• 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.

Seattle seeking revenue generation at firearm owner's expense

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
Another all hat no cattle proposal from the left loonies in Seattle who refuse to understand or accept "shall not be infringed". Gun control disguised as taxation should not survive a preemption challenge but with our current court of final error I wouldn't bet on it. Makes me want to open a gun store in Seattle just so I can close it if/when this takes effect.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Another all hat no cattle proposal from the left loonies in Seattle who refuse to understand or accept "shall not be infringed". Gun control disguised as taxation should not survive a preemption challenge but with our current court of final error I wouldn't bet on it. Makes me want to open a gun store in Seattle just so I can close it if/when this takes effect.

I wonder, what would happen if we got an initiative onto the ballot requiring the state executive and judicial branches to give equal protection to all rights enumerated in the state constitution?
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
The city council will be voting on it on Monday the 10th.

The only moron (sorry she sounded too stupid to be human) who showed up in support of this unconstitutional/illegal tax said that she supports it, "to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals."

1. Constitutionally speaking, there are no illegal guns.
2. Even if there were illegal guns, how would a tax on legal guns affect illegal guns?
3. How much will the [strike] idiots [/strike] citizens (sic) of Seattle have to pay out to learn that this proposal violates state law? Seattle has better places it could be using that money.

I am tired of stupid people.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
374
Location
Kahlotus, WA
From the looks of things, Seattle is not gun friendly. Looking at friendorfoe.us, there's a blanket of red in Seattle, thanks in part to Gun Free Seattle & Washington CeaseFire.

One would think, in light of recent events, that more hoplophobes & others would be more welcoming of an LAC carrying.

Looking over the Gun Free Seattle site FAQs: Is it legal for private businesses to prohibit guns on their property?
In general, yes, private property owners may establish reasonable rules and conditions for people who wish to enter or remain upon the property. This may include a rule prohibiting civilians from carrying firearms on the premises.

Does this exclusion include individuals carrying guns with a Washington State Concealed Pistol license?
Yes.

From my understanding, the Gun Free Seattle program was started by the mayor & is fully backed by the city (though they'll do everything to deny it).
 
Last edited:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
One would think, in light of recent events, that more hoplophobes & others would be more welcoming of an LAC carrying.

They aren't because they see no difference between a LAC carrying and a mass murderer about to go on a rampage. Some of the more extreme cases (very common in the UK and getting more common in the US) see no difference between someone who would use a weapon only to defend innocent people and a serial killer.

My mother is a classic example of this attitude -- she doesn't know if someone with a gun on their hip won't suddenly snap and murder someone, so to be 'safe' she doesn't want anyone to have a gun on their hip. But she makes exceptions for police, she has no problems with them having guns. She's terrified that someone with a weapon will go berserk and hurt her, but she's just as much at risk of dying from someone deciding to punch her, given how physically frail she is, and yet she never feels nervous standing in a crowd of people who have hands.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
They aren't because they see no difference between a LAC carrying and a mass murderer about to go on a rampage. Some of the more extreme cases (very common in the UK and getting more common in the US) see no difference between someone who would use a weapon only to defend innocent people and a serial killer.

My mother is a classic example of this attitude -- she doesn't know if someone with a gun on their hip won't suddenly snap and murder someone, so to be 'safe' she doesn't want anyone to have a gun on their hip. But she makes exceptions for police, she has no problems with them having guns. She's terrified that someone with a weapon will go berserk and hurt her, but she's just as much at risk of dying from someone deciding to punch her, given how physically frail she is, and yet she never feels nervous standing in a crowd of people who have hands.
Sounds like we might have the same mother. Scarry.....

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Seattle Council votes on gun tax today; what happens next?

:banghead:

Sometime after it convenes at 2 p.m. today, the Seattle City Council will vote on a proposed gun and ammunition tax, and a stolen gun reporting requirement that opponents insist will violate state law, and with potential lawsuits on the horizon, Second Amendment activists are wondering what might be next from this anti-gun municipality.

http://www.examiner.com/article/seattle-council-votes-on-gun-tax-today-what-happens-next
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Seattle Council votes on gun tax today; what happens next?

:banghead:

Sometime after it convenes at 2 p.m. today, the Seattle City Council will vote on a proposed gun and ammunition tax, and a stolen gun reporting requirement that opponents insist will violate state law, and with potential lawsuits on the horizon, Second Amendment activists are wondering what might be next from this anti-gun municipality.

http://www.examiner.com/article/seattle-council-votes-on-gun-tax-today-what-happens-next

Looks like both passed unanimously. The ball is now in SAF's court. Any updates on what's next Dave or any timelines? Will SAF be able to get the law put on hold pending litigation? How did that work during Chan?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Looks like both passed unanimously. The ball is now in SAF's court. Any updates on what's next Dave or any timelines? Will SAF be able to get the law put on hold pending litigation? How did that work during Chan?

Alan Gottlieb told AP today that there will be a legal action. I'll let the legal beagles sort that one out.
I may know more by tomorrow morning.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Seattle is going to be drenched in legal costs.

Seattle's attempt at making money will cause them to lose money. This could be interesting.

They should focus on strictly enforcing I594 Seattle Marine sells guns without background checks...... so do many of the other marine supply shops.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
I sent my strongly worded email in last week to the Council. Should have sent along some q-tips, too.

I caught the council meeting online and they had zero credible evidence that it would work; typical anti talking points about the epidemic of gun violence in Seattle. If I recall correctly, there are only 5 dealers in Seattle city limits. Making them move would accomplish what, in regards to gun violence?

Councilman Burgess made the inept statement that this tax will be paid by the dealers, not the buyers. Well, dumbs**t, where do you think gun dealers get their revenue from?!

Obviously, we all know that this ordinance does nothing to prevent "gun violence." It's as if the council has never heard of this tool called the Internet. Where you can find places that sell stuff, sometimes tax-free, and ship it right to your door!

The ordinance violates 9.41.300 and 9.41.290.

What a bunch of dumbf**ks.
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
If I was paranoid, I'd say it was just part of the Seattle push to end preemption.

So they win whether this new law passes muster or not.

Even a loss galvanizes the liberal voting public to "fix the problem."
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Seattle is going to be drenched in legal costs.

Seattle's attempt at making money will cause them to lose money. This could be interesting.

They should focus on strictly enforcing I594 Seattle Marine sells guns without background checks...... so do many of the other marine supply shops.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Seattle may get a pro bono attorney
 
Top