I will not comply!!!

The Truth · Nov 5, 2014

To be honest I believe this thread will be locked since advocating illegal activity, even when unconstitutional, is against the rules.

Yesterday OCDO was against 594. Today OCDO supports it implicitly and punishes those who wish to rebel with reprimand.

I believe this fundamental flaw has been pointed out before by others, but now it is apparent.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 5, 2014

mtlhdtodd said:
True but the CPL is a necessary evil for when I need to conceal. I would love to have constitutional carry but that's just not going to happen unless there is a sea change in western Wa., and King Co. especially, political realities.

A sea change? Ok all pro gunners start driving big rigs, if we raise the sea level we'll drown these guys! A sea change coming up!

davidmcbeth · Nov 5, 2014

The Truth said:
To be honest I believe this thread will be locked since advocating illegal activity, even when unconstitutional, is against the rules.

Yesterday OCDO was against 594. Today OCDO supports it implicitly and punishes those who wish to rebel with reprimand.

I believe this fundamental flaw has been pointed out before by others, but now it is apparent.

NOT registering is not an activity at all....

The Truth · Nov 5, 2014

It's not my place to police the joint, so I'm not going to bother destroying that argument. OCDO's rules don't always reflect my personal thoughts on certain matters, I'm just pointing out something I came to realize.

Grapeshot · Nov 5, 2014

The Truth said:
To be honest I believe this thread will be locked since advocating illegal activity, even when unconstitutional, is against the rules.

Yesterday OCDO was against 594. Today OCDO supports it implicitly and punishes those who wish to rebel with reprimand.

I believe this fundamental flaw has been pointed out before by others, but now it is apparent.

Locking a thread is not something we do capriciously, so I am not sure from where that comes. Neither OCDO as an org nor the administration has taken a position on 594 specifically.

I understand that you are likely referring to Rule #15; however, our application of that has remained consistent - I see no flaw in the system.

Do not agree that holding a rally/event is in itself a violation of anything - it is the people's right to express their feelings to the legislature, the public, and the media. Don't see any laws broken as 594 has not gone into effect yet.

As a footnote, we do not discuss infractions of one user with other members on open forum - such is generally considered a private matter.

The Truth · Nov 5, 2014

It's my opinion that "I will not comply [with the law]" is kind of, uh...yeah.

Grapeshot · Nov 5, 2014

The Truth said:
It's my opinion that "I will not comply [with the law]" is kind of, uh...yeah.

Again I understand your reasoning. Right now we have a grey area - the law is not in effect and some may be blowing smoke. Rather than make a hasty snap decision, we are trying to let people talk it out.......unless it gets out of hand and becomes an over-the-top reaction.

Moderators have been criticized for being too slow and for being too fast to react, too harsh and too lenient - depends on your POV.

The Truth · Nov 5, 2014

Haha...did you think it would be me making this argument?

I didn't, especially because I agree with the premise of the thread, and I feel for the people of Washington.

davidmcbeth · Nov 5, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Do not agree that holding a rally/event is in itself a violation of anything - it is the people's right to express their feelings to the legislature, the public, and the media. Don't see any laws broken as 594 has not gone into effect yet.

<snip>.

Grape is not qualified to be a gov't agent ! Everything people do is a violation of their made up laws...

SteveM · Nov 5, 2014

To get around the possession "transfer" background check for your family and close friends can you create a trust like you would for NFA weapons? Put all of your firearms into it and list all of your family and close friends. If it is good enough for the ATF it should be good enough for WA law.

o2ryan · Nov 6, 2014

What is a CWP?
How did you get one in WA, let alone keep it for 20 years?
In case you are immune to sarcasm, let me explain that words, let alone letters, mean things, and you can't be taken seriously if you can't use them correctly. I don't want to be the word nazzi, but ignorance does not help our cause and the misuse of words presents a level of ignorance that is difficult to defend when it comes to 2A.

The rest of your argument has been sufficiently addressed in this thread.

Alpine · Nov 6, 2014

SnarlyWino said:
What is a CWP?
How did you get one in WA, let alone keep it for 20 years?
In case you are immune to sarcasm, let me explain that words, let alone letters, mean things, and you can't be taken seriously if you can't use them correctly. I don't want to be the word nazzi, but ignorance does not help our cause and the misuse of words presents a level of ignorance that is difficult to defend when it comes to 2A.

The rest of your argument has been sufficiently addressed in this thread.

Exactly. There is no CWP in WA, and it's not just being picky, the distinction is huge since a CWP in other states allows you several types of weapons, but WA's CPL only allows you a pistol for concealment.

mtlhdtodd · Nov 6, 2014

SnarlyWino said:
What is a CWP?
How did you get one in WA, let alone keep it for 20 years?
In case you are immune to sarcasm, let me explain that words, let alone letters, mean things, and you can't be taken seriously if you can't use them correctly. I don't want to be the word nazzi, but ignorance does not help our cause and the misuse of words presents a level of ignorance that is difficult to defend when it comes to 2A.

The rest of your argument has been sufficiently addressed in this thread.

Now that the word Nazi has had his say. I feel sufficiently chastised

Dave_pro2a · Nov 6, 2014

SnarlyWino said:
What is a CWP?
How did you get one in WA, let alone keep it for 20 years?
In case you are immune to sarcasm, let me explain that words, let alone letters, mean things, and you can't be taken seriously if you can't use them correctly. I don't want to be the word nazzi, but ignorance does not help our cause and the misuse of words presents a level of ignorance that is difficult to defend when it comes to 2A.

The rest of your argument has been sufficiently addressed in this thread.

Remember what is USED to be called in this state? As in, the term that was actually printed on the card?

Hint: Weapons

HK_dave · Nov 6, 2014

yep, used to cover knives over 6" too...

Midwest · Nov 6, 2014

I am not suggesting anything illegal...

But how are they going to prove that your gun was acquired before the law went into effect or after the law went into effect?

What about buying long guns in other states through a FFL?

How is the state going to keep track of that?

Will they prohibit it?

mikeyb · Nov 6, 2014

Midwest said:
I am not suggesting anything illegal...

But how are they going to prove that your gun was acquired before the law went into effect or after the law went into effect?

What about buying long guns in other states through a FFL?

How is the state going to keep track of that?

Will they prohibit it?

1. When they look up the handgun's serial number, the BOS/registration form will have a date. If it's prior to 12/4/2014, then it's unknown. If after, then if your name isn't on the registered owner, you have some 'splain' to do.

2. FFL purchases requires bg check, correct?

Midwest · Nov 6, 2014

mikeyb said:
1. When they look up the handgun's serial number, the BOS/registration form will have a date. If it's prior to 12/4/2014, then it's unknown. If after, then if your name isn't on the registered owner, you have some 'splain' to do.

2. FFL purchases requires bg check, correct?

I'm not talking about handguns.

People from Washington state can buy long guns in another state...through an FFL in that other state? If so how can the State of Washington register it?

Federal law allows you to buy long guns from FFL's in other states.

If you traveled to Idaho and bought a long gun in Idaho through a FFL in Idaho. How does the long gun end up getting registered in the State of Washington?

If you you traveled to Oregon and bought a long gun in Oregon through a FFL in Oregon. How does the long gun end up getting registered in State of Washington?

Unless Washington state prohibits traveling to other states acquiring long guns from FFL in other states?

mikeyb · Nov 6, 2014

Midwest said:
I'm not talking about handguns.

People from Washington state can buy long guns in another state...through an FFL in that other state? If so how can the State of Washington register it?

Federal law allows you to buy long guns from FFL's in other states.

If you traveled to Idaho and bought a long gun in Idaho through a FFL in Idaho. How does the long gun end up getting registered in the State of Washington?

If you you traveled to Oregon and bought a long gun in Oregon through a FFL in Oregon. How does the long gun end up getting registered in State of Washington?

Unless Washington state prohibits traveling to other states acquiring long guns from FFL in other states?

Specifics, Bob.

You didn't expressly state long guns in your initial query.

Therefore, as far as your secondary question goes, I'd guess you'd need a BG check in ID.
I-594 doesn't pertain to registration.

This is the new section regarding out-of-state purchases:

Sec. 6. RCW 9.41.122 and 1970 ex.s. c 74 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:
Residents of Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in a state other than Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Title IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States secretary of the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are eligible to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in the state in which such purchase is made: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That when any part of the transaction takes place in Washington, including, but not limited to, internet sales, such residents are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this chapter.

Looks like ID purchases would require background check for WA residents to comply. I wonder if flashing your CPL would suffice, since that was issued after a BG check.

Whitney · Nov 6, 2014

Im calling BS

Primus said:
Has anyone seen any indication that this is how the legislation is meant to be enforced? I mean the whole "at a gun class if you pass a gun around its illegal" thing. Or the your buddy at the range hands you a gun thing.

Was there any inclination from anyone that was the intent?

Intent is irrellivent, prosecutorial discretion based on what the DA can make stick is the likely course of action.

The specific answer to your question is YES, intnet was and has been indictated in taped testimony specifically by the drafters.

Have you read the proposal? How would you approach the scenario you described above in the course of your duties as LEO?

~Whitney

I will not comply!!!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member