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: 5
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
A few concerning highlights from I-1639

(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons;

So the guy that used his firearm the other day in Seattle to detain a stabber will be, under this law, guilty of criminal misconduct for brandishing his weapon in public.


Sec. 9. RCW 9.41.0975 and 2009 c 216 s 7 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) The state, local governmental entities, any public or private agency, and the employees of any state or local governmental entity or public or private agency, acting in good faith, are immune from liability:
(a) For failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful;
(b) For preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm;
(c) For issuing a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person ineligible for such a license;
(d) For failing to issue a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license to a person eligible for such a license;
(e) For revoking or failing to revoke an issued concealed pistol license or alien firearm license;
(f) For errors in preparing or transmitting information as part of determining a person's eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or eligibility for a concealed pistol license or alien firearm license;
(g) For issuing a dealer's license to a person ineligible for such a license; or
(h) For failing to issue a dealer's license to a person eligible for such a license.

So basically this outlines that only the buyer of said firearm is at fault and not the state or selling entity. Well now we know that any criminal that buys a gun will be safe since they don't seem to be a target under this law.

And no where, and I mean no where in this intiative does it explain what an "semiautomatic assault rifle" is.

This along with I-940 ,which I have already made a thread about (LINKY HERE)
Makes Washington State a Garden of Eden for crime.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

I'm not sure anyone knows what a "semi-automatic assault rifle" is... Just sayin'.

This initiative is idiocy writ large.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Crap.

Failed post. Sorry.


A2D
edit on 7-11-2018 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

It wasn't failed. Most people outside of the state realize how much control Seattle has over the entire state. Seattle's concern over the salmon population put a ton of water restrictions on the farmers of the state. doesn't seem like a big deal until you look at a map and realize that farmers in Yakima were being punished for issues along the green river. It's pure stupidity how the laws in this state are mostly Seattle-centric when most of the state has nothing to do with the nonsense of that city.

So no your post isn't failure, the political machine in Washington State is.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

Not this post... I was going to reply to someone in another thread and somehow hit reply in this one so that one response was a failure Haha dont drink and post

A2D
edit on 7-11-2018 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
The same "majority" that voted this unConstitutional law into effect. Say that 21 to purchase a firearm is appropriate. They argue, "The mind becomes fully developed at that age".

Yet these same people are advocating lowering the voting age to 16.

This/that law has nothing to do with "public safety. It's about future plans and control, control in the worst way. Democracy. They keep forgetting that there's some of us that still know we're a Republic not a Democracy.

I-1639 "passing" is a prime example why we must continue to uphold the states and federal constitutions. .."..insure each state a Republican form of government". -per The C.O.T.U.S.

That being said, this "law" violates the Constitution of both state and the Federal.
Under US. Civil code, it is "repugnant" to constitution .."null and void" and "should be considered as such".

It's a "color of law".
This same law was tried in DC. Then shot down by the court. Which that decision should've became "the law of the land"... ie, "common law". But the socialist and sheep in Wa. State obviously think they're a Democracy and not a Republic... This law will be shot full of holes and barried I would hope. If not it's going to get uglier than it already is.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   

The passage of I-1639 puts Washington’s gun control in line with California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — the states with the nation’s strictest gun control policies.


Any opine from members in the states above who have had these laws longer? I can see it affecting our younger people from hunting to just living in rural areas such as firearms used for safety reasons. I personally know of some where it will affect them.

Also,the fact that they used the term assault rifles that is extremely specific.



Supporters of the initiative outraised opponents 7 to 1, much of which came through donations from wealthy gun control supporters and national political action committees (PAC). The late Paul Allen donated $1.2 million. Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and philanthropist Leslie Hanauer gave $1.4 million. Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety PAC donated $450,000. In total the Yes campaign raised $5.5 million.


Imagine the outcry if the NRA donated millions instead of thousands.



I-1639’s opponents raised $723,000. Bellevue’s Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was the largest donor, contributing $20,000 in cash and $223,855 through in-kind services. The National Rifle Association gave $200,000, even though it appears the group has scaled back on campaign spending during this election. Time magazine reported that as of Nov. 1, the NRA had spent $11 million on this year’s midterms, less than half of what it spent in the 2014 midterms and a fifth of its 2016 presidential election donations.
Source



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
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.


The 2nd amendment wasn't to universally arm all citizens. It specifically says it is applicable to a "well regulated militia".

There is NO right for all citizens to bear arms on the books. The suggestion that citizens outside of "a well regulated militia" should be allowed to bear arms is a misquotation which has no basis in law. In challenge after challenge to the reading of the 2nd amendment it has been ruled to the extent that: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

This is why WA I-1639 does not infringe on any established rights, and why it passed, because it does NOT contravene established law or rights.
edit on 8/11/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: chr0naut

Criminalizing a victim sounds sane and rational to you?

Denying a combat veteran the right to purchase a rifle based on PTSD sounds sane and rational?

Denying 18-20 year olds their 2nd amendment right sounds sane and rational?

Please......

A2D


How prescient of you (except the 'combat veteran' with PTSD used a Glock).

See, you ARE part of the problem (and don't need to feel isolated anymore).


edit on 8/11/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I just wanted to add that I-1639 had a really weird thing going on with it's street ads (in fact I would say outright fraudulent ads)

From Kitsap County:

As you can see the voters in this Washington County that didn't read the voters info they got mailed were mislead about what the initiative was about.

I wonder if other counties has similar signs that showed a misrepresented take on the initiatives?



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
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.


The 2nd amendment wasn't to universally arm all citizens. It specifically says it is applicable to a "well regulated militia".

There is NO right for all citizens to bear arms on the books. The suggestion that citizens outside of "a well regulated militia" should be allowed to bear arms is a misquotation which has no basis in law. In challenge after challenge to the reading of the 2nd amendment it has been ruled to the extent that: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

This is why WA I-1639 does not infringe on any established rights, and why it passed, because it does NOT contravene established law or rights.


Here, it appears as though your reading and comprehension skills are severely ignorant and biased. Allow me to assist with that.

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice how it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? That is the point it appears you are missing. The right of the PEOPLE.

Now, your mention of a Militia doesn't got unnoticed. It says, plainly, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. States have rights, the people have the right to form a Militia. That Militia can act accordingly within the laws of their state and the constitution. They also, have the right to keep and bear arms.

But, in case you read past it, let me clarify again. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I will say it's impossible for people of that time to be able to predict society becoming what it is today. Therefore, we ought to explore a safer means for the public to be free of gun violence without restricting general access to weapons.

Class dismissed.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Assassin82

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf
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.


The 2nd amendment wasn't to universally arm all citizens. It specifically says it is applicable to a "well regulated militia".

There is NO right for all citizens to bear arms on the books. The suggestion that citizens outside of "a well regulated militia" should be allowed to bear arms is a misquotation which has no basis in law. In challenge after challenge to the reading of the 2nd amendment it has been ruled to the extent that: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

This is why WA I-1639 does not infringe on any established rights, and why it passed, because it does NOT contravene established law or rights.


Here, it appears as though your reading and comprehension skills are severely ignorant and biased. Allow me to assist with that.

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice how it says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? That is the point it appears you are missing. The right of the PEOPLE.

Now, your mention of a Militia doesn't got unnoticed. It says, plainly, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. States have rights, the people have the right to form a Militia. That Militia can act accordingly within the laws of their state and the constitution. They also, have the right to keep and bear arms.

But, in case you read past it, let me clarify again. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I will say it's impossible for people of that time to be able to predict society becoming what it is today. Therefore, we ought to explore a safer means for the public to be free of gun violence without restricting general access to weapons.

Class dismissed.


The "well regulated militia" bit is part of the same sentence. It is not an unrelated topic. That is generally how sentences work.

It is fairly standard in legal definitions, to have multiple caveats and conditions on an article. You cannot disregard the 2nd amendment prefatory clause, especially as it is clearly part of the same sentence. It is not a separate topic.

If your reading of the partial sentence were correct, then the second amendment would contradict other law preventing "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In Federalist No. 46, James Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army. From this, the intention behind the framing of the 2nd amendment is made abundantly clear.

The first draft of the 2nd amendment submitted to the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, went as follows:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

From this it is made abundantly clear that it only pertains to military service.

Subsequent proposed wordings, bandied about before ratification of the final form, were:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then,

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Then,

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Then,

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Then, finally the senate approved it.

Clearly, at every step, the 2nd amendment referred only to the military and the fact that it appears confusing is the way that additional conditions were proposed and then cut from the text as the senators took umbrage at each particular condition.


edit on 14/11/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join