# Novemeber 4th: Sad day in Washington state.......



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Initiative 594, which passed with 60 percent of the vote, mandates background checks on all gun sales and transfers, including at gun shows and online. The measure makes exceptions for weapons transferred within families and for the purchase of antique guns.
Washington State Gun Control: Voters Approve Ballot Initiative To Expand Background Checks


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Initiative 594, which passed with 60 percent of the vote, mandates background checks on all gun sales and transfers, including at gun shows and online. The measure makes exceptions for weapons transferred within families and for the purchase of antique guns.
> Washington State Gun Control: Voters Approve Ballot Initiative To Expand Background Checks


I gather that there are Beelzebubs in the fine print?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

What about situations where you are at a range with a few friends and guns are passed around to try out? Or a range that rents guns? How are these situations going to be handled with this new state law?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I wonder how they are going to actually track private gun sales and transfers.


----------



## canislupis (Nov 3, 2014)

That is sad


----------



## jtguns (Sep 25, 2011)

Southernboy not only will that be unlawful, but the Lady I live with cannot use my firearms without a "transfer" and the paperwork. That includes using one of my firearms while I am at work to defend herself. And yes she is trained and has a CPL (ccw) for our state. Nor can my brother who lives out of state come home for a visit and go shooting with me because a "transfer" cannot be done due to his not being a resident of this state (includes the firearms that I got from our Father but we both learned shoot with. Bloomy and gang spent 8+mil to pass the and the grass root folks only about 1.1 mil all from donations. It now sucks to be here. Even the cops say the law is cannot be enforced. They would have to have a cop at each range and be able to prove that a gun didn't be long to who ever, think future gun registration and tracking and in the end confiscation.


----------



## slayer61 (Aug 4, 2014)

The people of Kalifornia feel your pain


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> I wonder how they are going to actually track private gun sales and transfers.


I imagine in order to do this properly, they would have to be registered. Talk about a back door way to implement registration.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

jtguns said:


> Southernboy not only will that be unlawful, but the Lady I live with cannot use my firearms without a "transfer" and the paperwork. That includes using one of my firearms while I am at work to defend herself. And yes she is trained and has a CPL (ccw) for our state. Nor can my brother who lives out of state come home for a visit and go shooting with me because a "transfer" cannot be done due to his not being a resident of this state (includes the firearms that I got from our Father but we both learned shoot with. Bloomy and gang spent 8+mil to pass the and the grass root folks only about 1.1 mil all from donations. It now sucks to be here. Even the cops say the law is cannot be enforced. They would have to have a cop at each range and be able to prove that a gun didn't be long to who ever, think future gun registration and tracking and in the end confiscation.


Truly a sad state of affairs for you folks. Ban together and stand against this infringement.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I imagine in order to do this properly, they would have to be registered. Talk about a back door way to implement registration.


Exactly! I can't imagine the people going for that, but then it is Washington. To each his own.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

"It’s no surprise that the people of the Evergreen State did the responsible thing: they stood up to the corporate gun lobby and stood up for a commonsense law that will make their communities safer," she said in a statement. "Tonight, Washington voters showed that when Americans are given the chance to vote to close the loopholes that let guns fall into the wrong hands, common sense wins. 

"This victory for responsibility in Washington State sends a clear message to the other Washington that if Congress is not ready to act to reduce gun violence, voters in states around the country can and will take the matter into their own hands," Giffords added.

Bloomberg's group also celebrated the victory and hinted at a similar ballot initiative in Nevada in 2016.

One thing I don't understand about the bill, though. Why did the bill exempt sales of "antique" firearms? If they're still functional, seems like they can kill as well as a modern weapon, so why exempt them?


Just my $.02 on the ridiculousness of this entire gun control/registration/background check in the name of increased safety agenda. If morons, idiots, criminals and terrorists want guns, they're going to get them whether or not it's against the law. Bloomberg and his cronies are so misguided, but then again, I guess it's not really about safety, it's about "control" and more than gun control, it's about control of the masses by the "rich power elite." I only hope the new Republican congress can undo some of the harm that's been done in the last 6 years by the antis.


----------



## slayer61 (Aug 4, 2014)

My Mrs. and I had dinner last night with some liberal friends and the topic of gun control came up. I opined that bad guys are going to get guns regardless of the laws. The response from the Liberal was "Bad guys are going to get guns from the good guys, so make guns harder to get for the good guys."


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

How would you enforce such a law without firearm registration? It seems you would need to track the firearm in question by serial number from point A to point B? Where and by whom is the background check done and at what cost? I've been around and have bought many firearms, gun shows, and internet included, and have never come across this so called loophole, has anyone here?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

jtguns said:


> Southernboy not only will that be unlawful, but the Lady I live with cannot use my firearms without a "transfer" and the paperwork. That includes using one of my firearms while I am at work to defend herself. And yes she is trained and has a CPL (ccw) for our state. Nor can my brother who lives out of state come home for a visit and go shooting with me because a "transfer" cannot be done due to his not being a resident of this state (includes the firearms that I got from our Father but we both learned shoot with. Bloomy and gang spent 8+mil to pass the and the grass root folks only about 1.1 mil all from donations. It now sucks to be here. Even the cops say the law is cannot be enforced. They would have to have a cop at each range and be able to prove that a gun didn't be long to who ever, think future gun registration and tracking and in the end confiscation.


Ummm.... I think yuou misunderstood the word "transfer". It is intended merely as a transfer of "Ownership", not a borrowing kinda thing. From the text of the bill:



> (4) This section does not apply to:
> (a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,
> first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
> (b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
> ...


Not a GOOD new law, but not as bad as you appear to think it is.

You can read the whole thing here: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

slayer61 said:


> ........... The response from the Liberal was "Bad guys are going to get guns from the good guys, so make guns harder to get for the good guys."


the logical extension of that is:

people are killed every year in automobile accidents by cars driven by unlicensed drivers, so make it harder for licensed people to get cars so it will be harder for unlicensed people to get cars to drive? In other words, if you define the root of the problem as the existence of a "thing" which can cause harm, simply removing the "thing' from society has no detrimental effect on those who enjoy the law abiding use of that "thing"? KInda like the mindset that says forget about the 2nd amendment and controlling guns, just restrict ammunition, then there will be no more gun deaths. I hope your liberal friend has an idea of what to do when the next terrorist with a hatchet comes at him on the sidewalk.

Your libtard friend is an idiot. I bet he agrees with the Occupy Wall Street movement also, right? Just like Obama says, "you didn't build that. The government built it for you". Putz.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*SailDesign*, you are mis-reading the law: The "transfer" part of I-594 applies to temporarily lending a gun to a friend, for instance for try-it-out shots at a firing range or to temporarily replace his damaged shotgun during a hunt. Thus it's a draconian farrago specifically intended to inconvenience all those nasty gun owners.

There may still be a "silver lining" to this cloud: Recently, a very similar California law was struck down as an unconstitutional infringement upon the people's Second Amendment rights.
Since Washington State is within the same federal circuit as California, the decision in the California case may be directly applicable to the Washington law. Certainly, someone will request a stay, postponing I-594 until it can be properly adjudicated.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Ummm.... I think yuou misunderstood the word "transfer". It is intended merely as a transfer of "Ownership", not a borrowing kinda thing. From the text of the bill:
> 
> Not a GOOD new law, but not as bad as you appear to think it is.
> 
> You can read the whole thing here: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf


It is bad for one simple reason. It is an impediment to a fundamental right that is essential to the continuance of individual liberty; the bedrock on which this nation was built.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> How would you enforce such a law without firearm registration? It seems you would need to track the firearm in question by serial number from point A to point B? Where and by whom is the background check done and at what cost? I've been around and have bought many firearms, gun shows, and internet included, and have never come across this so called loophole, has anyone here?


And for something like this law to work, there would have to be periodic "check" by the local "authorities" to see whether or not you still possess firearms reported as being registered in your name. These checks should be conducted at random since citizens could hide firearms they have obtained illegally under the new law. That sounds like warrantless searches to me.

This could prove very interesting over the next several months. When does this new law take effect?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *SailDesign*, you are mis-reading the law: The "transfer" part of I-594 applies to temporarily lending a gun to a friend, for instance for try-it-out shots at a firing range or to temporarily replace his damaged shotgun during a hunt. Thus it's a draconian farrago specifically intended to inconvenience all those nasty gun owners.
> <snip>


Now, I couldn't find evidence of that in the text. Can you point tnat out to me. Everywhere I saw "transfer" it implied transferof ownership, hence the piece I quoted.

I'm quite prepared to be wrong/corrected, but I couldn't find that meaning in there.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...Everywhere I saw "transfer" it implied transfer of ownership...


A "transfer" is a change of _possession_, which is not necessarily a change of _ownership_. That's why it has been differentiated from a "sale." Sales (that is, transfers of _ownership_) in Washington were already restricted by both a waiting period and a background check.

The new law requires two new things: First, it adds a waiting period to all changes of possession (that is, "transfers"), and, second, it requires a background check for every change of possession.

There are, as you have noted, a few permitted exceptions to these requirements: I could give a gun to Jean, or to our daughter or our son, or to a grandchild, without restriction.
But I could not lend a shotgun to my friend Bill for the duration of a duck hunt, without passing the gun to him through a licensed dealer who must subject Bill to a background check and then hold the shotgun for the required 10-day waiting period.
Further, when Bill returns the shotgun to me, the transfer would again have to go through a licensed dealer who would be required to background-check me (even though I am already the owner of the gun) and hold the gun for another 10-day wait.

I cannot see any positive value in re-checking my background, since I manifestly have already passed such a check. Further, I would like someone to explain to me what the use might be, of the return-trip waiting period that slows the return of my own shotgun to me.
Indeed, in the case of a gun lent to Bill to replace his own damaged or malfunctioning gun, of what use is the background check or the waiting period? Bill, too, already proved himself responsible and law-abiding when he bought his own shotgun.

A further stupidity of the new law is found in its, um, permission to effortlessly transfer an "antique" firearm without restriction. According to the federal government agency which regulates and defines such things (the BATFE), both my daily-carry pistol and my "high-power sniper rifle" are antiques, and therefore evidently not subject to the new Washington State law. The same is true of two very accurate and deadly, .45 ACP semi-auto pistols which I own.
Why were these "cop-killer" firearms left exempt from this law's restrictions? It seems self-defeating to me.

In the recent California court case, it was held that waiting periods like Washington's new one were an unconstitutional infringement, when the buyer or new possessor was already an owner of a gun or already held a concealed-carry permit, since, manifestly, he would have already passed a background check and also would have already proven himself to be a responsible and law-abiding gun owner and possessor.

I look forward to this new Washington law falling to the very same criteria. It can't happen too soon.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

The answer to this asinine law lies below.....


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

> (25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.


Found it, sadly.... Stoopit laws.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Now I am not familiar with the supreme laws of Washington state (that would be their state constitution) but I did find this;

*"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."*

The part that says, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" seems pretty clear to me and this new law seems clearly to be in violation of this enumerated section of that state's constitution. Maybe it's me but words have meaning and this has a definite meaning. Any law to the contrary would be null and void in light of this... in my opinion and in a purely legal view.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

slayer61 said:


> My Mrs. and I had dinner last night with some liberal friends and the topic of gun control came up. I opined that bad guys are going to get guns regardless of the laws. *The response from the Liberal was "Bad guys are going to get guns from the good guys, so make guns harder to get for the good guys."*


I find this logic to be incredibly lacking in both common sense and practicality. It does two things right off the top. It punishes people who are not deserving of punishment and it takes the assumption that they are inherently bad. It is also proof of smuggness, aloofness, arrogance, and just downright ignorance.

I well recall what southern Californians did when the Rodney King riots took place. There were mad dashes to gun shops to buy firearms only to be hit with waiting periods, which many didn't even know existed, and other impediments to their perceived safety. That, my friends, is what's known as a reality check.

I would posit that when the next riot, or similar social upheaval takes place, not only should you not lend any of your firearms to people like this, but do not come to their aid either. Let them swim in their own morass they have both allowed and helped to create.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

The problem with liberals is not that they are bad people. It is that they are just completely incapable of allowing others to have independent thought. If you do not agree with them, you are summarily categorized as an ignorant neanderthall who needs to be run out of town on rails. They're simply the worst of all hypocrites.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

Another reason I *chose* to live in the SE...


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

NGIB said:


> Another reason I *chose* to live in the SE...


Eventually, when enough Californians or new Yorkers move to Georgia, laws like the one we're discussing will come to you, too.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Eventually, when enough Californians or new Yorkers move to Georgia, laws like the one we're discussing will come to you, too.


This is why Florida is so fickle and kooky today.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Eventually, when enough Californians or new Yorkers move to Georgia, laws like the one we're discussing will come to you, too.


Which is one of my biggest fears. I love the South and want to keep it Southern. Just like I wouldn't dream of changing things in Cape Cod were I of a mind to move there, I abhor those who come down to the South and want to recreate that which they left.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> This is why Florida is so fickle and kooky today.


There is a saying in Florida. If you want to go South, go north.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...Stoopit laws.


Sorry, but it isn't the law that's stupid. The law has no brain. "The law is an ass." -Dickens
The law was written and voted-upon by people. The people who promulgated it and advertised it as the solution to a problem, and the people who voted to pass it are the stupid ones.

"This new law will prevent people who couldn't pass a background check from receiving a gun in a dark parking lot from someone they met on-line."
I am not joking: This is the content of most of the pro-594 advertisements.
Another ad said, "My mother was shot by her boyfriend, a man who couldn't pass a background check. This new law will prevent that kind of thing from ever happening to anybody, ever again."
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how I-594 could accomplish those promises. How, for instance, will it keep someone who can't pass a background check from taking possession of a gun from someone who would meet him in that dark parking lot in order to "transfer" it.

Further, I find myself deeply insulted by the assumption that I, so far a completely law-abiding gun owner, would instantly commit a criminal act, just to supply a felon or potential felon with a gun.
I am further deeply insulted by the requirement that, to reclaim my own property and after already passing the background check inherent in purchasing it in the first place, I still must pass another background check and wait the mandated 10 days. (By the way, this includes handing it over to a gunsmith, for any sort of repair or maintenance.)

Washington State gun dealers interviewed after passage of I-594 have made it clear that they do not want to side-track their employees' valuable and expensive time, by making them do these needless and useless background checks.
The price for each check will so far exceed any appropriate charge that they fear that, instead, gun owners will evade the law's requirements, which will make criminals out of the so-far-law-abiding.
This alone makes it clear that the sole intent of I-594 is to discommode and discomfort all those nasty gun owners. This, of course, is pure bigotry.

How very Progressive!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> The problem with liberals is not that they are bad people. It is that they are just completely incapable of allowing others to have independent thought. If you do not agree with them, you are summarily categorized as an ignorant neanderthall who needs to be run out of town on rails. They're simply the worst of all hypocrites.


I find this to apply equally in the other direction..... But since I am a gun-loving liberal, I have had to experience it in BOTH directions..... It's tough being Me.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Sorry, but it isn't the law that's stupid. The law has no brain. "The law is an ass." -Dickens
> The law was written and voted-upon by people. The people who promulgated it and advertised it as the solution to a problem, and the people who voted to pass it are the stupid ones.
> 
> "This new law will prevent people who couldn't pass a background check from receiving a gun in a dark parking lot from someone they met on-line."
> ...


Don't poke me! I'm on your side here. It's a stupid law, made by misguided people. Maybe I should rephrase that to "a stupidly-made law". That work better for ya?


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Sorry, but it isn't the law that's stupid. The law has no brain. "The law is an ass." -Dickens
> The law was written and voted-upon by people. The people who promulgated it and advertised it as the solution to a problem, and the people who voted to pass it are the stupid ones.
> 
> "This new law will prevent people who couldn't pass a background check from receiving a gun in a dark parking lot from someone they met on-line."
> ...


Yes agree, for those who do not support the NRA for what ever reason had as much to do with I-594 passing as anyone. "Bloomberg and his billionaire cronies in Washington State outspent the NRA by more than 10-to-1 in the fight over anti-gun ballot Initiative 594," NRA Spokesperson Catherine Mortensen told Guns.com. 

Everytown: 'Washington was just the beginning'; warms ballot measures up in other states


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Don't poke me! I'm on your side here. It's a stupid law, made by misguided people. Maybe I should rephrase that to "a stupidly-made law". That work better for ya?


If you lie down with pigs, you arise covered with contaminated mud.
If you seek to further the Progressive agenda, you end up condoning bigotry and draconian social control.
You cannot then state, after the fact, "Gosh, I am so sorry. I voted for Progressives because I just did not realize how draconian and misguided the results of the Progressive agenda would actually be. Of course, I do not agree with what they have done. I'm on your side."

OK, *SailDesign*, you're not really a Progressive, and you don't directly subscribe to Bentham's Utilitarianism, nowadays called Progressivism.
But if you look very closely at Liberals, including at yourself, you will always find the Progressivist tendency right below the first layer of Liberalism, only very slightly disguised.
And the Liberal and Progressive mantra is exactly the same: "We can fix this. We can make life better. We can make us safe. All we need do is make one more, more perfect law. Really, we have your best interests in mind and at heart. Trust us."

The Founders said "Equality of opportunity."
But now the Liberals, Progressives, and Benthamites have perverted that to "Equality of outcome," and they resort to draconian social policy to accomplish this perverted goal.
The trouble is, of course, that mandating "Equality of outcome" does nothing to actually bring it about. No matter how "perfect" the newest law is, it still cannot affect or control people who choose to disregard it.
And thus it is with I-594.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

It's about personal choice and freedom and the liberals don't think we're smart or capable enough to decide how we should live...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

NGIB said:


> It's about personal choice and freedom and the liberals don't think we're smart or capable enough to decide how we should live...


I just can't wait for the Medicare and Social Security cuts to start affecting some of you Republicans.... Don't you dare whine when it does - you voted for it. 










Yeah - I like Bernie...


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

I have never expected to receive a dime from social security or medicare. I built my retirement with my own income - even after I pay the ridiculous tax bill.

Here's a tip: get a job, work, save and don't depend on the gubmint to bankroll your life...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

NGIB said:


> I have never expected to receive a dime from social security or medicare. I built my retirement with my own income - even after I pay the ridiculous tax bill...


Then you should be fine - nice to know it can be done. Sadly, I'm going to need help with medical bills once I retire. Please ask your Fearless Leaders to leave some in the pot.


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Then you should be fine - nice to know it can be done. Sadly, I'm going to need help with medical bills once I retire. Please ask your Fearless Leaders to leave some in the pot.


And therein lies the problem, folks don't take responsibility for their own life. I spent 20 years as a lowly enlisted man in the military to ensure my medical future. It wasn't glamorous and I didn't get rich but it ensured my future...


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

And my question: why should I be forced to pay your medical bills?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

NGIB said:


> And therein lies the problem, folks don't take responsibility for their own life. I spent 20 years as a lowly enlisted man in the military to ensure my medical future. It wasn't glamorous and I didn't get rich but it ensured my future...


Whereas I worked at a job I enjoyed, albeit poorly paid, so that my wife and kids could have a happy hubby/Dad to come home to. Some years were better than others, but I wanted to live for now, not a future that a passing bus could take way at a moment's notice if I wasn't looking. I don't expect "handouts", but I paid into the system and fully expect to be able to recoup that. I hope your retirement accounts are more safe from The GOP's voting....


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

And I raised 3 kids that are all successful and have been married nearly 40 years and we enjoyed our life as well. Was the military a bit of a sacrifice, sure, but I do not have to rely on anyone.

BTW, I've paid into social security and medicare my entire life as well - even during my military service. I always knew that I had to rely on myself - and it works...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

NGIB said:


> And I raised 3 kids that are all successful and have been married nearly 40 years and we enjoyed our life as well. Was the military a bit of a sacrifice, sure, but I do not have to rely on anyone.
> 
> BTW, I've paid into social security and medicare my entire life as well - even during my military service. I always knew that I had to rely on myself - and it works...


Good for you. 4 kids, 40 years here (in January) and 6 grandkids. All successful, good colleges, etc.

I also paid into the British system for many years, of which I will see nothing. But some soul down on their luck in the UK will make use of that, so it's all good.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

Nearly 70. Never held a job. Never been married. 6 or 7 kids. All liberals. :anim_lol:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Bill Gates Beats NRA, Washington State Passes Strict Gun Control Law


----------

