time!

In short, and among its other requirements, 1639 includes a list of requirements THAT CANNOT BE MET in order to purchase a handguns or semi auto long arm.

The entire law is a huge reeking pile of excrement, passed by people who didn't look any further than the title and selected sound bytes.

Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner IS democracy, but majority agreement doesn't mean its right, only that 50%+1 were conned into agreeing with it.
 
And this isn't going to help that situation, at least for now, but as the Supreme court makes narrow decisions on narrow subjects, is this broad enough, bad enough and far enough for it to bring all of this to a head?
 
Have to wonder if WA may change their reciprocity rulings for concealed carry sometime in the future.
 
The text of 1639 (as written in the WA voter pamphlet) contains no language about carry, open or concealed, by state or out of state residents. Carry is not addressed at all.

SO, 1639 creates no changes in carry law or policy.

If the people involved make changes to WA state policy about reciprocity, that's entirely their own decision, not something driven by 1639, except as its passage emboldens further gun control enthusiasts.
 
Does this mean what I think it means? You now must release all of your medical records before you can purchase?

Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.094 and 2018 c 201 s 6004 are each amended to read as follows:

A signed application to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
assault rifle shall constitute a waiver of confidentiality and
written request that the health care authority, mental health
institutions, and other health care facilities release, to an
inquiring court or law enforcement agency, information relevant to
the applicant's eligibility to purchase a pistol or semiautomatic
assault rifle to an inquiring court or law enforcement agency.
Click to expand...
 
Does this mean what I think it means? You now must release all of your medical records before you can purchase?
Click to expand...

I had not noticed that section before, but what I get from the quoted text is that by APPLYING to purchase you are giving consent for all your medical (and mental health) records to be released to investigating agencies. What ever the investigators deem necessary.

What's the harm in that???
:rolleyes:

here's a possible example;
untrained, unqualified people making decisions using medical records they don't understand.

hmmm, says here, you were on anti-depressants for four months in 1993...clearly you are an unstable person, no pistol or semiautomatic assault weapon for YOU!!!!

Do remember, human nature being what it is, at least some of those people will have a personal agenda against private firearms ownership, and will act on it at every opportunity. Someone like that, could potentially "downcheck" hundreds, perhaps thousands of applications, before their obvious bias becomes known, if it ever does. Until/unless there is an actual investigation into their integrity, even the flimsiest of excuses can pass muster.

In the example I used, their report could just say "applicant on medication for behavioral control" and leave out the small detail that it was for a limited time 25 years ago!!
Got a chronic pain issue? On meds (Opioid dependent?)
Did you go to grief counseling after your mother unexpectedly dropped dead on the kitchen floor at age 52?
Are you a VETERAN???
you might be classified as someone with a PTSD problem and NOT by the medical profession, but by an investigator! And once they put you in that box on their forms, good luck getting out. Reality matters less than you think, sometimes.

Things like that could very well happen.
 
Oh, come on now. Kavanaugh will save you.

Seriously, there is more to the Constitution than an initiative. When antigun laws were passed in many states and SCOTUS wouldn't take up the cases, was the Constitution meaningless?
 
The "21-year old" requirement has kicked in, and I believe the rest of the changes become effective at the end of June.

I'm hoping that somebody has a link to the entirety of the new legal changes. The previous links don't work anymore.

I want to read about any wording concerning already owned firearms. So far I think the new rules are only concerning further purchases but don't really know.

Bart Noir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top