Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: HB 1245 to repeal I 594

  1. #1
    Regular Member dwordinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    81

    HB 1245 to repeal I 594

    I am posting the message below the way I received it. All the contact information is for Republicans, but EVERY congress critter need to be pushed to do the right thing. Some of them wouldn't recognize the truth if you pocked it in one ear and out the other, but if they publicly complain about an overload of email and telephone calls from human rights advocates, that's more publicity for us.

    The bill: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summa...1245&year=2015

    From http://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/J...bersStaff.aspx

    House Judiciary Committee
    204A John L. O'Brien, P.O. Box 40600, Olympia, WA 98504-0600
    Committee Hearings & Bill Information: (360) 786-7122
    Legislative Hotline Operators: 1-800-562-6000

    Committee Members
    Representative Room Phone
    Jinkins, Laurie (D) Chair 311 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7930 Laurie.Jinkins@leg.wa.gov
    Kilduff, Christine (D) Vice Chair 331 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7958
    Rodne, Jay (R) Ranking Minority Member 430 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7852
    Shea, Matt (R) Asst Ranking Minority Member437 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7984
    Goodman, Roger (D) 436B Legislative Building (360) 786-7878
    Haler, Larry (R) 122D Legislative Building (360) 786-7986
    Hansen, Drew (D) 369 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7842
    Kirby, Steve (D) 437B Legislative Building (360) 786-7996
    Klippert, Brad (R) 122A Legislative Building (360) 786-7882
    Muri, Dick (R) 424 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7890
    Orwall, Tina (D) 326 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7834
    Stokesbary, Drew (R) 426 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7846
    Walkinshaw, Brady (D) 328 John L. O'Brien Building (360) 786-7826


    The original message follows:

    Hi 2nd Amendment Advocates,
    After talking with Jim Robinson and A.J I realize Rep. Matt Shea is taking heat from the GOP leadership, of which he is a part, due to his introduction of the bill to repeal the anti-gun initiative which barely passed. HB 1245 eliminates provisions relating to background checks for gun sales and transfers relating to Initiative Measure No. 594.
    If you can please contact those on your email who support our constitution rights to “…keep and bear arms” and the WA State “to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…” (U.S. 2nd Amendment: WA Article 1 Section 24) and ask them to let GOP House Leadership know they support repeal I 594 and HB 1245. A unconstitutional law is null and void and this initiative is unconstitutional.

    We do not want it amended so we are stuck with it. A repeal after two years requires fewer votes and more likely to pass. Again during this two years we do not want to amend I 594 to make it better. I believe HB 1245 is to change the discussion from amend to repeal.

    We need to call or send an email to the house leadership in support of Rep. Shea and our desire to repeal I-594. If you have time also call the committee chair who has HB 1245 in their committee and ask for a hearing. Matt sits on this committee. Judiciary Chairs have the to power to give a bill a public hearing or allow it to die in committee. Judicary Chair is Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D) phone 360-786-7930.
    GOP House Leadership:

    Minority Leader Rep. Dan Kristiansen - District 39 (360) 786 - 7967

    Deputy Minority Leader Rep. Joel Kretz - District 7 (360) 786 - 7988

    Minority Caucus Chair Rep. Shelly Short - District 7 (360) 786 - 7908

    Minority Whip Rep. Paul Harris - District 17

    Minority Floor Leader Rep. J. T. Wilcox - District 2 (360) 786 - 7912

    Minority Caucus Vice Chair Rep. Joe Schmick - District 7 (360) 786 - 7976

    Assistant Minority Floor Leader Rep. Matt Shea - District 4 (360) 786 - 7984

    Assistant Minority Floor Leader Rep. Matt Manweller - District 5 (360) 786 - 7808

    Assistant Minority Whip Rep. Dan Griffey - District 39 (360) 786 - 7966

    Assistant Minority Whip Rep. Dave Hayes - District 35

    Assistant Minority Whip Rep. Lynda Wilson - District 6 (360) 786 - 7994


    P.S. Rick Rydell and Rep. Shea on this I-594. http://www.hipcast.com/podcast/H3WcwnZG
    Last edited by dwordinger; 02-03-2015 at 09:15 PM.
    D Wordinger, Domestic Terrorist

  2. #2
    Regular Member dwordinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    81
    From http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=4650

    CCRKBA THROWS ITS SUPPORT BEHIND BILL TO REPEAL I-594
    Monday, January 26th, 2015

    BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today is announcing its support for House Bill 1245, introduced by State Rep. Matt Shea (R-4th District) that would repeal Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure passed in November.

    “With each passing day,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “it becomes more apparent that a lot of people who voted for the initiative did not realize the full scope of what they were voting for. This scheme is far more than just an expansion of the background check, which is why our sister organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, has filed a lawsuit in federal court, challenging its constitutionality.”

    Gottlieb was a chief opponent of I-594 last year, and even offered an alternative measure that was far simpler and would have maintained the integrity of the system that was already in place.

    “The provisions of I-594 are unnecessarily invasive and burdensome,” Gottlieb explained. “The Department of Licensing’s state pistol registry was already more than a year behind, even before the measure passed. Now that agency is seeking additional funds for more personnel to help bring record-keeping up to date. As I said during the campaign, I-594 creates an unfunded mandate, and that’s not the only problem.

    “It’s well known that we tried to promote a bill in 2013 that would have addressed some of the concerns about background checks,” he continued, “while also abolishing the pistol registry. But I-594 expands that registry to include temporary handgun transfers and loans, making it a massive handgun registration law that also criminalizes common behavior.

    “We know there are other efforts to provide legislative fixes to I-594,” Gottlieb added, “and we’re also hopeful that if Shea’s bill fails, law-abiding gun owners will find some relief with those bills. It’s unfortunate that I-594 is one of those measures that people had to pass in order to find out what was in it. Since that happened, a lot of people are wishing they had voted the other way.”
    D Wordinger, Domestic Terrorist

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    After talking with Jim Robinson and A.J I realize Rep. Matt Shea is taking heat from the GOP leadership, of which he is a part, due to his introduction of the bill to repeal the anti-gun initiative which barely passed.
    Not to rain on anyone's parade, but a 59% vote is a bit more than "barely" passing. Let's not try to spin on this one. The other side is much more adept at spinning.THEY HAD THE VOTE. We got beat by any number of factors, including that a lot of our team didn't return their ballots. How lazy is that?
    A lot of Low Information voters helped out.


    MEANWHILE:

    Moms will demand action in Olympia Tuesday

    A contingent from the anti-gun Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will troop to Olympia Tuesday morning in an effort to dissuade lawmakers from taking action to “weaken” background check provisions of Initiative 594, and also to support a so-called “safe storage bill.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/moms...lympia-tuesday

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    a lot of our team didn't return their ballots. How lazy is that?
    Trying to motivate the base by insulting them.

    Do you train your dog by beating it?

    Take care of your car by not changing the oil?

    "Lazy." Yeah, call your team members "lazy."
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  5. #5
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Trying to motivate the base by insulting them.

    Do you train your dog by beating it?

    Take care of your car by not changing the oil?

    "Lazy." Yeah, call your team members "lazy."
    Not sure if you've ever been on a team... But if you f up on a team its the job of your team to call you out so you can fix it as a team. If you just say "awesome job guys" to losing behavior then your never going to win.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    ...... a lot of our team didn't return their ballots. How lazy is that?
    A lot of Low Information voters helped out.
    This is Truth!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    "Lazy." Yeah, call your team members "lazy."
    When the bloody shoe fits, you cannot acquit.

    Low-infos voted on the endless procession of commercials on the tube telling them this was needed. Some, quite a few, did not vote out of apathy. Yes, I will be one to stand up and say, "What the hell is wrong with you? You left the ballot in a drawer or you took some idiot stance that your vote does not count. Do not wish to participate? Great give up your citizenship if it does not mean that much to you. I have been in countries where I have seen people cry for joy because they were "allowed" to vote. You don't know what you have till it's gone.Use it or lose, as we did with 594.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Not sure if you've ever been on a team... But if you f up on a team its the job of your team to call you out so you can fix it as a team. If you just say "awesome job guys" to losing behavior then your never going to win.
    No one is on your team Primas except for your brothers in blue who will lie to protect you.

    No one is on Workman's team, except the sheep he fleeces.

    Insulting voters who don't do what you want doesn't "motivate" them to turn out in the future.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  8. #8
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    No one is on your team Primas except for your brothers in blue who will lie to protect you.

    No one is on Workman's team, except the sheep he fleeces.

    Insulting voters who don't do what you want doesn't "motivate" them to turn out in the future.
    You don't want to be on my team? I'm sad now....

    Plenty of guys on here smart enough to realize if I'd be willing to work with them they'd look past their little noses and work in return

    You boys got slapped to the ground with the 594 bill. You should be willing to accept a hand from damn near anyone instead of thinking your better then that.

    And again... If you can't realize you fd up then you'll never win.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    This is Truth!



    When the bloody shoe fits, you cannot acquit.

    Low-infos voted on the endless procession of commercials on the tube telling them this was needed. Some, quite a few, did not vote out of apathy. Yes, I will be one to stand up and say, "What the hell is wrong with you? You left the ballot in a drawer or you took some idiot stance that your vote does not count. Do not wish to participate? Great give up your citizenship if it does not mean that much to you. I have been in countries where I have seen people cry for joy because they were "allowed" to vote. You don't know what you have till it's gone.Use it or lose, as we did with 594.

    Never try to argue, or reason, or rationalize with someone from the "I'm never wrong" crowd. They never learn from their mistakes because they can't admit they've ever made a mistake. People who never make mistakes never do anything, as my pappy and one good mentor used to counsel.

    I've talked to people who honest-to-all the gods in the heavens NEVER vote. They, uh, "don't want their names on a list." Or "My vote would never make a difference."


  10. #10
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Never try to argue, or reason, or rationalize with someone from the "I'm never wrong" crowd. They never learn from their mistakes because they can't admit they've ever made a mistake. People who never make mistakes never do anything, as my pappy and one good mentor used to counsel.

    I've talked to people who honest-to-all the gods in the heavens NEVER vote. They, uh, "don't want their names on a list." Or "My vote would never make a difference."

    +1
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  11. #11
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    You boys got slapped to the ground with the 594 bill. You should be willing to accept a hand from damn near anyone instead of thinking your better then that. And again... If you can't realize you fd up then you'll never win.
    +1

    And squabbling on this forum is going to get a lot done for Washingtonians too.......
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    You don't want to be on my team? I'm sad now....

    Plenty of guys on here smart enough to realize if I'd be willing to work with them they'd look past their little noses and work in return

    You boys got slapped to the ground with the 594 bill. You should be willing to accept a hand from damn near anyone instead of thinking your better then that.

    And again... If you can't realize you fd up then you'll never win.
    Lots of gun owners and LEO's talked about all that "cops will help us get our national carry, once we help them."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act

    Bull. LEO got theirs because of our support, and left us twisting in the wind.

    Not the only time, not the last.
    http://gunowners.org/op0304.htm

    And Primas, I don't believe you. You'd screw all of us in a heartbeat and say "just following orders."
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    "My vote would never make a difference."



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing...election,_2004

    Yup, voting works!
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  14. #14
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430

    BREAKING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Interstate Handgun Transfer Ban

    In a ruling issued today, a Federal judge has declared that the longstanding ban on gun dealers selling handguns to residents in different states is not only unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but also violates other fair trade provisions of the United States Constitution. The full decision is available here, but from what I can tell this looks to be a major win for the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Louis Bonham, one of TTAG’s consulting lawyers, wrote the following analysis of the ruling:

    The suit was brought by a Texas gun dealer, two District of Columbia residents, and the Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In what appears to have been a test case, the DC residents wished to purchase a handgun from the Texas dealer, but federal law prohibited them from doing so without having the Texas dealer ship the gun to DC’s only FFL, who would have charged them a $125 transfer fee.

    They then filed suit in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the federal prohibition on direct sales of handguns by FFL’s to out of state residents unconstitutionally violated their rights under the Second Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    After finding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the federal law, the court found that the residency restrictions of federal law were not “longstanding” (as opposed, e.g., to restrictions on the age of firearms purchasers that had been around for all of US history), but instead were of relatively recent origin.

    The court thus reasoned that because such residency restrictions affected the right to keep and bear arms as understood at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the federal residency restrictions burdened conduct that fell within the scope of the Second Amendment.

    The Court thus then determined that because the federal law imposed a burden on a constitutional right, and that the burden was not de minimis, the law must be evaluated under a standard of strict scrutiny. Under this standard, the government must show that it had a compelling interest and that the law was “narrowly tailored” – that is, the law was the least restrictive means of addressing the compelling interest.

    The Court accepted the government’s argument that its interest in preventing handgun crime was compelling. However, it found that the requirement that all sales of handguns to out-of-state residents must go through another FFL (i.e., an FFL in the purchaser’s state of residence) was not narrowly tailored.

    The Court noted that FFL’s could sell long guns to out of state residents without involving a second FFL, and that there was no evidence that the involvement of a second FFL in handgun purchases served any particular purpose. The Court also noted FFL’s are required to run a NICS check on all handgun purchasers, that federal law prohibited FFL’s from selling to persons not authorized to purchase handguns under their state or local law, and that nothing prevented states from prosecuting out-of-state FFL’s who illegally sold handguns to their residents.

    In short, there was nothing achieved by having a second FFL involved that could not also be achieved by simply applying the same laws that apply to interstate sales of long guns.

    As a fallback, the Court also analyzed the federal law under intermediate scrutiny, i.e., that the law be “reasonably adapted” to its public safety objectives. The Court found that the federal law failed this test as well, finding that the requirement of having a second FFL involved in the transaction was not substantially related to the government’s stated goals.

    The Court also found that the law violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, insofar as it discriminated against non-residents, and failed the strict scrutiny test for this as well.

    This case will almost certainly be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has historically been friendly to such Second Amendment challenges, and I strongly suspect it may ultimately be destined for review by the Supreme Court.

    Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who has successfully handled many other recent Second Amendment challenges.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-declares-inte

    It sounds like Washingtonians and Idahoans should be able to transact gun transfers in Idaho if the ruling is upheld.

    If anyone is prepared to challenge the law in court there is a gun show in Post Falls at the Greyhound Center on February 21 and 22. It appears the federal courts jurisdiction does not cover the Northwest. Legal minds please advise. Not advocating anyone due anything illegal.

    https://sites.google.com/site/lewisc...-show-schedule

    Good Luck and Carry On
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Not if they apply the same rules to out-of-state handgun sales as they have to rifle/shotgun sales where the FFL must also follow the buyer's state of residence laws because the Idaho FFL (or any other state FFL) will not be able to comply with 9.41.090. And that is exactly how all the commie states will get around the new ruling, they will just past some state law that an out-of-state FFL cannot comply with.
    I was talking about personal transfers. No FFL's involved. Forgive me for not making that clear.

    An FFL holder must do paperwork if the gun is in his/her inventory.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The Federal ruling had nothing at all to do with private transfers. The only thing the ruling did was strike down the difference in residency requirements between handguns and rifles/shotguns when receiving them from FFLs.

    The final ruling is here:
    https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/...onstitutional/



    18 USC 922 (a)(5) was not mentioned in the ruling and remains unaffected:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

    18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

    (a) It shall be unlawful—
    (5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
    (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and
    (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
    OK, so how can this be applied to personal transfers? This is the whole reason I brought this up, to see is it would help in your plight to overturn 594.

    If it has no bearing, then please disregard.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    "The court thus reasoned that because such residency restrictions affected the right to keep and bear arms as understood at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the federal residency restrictions burdened conduct that fell within the scope of the Second Amendment."

    So, why can't this very simple reasoning be applied to 594?

    There were no such thing as background checks when the 2nd was ratified.

    Common Sense would dictate that this same reasoning would solve most of the bogus laws on the books restricting or infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 02-16-2015 at 08:49 PM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The law was that a person could accept a rifle or shotgun from an FFL in a state outside their state of residence if the laws of both the state the FFL was in and the laws of the recipient's state of residence were followed. A firearm other than a rifle/shotgun could only be transferred to the recipient in their own state of residence.

    So, under the old law, lets say an Idaho resident was in Wyoming and there was an ad in the newspaper that Joe Wyoming Citizen was selling a rifle or shotgun. The Idaho resident could meet Joe Wyoming Citizen at an FFL in Wyoming who could do the NICS check and transfer the rifle to the Idaho resident right there on the spot. It would be illegal for the sale to NOT go through an FFL. If the firearm was other than a rifle or shotgun, it would have to be delivered to the Idaho resident for transfer. With the new court ruling, the Idaho resident should be able to do exactly the same with a handgun.

    The court ruling only struck down the other than rifle or shotgun exclusion. So - it is still illegal for two private parties residing in different states to transfer firearms between each other without going through an FFL. If the new implementation of the law still requires the laws of both the state the FFL is in and the recipient's state of residence laws to be followed, the out-of-state FFL cannot transfer a handgun to a Washington resident because they cannot comply with the requirement to complete the additional WA DOL Pistol Transfer Form and do the additional local background check required by WA state law (which was required before I-594 passed). So, for other than rifle/shotgun purchases, the new court ruling will have no affect on Washington residents.
    Understood, now:
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    "The court thus reasoned that because such residency restrictions affected the right to keep and bear arms as understood at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the federal residency restrictions burdened conduct that fell within the scope of the Second Amendment."

    So, why can't this very simple reasoning be applied to 594?

    There were no such thing as background checks when the 2nd was ratified.

    Common Sense would dictate that this same reasoning would solve most of the bogus laws on the books restricting or infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights.
    So, using the reasoning emphasized, it would seem a reasonable, common sense conclusion would be to allow law abiding citizens to transfer their firearms because that is what was understood at the time the 2nd was ratified. No restriction was placed on how one could keep and bear arms on December 15, 1791.
    In fact the opposite was understood. The right was not to be infringed.

    I would think that encompasses exchanging firearms in what ever manner was lawful on 12/15/1791.

    I understand this would open up a huge can of worms, however, it would restore the 2nd to what the Founders intended.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 02-17-2015 at 03:16 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

Posting Permissions

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