• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I will not comply!!!

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
From VCDL Va-Alert - best consolidation I have seen to date.

Washington State gun owners were handed a serious gun-control defeat yesterday in a referendum. By a 60% - 40% vote, they are going to be saddled with a Universal Background Check law. This is the first step toward what will eventually be Universal Registration of all their guns. Confiscation being the end goal of the scheme.

While you may wonder how this might affect you, it is one of those things like the “assault weapon ban” in 1993, where the anti-liberty groups are counting on deception and ignorance to strip away your rights. They will now be trying to do this in other states, including ours, eventually. To avoid this becoming our fate, we need to start a massive education effort for both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. More on that in an upcoming alert announcing the beginning of that campaign and how you can help.

This was a case of getting all the gun control that money can buy. Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and other anti-liberty billionaires poured millions of dollars into Washington State to pass this atrocity using deceptive ads.

Gun-rights groups are looking at challenging the law on constitutional grounds, amongst other things. Let’s hope they are successful.

Here’s an article on the referendum, titled “The Gun-Control Movement is Learning How to Win:”

http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwkoLO5B8


Here is a description of the new law from a Washington State government web site. You can bet that all the exceptions in the law will come under fire and will be removed as time goes on. For now they’ve put a little sugar on the poison pill:

This measure would apply the background check requirements currently used for firearm sales by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers where at least one party is in Washington. Background checks would thus be required not only for sales and transfers of firearms through firearms dealers, but also at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed private individuals. Background checks would be required for any sale or transfer of a firearm, whether for money or as a gift or loan, with specific exceptions described below. Background checks would be required whether the firearm involved is a pistol or another type of firearm. Violations of these requirements would be crimes.

The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.

Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check.

A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol.

Firearms could only be sold or transferred through licensed firearms dealers. If neither party to the sale or transfer of a firearm was a firearms dealer, then a firearms dealer would have to assist in the sale or transfer. Before a sale or transfer could be completed, a firearms dealer would perform the background check on the buyer or recipient of the firearm. If the background check determined that the buyer or recipient of the firearm was ineligible to possess a firearm, the firearms dealer would return the firearm to the seller or transferor. The firearms dealer could charge a fee for these services.

Firearms dealers could not deliver any firearm to a buyer or recipient until receiving background check results showing that the buyer or recipient can legally possess the firearm. But a firearms dealer could deliver a firearm if background check results were not received within ten business days (as opposed to the five business days currently allowed to conduct the check). If the buyer or recipient did not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or identification card, or had been a Washington resident for less than 90 days, then the time period for delivery of a pistol would be extended from ten days to 60 days, the same as under current law.

If a firearms dealer violates this measure, his or her license could be revoked. The violation would also be reported to federal authorities.

Sales tax would not apply to the sale or transfer of firearms between people who are not licensed firearms dealers, so long as they comply with all background check requirements. Using a licensed firearms dealer to assist with such sales or transfers would not result in sales or use tax.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
From VCDL Va-Alert - best consolidation I have seen to date.

Washington State gun owners were handed a serious gun-control defeat yesterday in a referendum. By a 60% - 40% vote, they are going to be saddled with a Universal Background Check law. This is the first step toward what will eventually be Universal Registration of all their guns. Confiscation being the end goal of the scheme.

While you may wonder how this might affect you, it is one of those things like the “assault weapon ban” in 1993, where the anti-liberty groups are counting on deception and ignorance to strip away your rights. They will now be trying to do this in other states, including ours, eventually. To avoid this becoming our fate, we need to start a massive education effort for both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. More on that in an upcoming alert announcing the beginning of that campaign and how you can help.

This was a case of getting all the gun control that money can buy. Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and other anti-liberty billionaires poured millions of dollars into Washington State to pass this atrocity using deceptive ads.

Gun-rights groups are looking at challenging the law on constitutional grounds, amongst other things. Let’s hope they are successful.

Here’s an article on the referendum, titled “The Gun-Control Movement is Learning How to Win:”

http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwkoLO5B8


Here is a description of the new law from a Washington State government web site. You can bet that all the exceptions in the law will come under fire and will be removed as time goes on. For now they’ve put a little sugar on the poison pill:

This measure would apply the background check requirements currently used for firearm sales by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers where at least one party is in Washington. Background checks would thus be required not only for sales and transfers of firearms through firearms dealers, but also at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed private individuals. Background checks would be required for any sale or transfer of a firearm, whether for money or as a gift or loan, with specific exceptions described below. Background checks would be required whether the firearm involved is a pistol or another type of firearm. Violations of these requirements would be crimes.

The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.

Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check.

A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol.

Firearms could only be sold or transferred through licensed firearms dealers. If neither party to the sale or transfer of a firearm was a firearms dealer, then a firearms dealer would have to assist in the sale or transfer. Before a sale or transfer could be completed, a firearms dealer would perform the background check on the buyer or recipient of the firearm. If the background check determined that the buyer or recipient of the firearm was ineligible to possess a firearm, the firearms dealer would return the firearm to the seller or transferor. The firearms dealer could charge a fee for these services.

Firearms dealers could not deliver any firearm to a buyer or recipient until receiving background check results showing that the buyer or recipient can legally possess the firearm. But a firearms dealer could deliver a firearm if background check results were not received within ten business days (as opposed to the five business days currently allowed to conduct the check). If the buyer or recipient did not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or identification card, or had been a Washington resident for less than 90 days, then the time period for delivery of a pistol would be extended from ten days to 60 days, the same as under current law.

If a firearms dealer violates this measure, his or her license could be revoked. The violation would also be reported to federal authorities.

Sales tax would not apply to the sale or transfer of firearms between people who are not licensed firearms dealers, so long as they comply with all background check requirements. Using a licensed firearms dealer to assist with such sales or transfers would not result in sales or use tax.
Am I missing something grape? I appreciate you posting this text. I've seen several things said in this thread that appear to be untrue.

So its not illegal to hold a firearms class. Not illegal to go to range and let someone use gun there. Also not illegal to have your wife use the gun in self defense.

These exceptions basically make of so of you buy/sell you need a BC.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Intent is irrellivent, prosecutorial discretion based on what the DA can make stick is the likely course of action.

The specific answer to your question is YES, intnet was and has been indictated in taped testimony specifically by the drafters.

Have you read the proposal? How would you approach the scenario you described above in the course of your duties as LEO?

~Whitney
I can tell you this much.... I certainly wouldn't be hassling people for letting guys borrow a gun at the range or any other of the dumb things I've heard about this law.

I've remained mostly quite because I'm still trying to cut through the BS to form an opinion based on facts not fear. Still wadding through but grape has thrown a life line per usual.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
Am I missing something grape? I appreciate you posting this text. I've seen several things said in this thread that appear to be untrue.

So its not illegal to hold a firearms class. Not illegal to go to range and let someone use gun there. Also not illegal to have your wife use the gun in self defense.

These exceptions basically make of so of you buy/sell you need a BC.

You are missing something, because the summary that Grape posted does not include the devilish details on those exceptions, and the devil IS in the details.

First, the firearms class - if not held at a range, using the ranges guns (see next point) - would meet the definition of a transfer and would require a B/G check. ""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. "

Second, for the letting someone use your guns at a range, the exception for a range only applies if the "firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; " So, basically, it applies to the ranges rental guns.

There is an exception for your spouse, no self-defense necessary, but for anyone else, it only applies "if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred ". So only when the threat is imminent, not a moment before, and not for defense of another.


And as far as hunting, the exemption is "while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm ". So you can't let them pick up the gun at your home and they go hunting, you have to go hunting with them.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I can tell you this much.... I certainly wouldn't be hassling people for letting guys borrow a gun at the range or any other of the dumb things I've heard about this law.

I've remained mostly quite because I'm still trying to cut through the BS to form an opinion based on facts not fear. Still wadding through but grape has thrown a life line per usual.

Yes you would.....well, not hassling but arresting people.

Your boss tells you to go and arrest people at a gun range sharing guns ... you going to tell him to drop dead?
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
And as far as hunting, the exemption is "while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm ". So you can't let them pick up the gun at your home and they go hunting, you have to go hunting with them.

It is unlawful to hunt with in 50 ft of a public road, to stay legal one would have to walk 50 feet from the road hand the rifle/shotgun over and never get closer than 50 ft or you have committed a crime.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Yes you would.....well, not hassling but arresting people.

Your boss tells you to go and arrest people at a gun range sharing guns ... you going to tell him to drop dead?
Lol never had a boss say "go arrest him". Ever. And if a boss does say "go arrest him" or "charge him" the answer is fill the complaint out yourself..... Especially if you disagree.

Oh for a perfect example I happen to shoot with many guys who have "illegal" firearms related items and I've never said a word.

If I had a dollar for every guy with a pmag or unpinned stock I saw I'd be rich. Never said a word never mind arrested any of them.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Lol never had a boss say "go arrest him". Ever. And if a boss does say "go arrest him" or "charge him" the answer is fill the complaint out yourself..... Especially if you disagree.

Oh for a perfect example I happen to shoot with many guys who have "illegal" firearms related items and I've never said a word.

If I had a dollar for every guy with a pmag or unpinned stock I saw I'd be rich. Never said a word never mind arrested any of them.

Well, around these parts we can't judge all cops based on one cop's behavior, so this really does nothing to qualm my fears.
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
Lol never had a boss say "go arrest him". Ever. And if a boss does say "go arrest him" or "charge him" the answer is fill the complaint out yourself..... Especially if you disagree.

Oh for a perfect example I happen to shoot with many guys who have "illegal" firearms related items and I've never said a word.

If I had a dollar for every guy with a pmag or unpinned stock I saw I'd be rich. Never said a word never mind arrested any of them.
I can see you are trying to paint cops as reasonable people.

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that unreasonable or unconstitutional laws should not be passed.

Especially when LEO's (no offense) have a LONG track record of toe ' ing the line on laws when it comes to constitutional rights (such as random checkpoints, etc)
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Lol never had a boss say "go arrest him". Ever. And if a boss does say "go arrest him" or "charge him" the answer is fill the complaint out yourself..... Especially if you disagree.

Oh for a perfect example I happen to shoot with many guys who have "illegal" firearms related items and I've never said a word.

If I had a dollar for every guy with a pmag or unpinned stock I saw I'd be rich. Never said a word never mind arrested any of them.

1994-2004
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I can see you are trying to paint cops as reasonable people.

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that unreasonable or unconstitutional laws should not be passed.

Especially when LEO's (no offense) have a LONG track record of toe ' ing the line on laws when it comes to constitutional rights (such as random checkpoints, etc)

They often repeat the old tired "I didn't write the law I just enforce it".
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Lol never had a boss say "go arrest him". Ever. And if a boss does say "go arrest him" or "charge him" the answer is fill the complaint out yourself..... Especially if you disagree.

Oh for a perfect example I happen to shoot with many guys who have "illegal" firearms related items and I've never said a word.

If I had a dollar for every guy with a pmag or unpinned stock I saw I'd be rich. Never said a word never mind arrested any of them.

If your boss reads this you are toast ..... and you never had a boss say "go arrest that guy?" ... where you work Ompa-Loompa Land?
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I can see you are trying to paint cops as reasonable people.

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that unreasonable or unconstitutional laws should not be passed.

Especially when LEO's (no offense) have a LONG track record of toe ' ing the line on laws when it comes to constitutional rights (such as random checkpoints, etc)
To be clear brother I'm not trying paint any cops anyway.

I'm answering a direct question as to what I individually as a person would do. I know others that would do different for better or worse.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. If that's an example to show that not ALL cops do things a certain way and of you would like to infer there are other such as myself then by all means do so. You wouldn't be wrong.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
If your boss reads this you are toast ..... and you never had a boss say "go arrest that guy?" ... where you work Ompa-Loompa Land?
I have very good LTS and sgts. They don't just order dudes arrested. Either I have a case or I don't. If I ask them an opinion on if I have enough PC or even more important if I SHOULD go make an arrest then sure they may offer the opinion of grab someone.

I've never been ordered to arrest someone. Have I heard of others? Maybe.
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
To be clear brother I'm not trying paint any cops anyway.

I'm answering a direct question as to what I individually as a person would do. I know others that would do different for better or worse.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. If that's an example to show that not ALL cops do things a certain way and of you would like to infer there are other such as myself then by all means do so. You wouldn't be wrong.
Fair play.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I have very good LTS and sgts. They don't just order dudes arrested. Either I have a case or I don't. If I ask them an opinion on if I have enough PC or even more important if I SHOULD go make an arrest then sure they may offer the opinion of grab someone.

I've never been ordered to arrest someone. Have I heard of others? Maybe.

When they were first making pot illegal in this country, back in the 1920s and 1930s, I'm sure a lot of flat foots said the same sort of thing. "I'll refuse to enforce!"

Same when they made Alcohol illegal in the 1920s, many a flat foot had a cold beer and said "no way."

Then the reality of service in a paramilitary organization hit them, and the reality of wanting a paycheck, retirement, personal safety concerns about employe retribution, etc.

If nothing else, subsequent generations care a lot less, and toe the party line a lot more. He who controls education...
 

Spooler41

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
32
Location
Port Angeles , Washington
Just a few things to think about, Wash. is a community property state. All my assets are co owned by my wife my cars,tools,
stocks,bonds,furnishings and yes,guns. Next thing is I-594, in fact is unenforceable with out total registration of all firearms.
How many of you folks, own weapons that don't have a paper trail, such as inherited guns or firearms purchased in the 50's or
early 60's that were mail ordered,firearms that were privately purchased ,traded for or found.
These things that I've mentioned will need to be resolved before I-594 can be enforced.
Lets talk about it!

............................Jack
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
I can tell you this much.... I certainly wouldn't be hassling people for letting guys borrow a gun at the range or any other of the dumb things I've heard about this law.

.


How about ALL the other "dumb "laws" out there primus??????


Sounds like you aren't doing YOUR job. YOU don't make the "laws" you are just supposed to enFORCE them, right?
 

imalurker

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
29
Location
earth
Here's another scenario for you..

A few years ago I use to shoot Cowboy Action (SASS).. well, one of the rules is if you have a malfunction with your gun, you hand it off to one of the RO's (Range Officer) to be moved to a safe location while you finish your stage. I would surmise a similar type of rule exists for 3 gun matches. These matches are usually at shooting ranges but I highly doubt they're gub'mint approved facilities. There's also a big culture in SASS that if you're gun breaks/jams/etc don't worry somebody else will loan you theirs so you can finish the match. And we also encourage visitors to try a round on us loaning our guns and ammo to them so they can try it.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
How about ALL the other "dumb "laws" out there primus??????


Sounds like you aren't doing YOUR job. YOU don't make the "laws" you are just supposed to enFORCE them, right?

Lol I love you Jeff. I sincerely mean that. So do me a favorite and relax just a little bit. You will live longer and healthier. Stress is linked to high blood pressure and other ailments.
 
Top