Handgun sales overwhelm DOL registry

massivedesign said:

It's legal because it's not maintained by a law enforcement agency. This was brought up at the judiciary committee meeting when it was asked why DOL was in charge of this and not a dept more suited like WSP. They came flat out and said because it would be illegal for WSP, but it's legal for DOL.

Click to expand...

Thats why I didn't say Illegal, it still isn't "legal" because they were not legislated to do this.

I would say it's in blatant opposition to the 4th A and to article 1 section 7, these clauses were specifically put in place to protect our information from government.

509rifas said:

Do you happen to know what statute or what have you makes it illegal fo LE to maintain a registry?

Click to expand...

Tying to find something to back my claim. The only info I have on hand is what Judiciary and DOL conversed about during the meeting. I think I'll send an email to Tanaka at DOL to see if he can provide more info on it.

acmariner99 said:

I wonder how that would work for my EDC which was purchased when I was a resident of another state. There is no record of me buying it in WA at all - granted that would be true of private transfers as well, but if you got an LEO with a bad attitude, I could get baited with "the gun is not legally mine."

Click to expand...

Its not your responsability to prove it is yours it is up to the Cops to prove it is not. You are correct they would be baiting you if they tried that.

Registered weapons could lead to a "new york" style confiscation. Remember Col. Bela in Red Dawn?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/12/05/gun-confiscation-underway-in-new-york-n1758137

The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of certain shotguns and rifles, telling them all long guns with a five-round or more capacity must be turned in, altered or taken out of town.

An estimated 500 recipients of the notices, which were mailed on Nov. 18, were given the options to surrender their gun, permanently move the gun out of city jurisdiction or employ a licensed gunsmith to modify the weapon to get into compliance with the law. Rifles and shotguns with a capacity of five or more rounds are affected.

1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following

[notarized, documented, proof that you got rid of the firearm]

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance, or you may request the option to bring your firearm to a licensed gunsmith for a permanent modification and certification proving that it is permanently modified and in compliance.

Do not let this happen here.

MSG Laigaie said:

Registered weapons could lead to a "new york" style confiscation. Remember Col. Bela in Red Dawn?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/12/05/gun-confiscation-underway-in-new-york-n1758137

The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of certain shotguns and rifles, telling them all long guns with a five-round or more capacity must be turned in, altered or taken out of town.

An estimated 500 recipients of the notices, which were mailed on Nov. 18, were given the options to surrender their gun, permanently move the gun out of city jurisdiction or employ a licensed gunsmith to modify the weapon to get into compliance with the law. Rifles and shotguns with a capacity of five or more rounds are affected.

1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following

[notarized, documented, proof that you got rid of the firearm]

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance, or you may request the option to bring your firearm to a licensed gunsmith for a permanent modification and certification proving that it is permanently modified and in compliance.

Do not let this happen here.

Click to expand...

I hope the SAF, NRA, and ACLU will team up on this like they did when Washington DC police announced they would be doing "consentual" house-to-house searches for public safety, with seven or eight officers showing up "just sign here if you have nothing to hide..."

This isn't New York though. I don't think our cops would even enforce it. The Yakima County Sheriff even said he won't have his deputies enforcing unconstitutional gun laws after they started talking AWB again.

509rifas said:

I hope the SAF, NRA, and ACLU will team up on this like they did when Washington DC police announced they would be doing "consentual" house-to-house searches for public safety, with seven or eight officers showing up "just sign here if you have nothing to hide..."

This isn't New York though. I don't think our cops would even enforce it. The Yakima County Sheriff even said he won't have his deputies enforcing unconstitutional gun laws after they started talking AWB again.

Click to expand...

The interwebz strike again...

http://forums.officer.com/t190791/#post3380842

Well, this is settled.

I called our good colleagues at the Rifle & Shotgun Section. They are well aware of the sh*tstorm this caused all over the web.

This letter was sent to ONE person...for reasons involving hisspecific permit. He then changed it a bit to make it look like something it wasn't, and posted it online.

Done and done.

Click to expand...

massivedesign said:

The interwebz strike again...

http://forums.officer.com/t190791/#post3380842

Click to expand...

So this was hype over nothing? Did the guy really change the document and then lie and say that's what he got to get every one wound up?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

So this was hype over nothing? Did the guy really change the document and then lie and say that's what he got to get every one wound up?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

A blog post from an Internet forum of people claiming to be police officers is not my definition of an authoritative source.... Unless you can vouch for "frenchie" as beig authentic from personally knowing him...

EMNofSeattle said:

A blog post from an Internet forum of people claiming to be police officers is not my definition of an authoritative source.... Unless you can vouch for "frenchie" as beig authentic from personally knowing him...

Click to expand...

Just asking emn. I asked previously if somebody had a confirmation this letter was real. Never heard back and I couldnt find confirmation either. Seems like of this really was the real deal it'd be all over. I could be wrong

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Just asking emn. I asked previously if somebody had a confirmation this letter was real. Never heard back and I couldnt find confirmation either. Seems like of this really was the real deal it'd be all over. I could be wrong

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So you're saying we shouldn't trust it becuase it's being spread on blogs and forums with no confirmation, and in support of that you post a thread on a site much like ours except for cops and saying becuase somebody who implies he's a NYPD officer says he's verified it fake you believe that?

At best it's still unknown.

Fox News is now running the story and NYPD is still not flatly denying it. Now that mainstream sources are covering this you'd think there'd be some response

EMNofSeattle said:

So you're saying we shouldn't trust it becuase it's being spread on blogs and forums with no confirmation, and in support of that you post a thread on a site much like ours except for cops and saying becuase somebody who implies he's a NYPD officer says he's verified it fake you believe that?

At best it's still unknown.

Fox News is now running the story and NYPD is still not flatly denying it. Now that mainstream sources are covering this you'd think there'd be some response

Click to expand...

First I didn't post anything. I asked because someone else posted it. Second I agree its at best unknown.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Considering recent history, it really could be either.
With those infamous chain emails that came out after the 2008 election, to the "Safe Homes Initiative" or whatever doublespeak they used in Boston, Washington DC, and whatever other police state cities, there really is precedent for people posting on the internet complete BS to scare gun owners into a frenzy, as well as numerous police departments publicly announcing that they'll send a squad of officers to homes to do house-to-house searches "just to make sure there are no illegal weapons."
It's something to look into. If it's a hoax, then ef you very much to the author. But considering East Coast LE's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it's believable at least.
I advise caution in reposting stuff you find online, but there's leeway when it's so plausible.

NavyLCDR,

Notice that interesting word "may" in there, rather than the obvious alternatives "shall" or "must"? By my reading the DOL could decide, all on its own, to not keep these purchase records.

NavyLCDR said:

Then I guess we should try to repeal RCW 9.41.129?



Is that not the exact legislation that does allow them to do this? So, how can it be true that they were not legislated to do it?

Click to expand...

Yes we should.

What I was getting at is the disclosing and sharing of the information creating a "registration".