Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: 594 is illegal

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    594 is illegal

    I 594 is illegal as it is written. so all of those millions of dollars spent by the elite leftist's was for naught. Single subject rule.




    http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governin...and_procedures
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-11-2014 at 11:17 AM. Reason: fixed title
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  2. #2
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911er View Post
    I 594 is illegal as it is written. so all of those millions of dollars spent by the elite leftist's was for naught. Single subject rule.




    http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governin...and_procedures
    And good luck getting the same insane Supreme Court that produced the McCleary decision to agree to that.

    Remember, our court once threw out an initiative because those high and mighty judges determined that the little people of Washington "didn't realize what they had voted for."

    I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's going to be an actual tough battle whereas it should be open and shut.
    Last edited by Alpine; 11-10-2014 at 10:45 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Remember, our court once threw out an initiative because those high and mighty judges determined that the little people of Washington "didn't realize what they had voted for."
    That would work in our favor on 594 -- after all, how many of the people who voted for it actually read it, or could describe what it does in detail? I know my mother didn't and couldn't, and she voted for it. When I asked her what she thought it did, all she knew about was universal background checks on gun sales.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    They only do that on initiatives their liberal leaders tell them to for.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    There are thousands of "laws" being enforced in this country that are illegal. What's one more?

    Requiring a CCW permit in Wash. State is more of a violation against your right to keep and bear arms than transfer paperwork. How about starting with that?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    NavyLCDR: I'm not saying it's ok to restrict private sales, but filling out paperwork to buy a gun didn't stop me from possessing MOST of my firearms. Like a CPL, I594 "law" is just one more to disregard. I sure the hell would not let it stop me from selling a gun to friend or relative with out the "paperwork". A CPL directly tells me that I cannot carry as I see fit without it. What does 594 say about going to Oregon for a FTF buy? My guess is nothing, an a paperwork free gun is still available.

    The law should be disregarded until thrown out just like CPL "laws".


    BTW: In OR. we can carry open and loaded in our vehicles without worrying about illegal "laws".

  7. #7
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Federal law requires out of state firearms transactions to go through an FFL who must comply with I-594 when it becomes law. There have not been "paperwork free" out of state firearms transactions since 1968.
    I'm curious: what, specifically, does federal law stipulate? Many states don't have a single, identifiable concept of residency; rather, they have residency requirements for various government programs†. How does the federal government define "out of state", and what happens with someone with residency in multiple states?

    † There is no such thing as a "government service".

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The state's define what residency is for their state ~ and ALL define the requirements.
    Some requirements may have flexibility ..

    Imagine if you travel much and spend at least 30 days in ten states...it can get complicated

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Federal law requires out of state firearms transactions to go through an FFL who must comply with I-594 when it becomes law. There have not been "paperwork free" out of state firearms transactions since 1968.
    Cite this law.

    I have shown otherwise numerous times. Please cite the law making the requirement that you speak of.
    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 Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Post #11. The recipient of the firearm violates 18 USC 922 (a)(3) and the seller/transferror of the firearm violates 18 USC 922 (a)(5).
    Rebuttal
    You have not proven that the law applies the way you believe that it does.
    You omitted section 921 which defines the terms used.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 11-12-2014 at 12:47 AM.
    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)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Rebuttal


    You have not proven that the law applies the way you believe that it does.
    You omitted section 921 which defines the terms used.
    18 USC §921(2)
    The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
    This seems to support my thoughts that even if I were to take a long drive from Washington to Montana and stopped off in Idaho, it would not be considered "interstate commerce" to stop at a store and purchase anything for my own personal use and enjoyment such as any firearm. If so, then such things to include food, gas, personal hygiene items, etc, would also be included as "interstate commerce". If the intent is to purchase something for your own personal use and enjoyment and not for resale the who cares what is purchased? If the item that is purchased is a firearm from a private seller, again, who cares?
    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    If you had a vegetable garden

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    This seems to support my thoughts that even if I were to take a long drive from Washington to Montana and stopped off in Idaho, it would not be considered "interstate commerce" to stop at a store and purchase anything for my own personal use and enjoyment such as any firearm. If so, then such things to include food, gas, personal hygiene items, etc, would also be included as "interstate commerce". If the intent is to purchase something for your own personal use and enjoyment and not for resale the who cares what is purchased? If the item that is purchased is a firearm from a private seller, again, who cares?
    If interstate commerce were actually enforced as it has been twisted over the years your vegetable garden would be considered competition with interstate commerce and you would be subsequently arrested. The Feds have no jurisdiction with regard to firearms in interstate commerce just as they have no jurisdiction over your vegetable garden. The commerce clause was twisted to mean what "they" the feds wanted it to mean.

    How Interpretation of the Commerce Power Has Changed over Time

    ~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?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Cite this law.

    I have shown otherwise numerous times. Please cite the law making the requirement that you speak of.
    I have purchased long guns in idaho and walked out the door with them returning to Washington (yes they knew where I resided going through NICS). Currently you do not need any FFL nonsense to purchase a long gun in one state and bring it to this state. (That will change with 594 I'm sure). Handguns have to go through an FFL because of WA's DOL requirement on handguns. I've done it more than once from a reputable FFL.

    Now, going from this state, to another state it depends on the "to" state's law. Going to CA for example you have to go through an FFL as they view it as an "import". (as I understand it IANAL)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    If interstate commerce were actually enforced as it has been twisted over the years your vegetable garden would be considered competition with interstate commerce and you would be subsequently arrested. The Feds have no jurisdiction with regard to firearms in interstate commerce just as they have no jurisdiction over your vegetable garden. The commerce clause was twisted to mean what "they" the feds wanted it to mean.

    How Interpretation of the Commerce Power Has Changed over Time

    ~Whitney
    The commerce clause was supposed to be used to regulate trade between states and foreign countries, not individuals.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    There have not been "paperwork free" out of state firearms transactions since 1968.
    Ahhh the GCA of 1968.

    We're fighting a losing battle. The enemy is simply mopping up the mess.

    Both Republican and Democrats led the charge.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Look for a burst in 80% frame sales in Washington.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Federal law requires out of state firearms transactions to go through an FFL who must comply with I-594 when it becomes law. There have not been "paperwork free" out of state firearms transactions since 1968.
    When I was a ffl here in CT .. CT requires a form to be completed by the ffl and sent to the state. I never did a single one.

    Why? I saw issues with such a requirement.

    And my books? Good luck reading my hand writing.....and I completed the 4473 in the same crappy hand writing ... the buyer completed the little stupid checks and signed the declaration on the bottom.

    I'm still free w/o any convictions.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    And in the latest chapter, the Seattle Times editorial board is miffed that gun lobbyists might try to derail things in Olympia.

    Oh, boo hoo


    Seattle Times whines as I-594 faces possible challenges

    Yesterday’s Seattle Times editorial whining over possible legislative challenges to Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that takes effect this week – and may still face legal battles – is getting no sympathy from readers.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/seat...ble-challenges

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    And in the latest chapter, the Seattle Times editorial board is miffed that gun lobbyists might try to derail things in Olympia.

    Oh, boo hoo


    Seattle Times whines as I-594 faces possible challenges

    Yesterday’s Seattle Times editorial whining over possible legislative challenges to Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that takes effect this week – and may still face legal battles – is getting no sympathy from readers.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/seat...ble-challenges

    Try something original. Address the left's embrace of Washington's initiative process, after years of complaining bitterly about Tim Eyman.

    The Seattle leftists spent years of calling for changes to the WA constitution because of Tim Eyman's initiatives, and now using out of state money they simply LUV it.

    In fact, if you did real work like a man you could probably find some really juicy Seattle Times Editorial quotes about Eyman that could be be used to lampoon their embracing I-594 and Bloomberg money.

    Spend less time spamming forums, and more time, idk, doing whatever your job is other than spamming forums with your sophomoric articles.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Try something original. Address the left's embrace of Washington's initiative process, after years of complaining bitterly about Tim Eyman.

    The Seattle leftists spent years of calling for changes to the WA constitution because of Tim Eyman's initiatives, and now using out of state money they simply LUV it.

    In fact, if you did real work like a man you could probably find some really juicy Seattle Times Editorial quotes about Eyman that could be be used to lampoon their embracing I-594 and Bloomberg money.

    Spend less time spamming forums, and more time, idk, doing whatever your job is other than spamming forums with your sophomoric articles.
    I read this as a personal attack on Dave. Am I wrong? If I'm not then I'm pretty sure your post is in violation of forum rules.
    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    I read this as a personal attack on Dave. Am I wrong? If I'm not then I'm pretty sure your post is in violation of forum rules.
    Making a suggestion on article topic/ content to a professional writer who posts links to his own content every other day or so?

    I'd hardly call that an attack.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 12-01-2014 at 04:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

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