• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

594 is illegal

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
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_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington#tab=Laws_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:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
They only do that on initiatives their liberal leaders tell them to for.
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
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?
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
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".
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
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".
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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:

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
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?
 

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
If you had a vegetable garden

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.

[h=1]How Interpretation of the Commerce Power Has Changed over Time[/h]
~Whitney
 

imalurker

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
29
Location
earth
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)
 

imalurker

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
29
Location
earth
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.

[h=1]How Interpretation of the Commerce Power Has Changed over Time[/h]
~Whitney

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

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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/sea...t-meddling-as-i-594-faces-possible-challenges
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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/sea...t-meddling-as-i-594-faces-possible-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.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
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.
 
Top