-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
What's new with this Bill I-594 ??
- Thread starter range rat
- Start date
golddigger14s
Activist Member
Nothing, just waiting for it to come up for vote.
decklin
Regular Member
Never mind. I misread the title.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
In short background checks for ALL firearm transfers.
If you don't do a background check on your buddy before he borrows your rifle/shotgun/pistol to go hunting, you get into trouble.
There was a great video explaining all of this somewhere on this forum.
If you don't do a background check on your buddy before he borrows your rifle/shotgun/pistol to go hunting, you get into trouble.
There was a great video explaining all of this somewhere on this forum.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Te election season hasn't even started yet. Let's not declare defeat before fall has even started
Whitney
Regular Member
Telling Video
There were two Seattle Times editorial board sessions, both videotaped by TVW. The I-591 session may be viewed here and the I-594 segment here.
There is a lot of back and forth about what the initiaive does and does not do. King county prosocutor Dan Satterberg suggests he would not press charges against law abiding citizens who may become confused about the law. (ignorance of the law.....)
Pass it on, particularly to those who may be on the fence.
~Whitney
There were two Seattle Times editorial board sessions, both videotaped by TVW. The I-591 session may be viewed here and the I-594 segment here.
There is a lot of back and forth about what the initiaive does and does not do. King county prosocutor Dan Satterberg suggests he would not press charges against law abiding citizens who may become confused about the law. (ignorance of the law.....)
Pass it on, particularly to those who may be on the fence.
~Whitney
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, representing 4500 police officers, has voted to not endorse 594 and endorse 591. This Ccording to Dave Workman
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-wacops-votes-to-oppose-gun-control-initiative-back-i-591
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-wacops-votes-to-oppose-gun-control-initiative-back-i-591
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Watch those sneaky bastards they have two Associations often one that will support liberty infringements and one that will not. So they can pretend they didn't back something while they really did. Both associations share the same office and mailing address.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
What's the other association?
Unless the demographics of the other association are significantly different I doubt it since most groups like this poll members to reach their endorsement
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
These organizations are run by the same people.
I think its Washington Sheriffs association.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
IF... some read the link you posted in #8... you would see that
two cop groups\oppose 594,
and support 591...
this is good news!
are their other cop groups to wonder about?
WACOPS joins the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) in opposing I-594, the 18-page gun control measure sponsored by the Seattle-based Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR). By also supporting I-591, it lends important credibility to the argument by backers of that measure that there is a right way to conduct checks and keep guns out of the wrong hands, and I-594 is not the answer.
IF... some read the link you posted in #8... you would see that
two cop groups\oppose 594,
and support 591...
this is good news!
are their other cop groups to wonder about?
WACOPS joins the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association (WSLEFIA) in opposing I-594, the 18-page gun control measure sponsored by the Seattle-based Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR). By also supporting I-591, it lends important credibility to the argument by backers of that measure that there is a right way to conduct checks and keep guns out of the wrong hands, and I-594 is not the answer.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
and has the Washington Sheriff's association actually endorsed 594?
Edit.
Hmm three of the 4 officers of WSA are the sheriffs of Kittitas, Cowlitz, and Mason counties. The state is comprised of 39 counties the raw majority of which are rural in nature. Forgive me if I don't believe this group is guaranteed to endorse a gun control measure....
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
They didn't but may have changed their mind. All I am saying is watch out for both organizations they are sneaky bastards and are not much concerned with liberty.
Dave Workman
Regular Member
NOPE. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are remaining neutral.
So, it is fair to ask WHY, if you're not going to enforce the law, do you support the law? :question: :banghead:
Here's what I wrote on Monday:
Exclusive: WACOPS votes to oppose gun control initiative, back I-591
The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS), the state’s largest and oldest law enforcement group representing more than 4,500 active duty police officers and sheriff's deputies, dealt a serious blow to Evergreen State gun prohibitionists this morning, confirming to Examiner via telephone that it will oppose Initiative 594 and support Initiative 591, making it the second statewide law enforcement group to take that position.
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-wacops-votes-to-oppose-gun-control-initiative-back-i-591
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I think when 676 was on the ballot every single sheriff in the state except for spokane county opposed it.
are they pledged to remain neutral througout the entire campaign, or only for now?
I think Satterberg is a piece of work, never liked him much anyway.
I'm hoping there's enough pressure to get Mark Roe to turncoat....
and does Gottlieb have any plans to fight this initiative? I'd love to donate some money, but I'm trying to get a glimpse on what kind of opposition campaign will be run....
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
If you take an oath to the constitution are you really neutral?
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
the constitution of the state provides for initatives......
even if WSSA doesn't take a position, we'll see plenty of LE groups in opposition. most people don't know the difference between the alphabet soup of associations representing various LE factions.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Not my point.
Yet let's drift there for a second. Initiatives cannot give the government more power than than the Constitution restricts them, including Article 1 Section 24.
In other words rules (misnamed laws) that are not constitutional are no law at all and are null and void. Will public employees who took an oath to the constitution enforce them or enforce the constitution, either way they are not "neutral"?
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
While we're talking about the Constitution of WA:
The WA Constitution was adopted in 1878. The original constitution lacked a provision for an 'initiative process.' Weird, you mean WA didn't always have that neat initiative process? What did it say about guns?!?!?!
The original Constitution said https://archive.org/details/constitutionadop1878wash:
Original Washington Constitution 1878 said:
WUT! You mean CCW was EXPLICITLY prohibited?!?!
It was later amended 1889 to read:
Washington Constitution Amended 1889 said:
That WA initiative process you mentioned: adopted in 1912 http://participedia.net/de/methods/washington-state-initiative-process.
That's 34 years after Statehood, whereas they recognized the inalienable Right to own firearms from day one.
This is all just meaningless history, or is it?
Last edited: