It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WA I-1639 Passes...wtf

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
It’s about time for the gun fetish crowd learned they are mentally challenged minority. Speaking of, it looks like many, many of the nra (Russian front) candidates got creamed! a reply to: Agree2Disagree



This comment completely elevates the definition of ignorance to a point where it can mirror insanity.

Gun owners are mentally challenged for following the Constitution the binds us all to both freedom and law?

People who demand the right to protect themselves and their property with the legal ownership of a weapon are mentally challenged?

The NRA is a Russian front?

Seriously, put the crack pipe down. This is pure insanity.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
The main reason I voted for a Republican governor this time is that the other guy wanted to restrict gun owners and do away with SYG and Castle doctrine.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Problem with throwing numbers out is inevitably certain numbers always get left out... like the number of firearms in this country that never commit a crime.


there are more guns than people in this country, and I would wager that the percentage of guns used in a crime or suicide is infinitesimal in comparison to the weapons that never ever take a human life.


I wonder how many guns are pink? Is that relevant?

We were talking about a law to reduce harm from guns. Guns that do no harm are not as relevant as the types of harm that guns can do and how those harms may be reduced.

Also, money spent on a gun that was bought for protection, but is never used for protection, is not a particularly prudent investment.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Djarums

Would that it were a joke.

They were deadly serious about it...to the point of door to door here. I happened to be home when they knocked, I gave 'em a piece of my mind about it, and told 'em I'd already voted Hell no.

No way this stands.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

Explain to me, if you will (you won't, but anyway...) how a victim of a crime is a "gun fetishist", and should be blamed for a crime committed by someone else?

Surely in your infinite wisdom, you're capable of it, aren't you??



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Or his car?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Lab4Us

I really wish I had the kind of time to do that...unfortunately I don't as I have a business to run...

Being in Texas you're probably pretty safe. WA has been the bluest of blues for over 20 years...and it's only getting worse. I could never see Texas being in this situation...

A2D


I used to think that way. Then came Beto. Then came three flipped seats to D in our State House. Then came the article about the number of Californians fleeing here now that they destroyed their state. Then there’s our huge sanctuary cities (lots of US residents don’t realize how blue (and far left) Texas’ biggest cities are). The good news for me is that I’ll probably be ashes before the takeover is complete.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

When your only knowledge of a subject comes from soundbites...from some ill informed guy.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Seems a very simple observation to make, doesn't it?

Apparently not.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Op thanks for laying this out and exactly why I voted against this.

Washington State is a testing ground, pay attention elsewhere, if it can pass here it might pass in other places. Especially in that a lot of money and attention was thrown at the bill by supporters.



Opponents promised to mount another court challenge if I-1639 passed.
-from op source
Time to write Reps, etc. Address the issues with it.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

Problem with throwing numbers out is inevitably certain numbers always get left out... like the number of firearms in this country that never commit a crime.


there are more guns than people in this country, and I would wager that the percentage of guns used in a crime or suicide is infinitesimal in comparison to the weapons that never ever take a human life.


I wonder how many guns are pink? Is that relevant?

We were talking about a law to reduce harm from guns. Guns that do no harm are not as relevant as the types of harm that guns can do and how those harms may be reduced.

Also, money spent on a gun that was bought for protection, but is never used for protection, is not a particularly prudent investment.


Almost like reaching the conclusion that paying for locks on your doors and windows was wasteful if you’ve never been robbed...right? SMH



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Actually Ill bow out of this, you win...


I just don't have the energy to argue a point with someone that wants to infringe on the bill of rights even further than they already have over the last 250 years.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

2. It criminalizes victims. If I get robbed it doesnt matter whether my weapon is in a safe or not...safes are often the targets. If my firearm is then used in a murder or other criminal activity, I COULD BE CHARGED. Wtf?


Did you even read the text of the initiative? I only ask because the weapon being in a safe and the weapon being obtained during an unlawful entry are both defenses to the charge. It's literally right there in the text.


(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if: 11 (a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm; (b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042; (c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or (d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.


The only possible way you could be charged is if your residence is broken in to AND you left your piece out in the open AND you didn't report it for at least five days. And, no offense, but if you leave your firearm out in the open and have a break-in and your firearm is taken and you don't bother reporting it, or don't even notice to begin with, I have absolutely zero problem with you catching a charge for that.

My biggest issue with the initiative is the requirement for training simply to purchase a firearm, with no mention made of a DD-214 being sufficient to satisfy that requirement. The requirement itself is stupid, but on it's face it appears that an infantryman can spend four years handling weapons constantly and still need to take an "approved class" to satisfy the requirement.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

We can be fairly sure, I think, that that unfortunate person will be required to "prove" that he or she had, indeed, done that.

Why? They've committed no crime. Not a single one.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I live in Washington too, and I don't like it, BUT I do feel there is a need for proper gun security that just seems to be lacking. Much like what the left does they go way overboard and in this case they seem to be working towards criminalizing ownership of a weapon one way or another.

1. Raised the age to 21 this includes even .22 riles..kind of stupid..

2. Require a safe or locking device for all firearms with a Class C felony (Class C felonies are punishable by up to 5 years in prison and up to $10,000 in fines) for the owner if anyone prohibitive uses it, and of course you are now a felon.

I'm on the edge with the whole safe thing. This seems harsh, but then when kids get a hold of loaded gun that is just crazy wrong. I have a big safe for both my guns and ammo. I do have a handgun in the bedroom with mag out, and I don't have small kids.

3. Back Ground check: The purchaser provides proof that they have completed a recognized firearm safety training program in the last five years including instruction on basic firearm safety, secure gun storage, the safety of children and firearms, suicide prevention, safe handling, and state and federal firearm law; and
The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or sheriff in the jurisdiction of the purchaser's residence that the purchaser is eligible to own a firearm and that the application to purchase is approved. Under the measure, the chief of police or sheriff must use the national instant criminal background check system established under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other databases and information centers to determine whether a person is eligible to possess a firearm.

Not sure how person to person sales fit into all this.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

It's pretty easy to "prove" your house was broken in to and your firearm stolen.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Shamrock6

We can be fairly sure, I think, that that unfortunate person will be required to "prove" that he or she had, indeed, done that.

Why? They've committed no crime. Not a single one.


I find it disturbing as well. So if someone steals my car and kills someone with it, I’m liable? If the thief claims the stolen gun was lying on the kitchen table? Odd that Americans think it’s now okay to blame victims when their property is stolen.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Less easy to show it was stored though, isn't it?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: soundguy


Not really sure how it's a 'gun fetish' when legal owners can be charged for a crime when someone steals their property. Maybe you can explain that one.

Should you be charged with a crime if you get carjacked and the scumbag thief runs someone over?


Can any of you post this "blame the victim" part of this? That sounds ridiculous and my BS meter is pegged.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

The text of the initiative doesn't imply that it has to be both securely stored AND stolen during an unlawful entry. It's an either/or.

Otherwise the text would read "does not apply IF the firearm was securely stored AND any of the following...."

There is no usage of language that requires two conditions to be met to defend against the charge. Point of fact, the word "or" is used before subsection (d), implying that it is a standalone circumstance.

Even the VoteNo page makes no mention of being charged if your firearm is stolen from a safe during an unlawful entry, but instead says that you can be charged if a "prohibited person" gains access to an improperly stored firearm and goes on to say that you can be charged for having your firearm stolen if you don't report it. Again, if you're a gun owner and your house is broken in to and your firearm is stolen and you can't be arsed to report it? I have no sympathy for you catching a charge if it turns up being used in a crime. That's absolutely irresponsible as a gun owner.

FWIW, I live in a state that mandates that if there are minors in a home, all firearms have to be secured much the same as what this initiative outlines. It makes no provision for members of law enforcement, either. Oh, you're a cop? Cool, can't have a shotgun in the bedroom closet, gotta have it stored in a safe. Good luck getting that out in time if you need it.

But if you're so irresponsible that you don't bother to report your firearm being stolen, I have very little sympathy for you.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join