Washington State I-594 is Firearm Registration

S

savage1r

New member
Petitioners began hanging out at my local grocery stores and were attempting to get people to sign. I decided to download and read the document that is being proposed and I am EXTREMELY upset at the legislation this is shaping up to be. This video is my partial analysis of the language of the initiative and I encourage you all to read it and please share the video with your friends and lets spread the awareness about this dangerous initiative.

VIDEO LINK
 
Well the first part is really just a copy and paste of Manchin-Toomey.

(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a)The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and
the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and
issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as
provided in subsection (5) of this section.
Click to expand...

Probably doesn't MEAN to imply you must have a CPL, but it can be read that way. Especially as the next two sections have an "or" operator, but this first option does not.

It appears to establish a state BG Check system. Yippie lets waste money doubling down on the same check.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 82.08
RCW to read as follows:
The tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 does not apply to the sale or
transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the
unlicensed persons have complied with all background check
requirements of chapter 9.41 RCW.
Click to expand...

Gee, that's real big of them except- Sales Tax wouldn't apply anyway, it would be Use Tax, which you WOULD still be on the hook for, AND for any temporary transfers.
 
Yeah. It's just a big mess all around. I'd rather we drum up public support to bury it so it never sees the light of day.
 
I went to the Walmart the other day, and there was the petition, actually there were two, one on each side of the board. One was about not allowing the govt to seize guns in the event of a disaster. The other was about requiring a background check for all transfers.

After reading both (and the kid with the petition board was only telling people about the seizure one..) I found both contained unacceptable language, and declined to sign either.

The one looks like a good idea, but the specific language they wrote into it contains some very bad stuff, potentially...I could not support it as written, and neither (IMNSHO) should anyone else.

The other one was basically a state version of the failed Federal background check law, which we neither want nor need.

If these make it to the ballot, when the form comes in the mail (they don't let us go to the polls anymore - with a couple of exceptions), I urge all WA voters to vote them both down. A bad law is a bad law. And a bad law with a good sounding title is still a bad law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top