Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna both want new gun control laws in WA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    709

    Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna both want new gun control laws in WA

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...2_guns29m.html

    Gun shows

    Both Inslee and McKenna said they support background checks for purchasing guns from private dealers at gun shows. Such checks are required when buying a gun from a federally licensed dealer.

    "It's difficult for me to defend preventing a terrorist from getting on an airplane ... but then allowing him to go to a gun show and buy weapons and unlimited ammunition with no background check," Inslee said. "That just doesn't pass the common-sense test."

    McKenna said there should be "some kind of background check" when buying firearms at a gun show. He noted the Washington Arms Collectors, which holds the largest gun show in the state, requires purchasers to be members of the group, and every member must have a background check.

    "I think it's quite telling that the largest and most responsible gun-show operator in the state has already moved in that direction," he said.

    ______________________________

    And yes, we have already seen the picture of two OCers standing next to Rob McKenna a zillion times, and we will see it for the zilioneth + 1 time on this thread again. The picture supposedly means "Rob McKenna is one of us"

  2. #2
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    11,762
    They don't know that there are two types of sellers at gun shows:

    1) ffls who do BR chks (most common) irrespective of where they do a transfer

    2) private parties selling guns (ya can only sell 5 a year - over that, ya need a ffl)
    these don't need to run BR chks ... its just a private property sale + whatever state/local reporting or documentary requirements are required.


    So they are complaining about (2) - private citizens selling their own private property -- what, we cannot sell out own property any more? Piss on them. And who cares if a seller had a BR check--he ain't gonna have the gun no more, duh!

    I understand the viewpoint but they don't understand -- its OUR PROPERTY - we can sell it if we want. At a gun show or elsewhere. It really highlights the bogus nature of BR chks ..

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,911
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    They don't know that there are two types of sellers at gun shows:

    1) ffls who do BR chks (most common) irrespective of where they do a transfer

    2) private parties selling guns (ya can only sell 5 a year - over that, ya need a ffl)
    these don't need to run BR chks ... its just a private property sale + whatever state/local reporting or documentary requirements are required.


    So they are complaining about (2) - private citizens selling their own private property -- what, we cannot sell out own property any more? Piss on them. And who cares if a seller had a BR check--he ain't gonna have the gun no more, duh!

    I understand the viewpoint but they don't understand -- its OUR PROPERTY - we can sell it if we want. At a gun show or elsewhere. It really highlights the bogus nature of BR chks ..
    Want to get pissed, direct some of it to guys like "Handlebar Dave" who had the attitude of only caring about the money, not whether the purchaser could legally own a firearm. WAC is only one show and of course they require that sales be only made to members. Membership does require a Background Check but a CPL will suffice. What of all the other "shows" that wander through the State? Are they as concerned about sales to prohibited persons.

    Take heart that the candidates are only targeting gun shows. Next stop could be ALL private sales and forcing the parties to perform the transfer through an FFL.

    Just like Al Jolson said in the first "talkie" back in 1927, "You ain't seen nothing yet". We could even see "titles" and "registration" for firearms that would have to be transferred just like for Motor Vehicles.

    Of course should "Gun Community" could come up with some solutions for how to keep guns out of the hands of whacko's like we've read about more and more frequently, then the political prostitutes would have to pick another horse to ride.

    The recent SCOTUS rulings and opinions have made it pretty clear that they have no issue with some regulation to address social issues. The question is who's going to craft those regulations. Those that want to participate in the process? Or the ones that just sit back and shout NO F*****g Way!

    Once again, everyone wants to focus on the "Head Office", that of Governor or President. The most damage will come from those who end up in the Legislature, not the figurehead in the top office.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    14,983
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Want to get pissed, direct some of it to guys like "Handlebar Dave" who had the attitude of only caring about the money, not whether the purchaser could legally own a firearm. WAC is only one show and of course they require that sales be only made to members. Membership does require a Background Check but a CPL will suffice. What of all the other "shows" that wander through the State? Are they as concerned about sales to prohibited persons.

    Take heart that the candidates are only targeting gun shows. Next stop could be ALL private sales and forcing the parties to perform the transfer through an FFL.

    Just like Al Jolson said in the first "talkie" back in 1927, "You ain't seen nothing yet". We could even see "titles" and "registration" for firearms that would have to be transferred just like for Motor Vehicles.

    Of course should "Gun Community" could come up with some solutions for how to keep guns out of the hands of whacko's like we've read about more and more frequently, then the political prostitutes would have to pick another horse to ride.

    The recent SCOTUS rulings and opinions have made it pretty clear that they have no issue with some regulation to address social issues. The question is who's going to craft those regulations. Those that want to participate in the process? Or the ones that just sit back and shout NO F*****g Way!

    Once again, everyone wants to focus on the "Head Office", that of Governor or President. The most damage will come from those who end up in the Legislature, not the figurehead in the top office.
    I have a novel idea, how about not sacrificing liberty for safety and doing all you can to protect yours and protect those around you from the 'whackos' who get the guns, knives, bats, fists, pipes, etc.....?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,343
    I sent the Rob McKenna campaign a little note saying I would not be supporting him until I had heard he had changed his stance on the "loophole"...surprise, surprise...no response yet.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,320
    "Private dealers"??? What nonsense. If you're a "dealer", you're in the business of buying and selling firearms. If you're not in the business, you're not a dealer. I sold an RV yesterday. This did not make me a "vehicle dealer".

    I sure don't get McKenna, it's like he's trying to make it hard to vote for him...

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,911
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I sent the Rob McKenna campaign a little note saying I would not be supporting him until I had heard he had changed his stance on the "loophole"...surprise, surprise...no response yet.
    Unless you promised him a big check, contingent on his changing his stance, you probably never will hear from him. Make it a few million and he'll not only change his stance, he'd probably see to it your driveway was plowed when he's elected.

    They don't have time for individuals unless they're multi-millionaires willing to donate to their campaign.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,596
    Newsflash: both are politicians. Both want to get elected. Soul-less, blood sucking, corrupted, immoral, feminine hygiene products.

    Errr, I mean one is a Feminine Hygiene Product, while the other is a **** Sandwich.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 07-31-2012 at 09:50 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    McKenna said there should be "some kind of background check" when buying firearms at a gun show. He noted the Washington Arms Collectors, which holds the largest gun show in the state, requires purchasers to be members of the group, and every member must have a background check.
    Yes Rob, WAC sucks eggs. We know. They are anti-gun.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    271

    Kitsap Politicians as well.....

    I met with Senator Rolfes this Monday past to discuss gun shows and background checks and general gun stuff. Tis the season and she is up for re-election. Look for new legislation regarding background checks for private sales, this seemed to be a focal point. I relayed to her the hard spots with regard to using NICS for "NON DEALERS" and the privacy act information on the 4473. She seemed to like how WAC "self policed" members with a background checks.

    The topic of mandated firearms training was broached, to which I asked what the standard should be as every persons level of experience is different. Gun locks and safes were discussed with regard to the shooting of the children in our local news. I tried to relay the cost of a safe being prohibitive to some firearms enthusiasts.

    I also pressed her for getting the early education bill passed (Eddie Eagle) and teaching children the danger of firearms. I hope what I left her with was the premise that legislation which empowers our citizens is good while legislation that mandates or places further restrictions on citizens is not so good and would no doubt get some push back.

    (just a personal note, I think the firearms training will get the most effort, as it will help to get the "Seattle Democrats on board") Not too sure what that means. I also believe she is inclined to push for legislation that increases punishment for crime.

    Keep your eyes on the polls, time will tell.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    14,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Newsflash: both are politicians. Both want to get elected. Soul-less, blood sucking, corrupted, immoral, feminine hygiene products.

    Errr, I mean one is a Feminine Hygiene Product, while the other is a **** Sandwich.

    One of my favorite episodes...

    But haven't you heard you are somehow voting for the ********* or **** sandwich by not voting for either......What was it called the "status quo"...
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •