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

I want to read about any wording concerning already owned firearms.
Click to expand...

I don't have a link, sorry, but the text was in the Voter Phamphlet last year before the election.

As to changes about already owned firearms, they're in there, not only storage requirements, but also the fact that should a thief steal your gun(s), no matter how much or how little security they had to defeat in order to do so, if they steal your gun and commit a crime with it, then YOU are going to be charged with whatever crime THEY committed with your STOLEN gun!!! :eek:

FWIW, the Franklin County Sheriff was on tv last night, flatly stating he is instructing his officers NOT to enforce the law. Also had the County Commissioner, stating they fully support the Sheriff on this matter.

This is a good thing, of course, but there is a down side. Even though not enforced NOW, the law stays on the books until a court rules on it. And administrations and attitudes about enforcement could change before a case finally works its way through the court system.
 
Update from last night's late tv news;
Yakima County Sherriff is also not going to enforce the law, either.

There are now 7 law enforcement agencies in the state REFUSING to enforce this law, according to last night's news. I fully expect more to refuse to enforce the law, just as they have done with the horridly written background check law, passed the election before last, and still not be enforced by numerous LEOs in the state.
 
44 AMP said:
Update from last night's late tv news;
Yakima County Sherriff is also not going to enforce the law, either.

There are now 7 law enforcement agencies in the state REFUSING to enforce this law, according to last night's news. I fully expect more to refuse to enforce the law, just as they have done with the horridly written background check law, passed the election before last, and still not be enforced by numerous LEOs in the state.
Click to expand...
But it will be enforced here in King and Thurston Counties where it will only hurt "law abiding citizens".:(
 
And the politicians that want to take our guns away from us, have armed body guards around them.
 
I'm not certain at this time, the State Patrol did refuse to enforce the background check initiative passed election before last, along with Sheriffs, AND the Conservation Dept., "until they get clarification" of what is, and is not a covered transfer. Been over 3 years now, and to date, such clarification from the State has not yet been forthcoming.

The State Attorney General has said they will support the law, because it is the legal will of the people. No one has said so, but I get the impression they aren't terribly happy with that position.


Challenges have been filed, we'll just have to see where it goes...
 
Someone on Facebook has threatened to shoot the Spokane Country Sherriff (and others, apparently) if he doesn't enforce 1639.

Look how far we've come,....some wackjob threatening to shoot the sheriff, (and on social media, no less) if the sheriff doesn't enforce gun control! :eek:

it was on the 10pm local news...also apparently the same guy said he wanted to shoot Trump, so I hope he gets to chat with some friendly LEOs and Secret Service types very soon...
 
44 AMP said:
Someone on Facebook has threatened to shoot the Spokane Country Sherriff (and others, apparently) if he doesn't enforce 1639.

Look how far we've come,....some wackjob threatening to shoot the sheriff, (and on social media, no less) if the sheriff doesn't enforce gun control! :eek:

it was on the 10pm local news...also apparently the same guy said he wanted to shoot Trump, so I hope he gets to chat with some friendly LEOs and Secret Service types very soon...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't bet on it there
AMP 44, leftist are rarely prosecuted these day, just look at ANTIFA's shenanigans.
 
I don’t display any political anything at all. I also don’t display anything gun related. Took the American flag down that used to fly in my yard because I don’t want my front porch fire bombed.
 
The news showed a few snippets of the texts. These were not "he ought to be shot" they were "I will shoot him in the head" messages.

I'm not certain, but I think the "I will shoot him in the head" rises to the legal level of an actual threat. Even if not, I doubt this one will be swept under the rug.

Think all those people demanding "red flag" laws and all such measures can ignore that level of "warning"? They'll be shooting themselves in the foot in the court of public opinion if they do.
 
rebs said:
And the politicians that want to take our guns away from us, have armed body guards around them.
Click to expand...
That may be true but remember, there are more guns in the US than TVs..

393 million(guns-estimate), 301 million(TVs, estimate)..2017
 
I guess that suggests that law abiding citizens owning more guns means celebrities and politicians need more protection.
I’m not sure why those that have a little more social status has the right to protect themselves but a lowly blue collar family man does not.

Back to the topic at hand, Clark County sheriff stated that he will enforce I1639 or whatever it’s known by now.
 
And the politicians that want to take our guns away from us, have armed body guards around them.
Click to expand...
rickyrick said:
I guess that suggests that law abiding citizens owning more guns means celebrities and politicians need more protection.
I’m not sure why those that have a little more social status has the right to protect themselves but a lowly blue collar family man does not.

Back to the topic at hand, Clark County sheriff stated that he will enforce I1639 or whatever it’s known by now.
Click to expand...
You miss my point..that blue collar gent has every right, today, to protect himself and his family..with a gun, if he wishes. BUT lotsa guns, so 'some' choose to either CCW or employ an armed team to protect themselves. It may be of interest,sorry for thread drift, but vast majority or 'politicians' DON'T have armed body guards.
The Secret Service typically protects the president, vice president, their immediate families, former presidents (along with spouses and children under 16), foreign heads of states, and major presidential and vice-presidential candidates and spouses. Press secretaries are not generally on the list
Click to expand...

They may employ their own but not auto-'politician=armed guard'...Speaker of the House, Senate President Pro-Tem does, as they are direct line of succession to the POTUS.
 
But now, someone that is old enough to have a family is not old enough to purchase or legally carry a firearm. But a world famous 18-21 year old celebrity would most likely have some enhanced security measures in place. Even if civilian gun ownership was nonexistent, people with a higher status or wealth would still be able to have enhanced security measures. There’s always exceptions for people with power. Even in areas with highly restrictive gun laws, there’s expensive ways to be able to own and carry a gun.

Until gun ownership is removed from the constitution as a civil right, I will not support anything that hampers that civil right.
Can’t make it expensive or inconvenient to vote, speak or go to church can you?

Gun control may or may not work, but one thing I know, gun control is prohibited in a few short easy to understand words in the constitution. Anyone with even a small amount of reading comprehension understands what the second amendment says... just because people don’t agree with a right doesn’t nullify it.
Change the constitution then we will talk.

We as law abiding citizens must obey the law, and we will. The law makers know it.

Law enforcement shouldn’t enforce unconstitutional laws, but that’s my opinion.

The second amendment is not an opinion, there’s no wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”... it is a clear statement.

Let’s amend the constitution to make this country safe, if that’s what people believe. We’ve done it before. There’s a route to gun control. But as the constitution stands, gun control of any kind is a violation of civil rights.
 
Let's be realistic. It is fun to rant.

1. Shall not be infringed is not any good as an argument for absolutely no gun laws. So that must have been just feel good rhetoric. We have discussed endless (see Frank Ettin's posts) how the BOR statements actually are instantiated.

2. Make it difficult to vote. Well, that has a long and noble history in American politics. It is debated nowadays.

3. Control of religion - same, dominant religion has take pot shots at other faiths for a long time.
 
Well looks like you waive your hippa rights and you have to take some unknown class to buy a rifle... only after you MAIL the form to the appropriate law enforcement agency and MAIL it back..

Does anyone know what else?


https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652001a.pdf

20084d417541197bb7bffa36cacf25f6.png
b791c762b520ae3ef72989871354b165.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nice.

4. Do you understand by signing this application you are waiving confidentiality and requesting
the Department of Social and Health Services, mental health institutions, and other health care
facilities, to release information relevant to your eligibility to purchase a pistol and/or semiautomatic
assault rifle to a court or law enforcement agency? ................................................................ ___ Yes ___ No
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top