Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: House Bill 1840 was revived and unanimously approved in the state house

  1. #1
    Regular Member bebop4one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    142

    Thumbs down House Bill 1840 was revived and unanimously approved in the state house

    The gun-grabbers are at it again, passing anything they can to try and chip away at the rights of gun owners.

    http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politi...yndication=rss

    The idea behind this bill is that anyone who has a restraining or protective order against them would have to temporarily surrender any and all firearms in their possession. We'll see what the caucus does this year but hopefully it won't be allowed to come up for vote. The last time this bill was brought up last year it was rejected because there was some concern that residents would be denied a firearm without due process.

    I don't like this one bit

    Time to start contacting our representatives.
    "I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
    - Clint Eastwood

  2. #2
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    I can see the intent behind this and I'm sure for some scumbags out there it would be a good idea, but no-contact and restraining orders are used as strategic tools in certain legal proceedings against people that don't deserve them. Oh yeah, and like you mentioned... there's that whole due process thing.


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Kill the bill!

    Even though judges pretty much do that anyway with TRO's.
    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)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    I am sure that this covers all baseball bats, knives, lead pipes, rocks, etc... as well!
    Live Free or Die!

  5. #5
    Regular Member bebop4one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    I am sure that this covers all baseball bats, knives, lead pipes, rocks, etc... as well!
    Haha you're probably right
    "I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
    - Clint Eastwood

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    East Wenatchee, Washington, USA
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    I am sure that this covers all baseball bats, knives, lead pipes, rocks, etc... as well!
    And crossbows, bows/arrows, pencils, box cutters, machetes, axes, cars, flame accelerants + matches, pneumatic nail guns, scissors, and poisonous chemicals!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by FrayedString View Post
    And crossbows, bows/arrows, pencils, box cutters, machetes, axes, cars, flame accelerants + matches, pneumatic nail guns, scissors, and poisonous chemicals!
    Lets not forget... simple hands and feet. How many people are killed with bare hands?
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    Lets not forget... simple hands and feet. How many people are killed with bare hands?
    More than are killed with rifles and so-called 'assault weapons' every year.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Geerolla View Post
    I can see the intent behind this and I'm sure for some scumbags out there it would be a good idea, but no-contact and restraining orders are used as strategic tools in certain legal proceedings against people that don't deserve them. Oh yeah, and like you mentioned... there's that whole due process thing.


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
    Not to mention that there is no real legal review before they are issued. I've seen them passed out through a simple lie by the one who filed for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Kill the bill!

    Even though judges pretty much do that anyway with TRO's.
    Illegally I would add. Deprivation of rights under color of law, even with a TRO, is still illegal. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot own a weapon then they should be in prison. If the judges want to deprive people of their rights for BS like that, then the judge should be held liable if something happens to the one suffering from the ruling.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Absolutley illega but since when has that stopped judges?

    I know I went through a TRO , everyone including the judge at the ruling said it was Bullshite.....yet they still do it.
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member teddyearp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pinetop, AZ
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Not to mention that there is no real legal review before they are issued. I've seen them passed out through a simple lie by the one who filed for it.



    Illegally I would add. Deprivation of rights under color of law, even with a TRO, is still illegal. If someone is so dangerous that they cannot own a weapon then they should be in prison. If the judges want to deprive people of their rights for BS like that, then the judge should be held liable if something happens to the one suffering from the ruling.
    Agreed. I have a co-worker who is going through a break up with the mother of his child. Her attorney had a TRO issued just on her word. Totally stupid if this is allowed.

    Kind of like the broadening of classifying someone as a felon for non violent acts.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong in my book.

Posting Permissions

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