A little too ambiguous. "Violent crime"? Using a firearm in the commision of any crime I think makes it a "violent crime". Using a firearm in the commission of ANY crime I believe should be a felony. Even if it's petite larceny. IMHO"It shall be a felony to use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime"
This is the only gun law that should be on the books.
You'd also need to define "use". Otherwise if you get pulled over for 70 in a 65 and you're carrying a firearm... congrats, you're a felon.expvideo wrote:A little too ambiguous. "Violent crime"? Using a firearm in the commision of any crime I think makes it a "violent crime". Using a firearm in the commission of ANY crime I believe should be a felony. Even if it's petite larceny. IMHO"It shall be a felony to use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime"
This is the only gun law that should be on the books.
Fair enough. I was under the impression that if one is committing, let's say a violent felony, under the current laws, if s/he is even carrying a gun, that's grounds for saying it was used in the commission of the crime.No, that would be possession. You did not use the firearm in the commission of your speeding violation. It played no role in that crime. WA state law says that you cannot use a device to suppress the sound of a firearm. It is completely legal in WA state to purchase, own, sell (with the right licenses), and even attach a silencer, but it is illegal to pass rounds through that silencer. There is a big difference in law between use and possession.
He's in enough trouble anyway, that it wouldn't bother me if his lawyer was able to get him out of the gun charge. I'd rather thatthe oneperp get a break than all of us have to suffer from stupid gun laws. The road to a widespread gun ban is paved with "what ifs".
If a guy goes into a bank with a firearm in a holster in the open (which I find VERY unlikely, for some reason they *also* like to have the element of surprise...hmmmm), then they are not "using" the firearm. And if the person point "at" the gun, it is still not "use" (although more than likely in most jurisdictions would probably constitute "use").expvideo wrote:If a guy is robbing a bank and points to the gun on his hip while threatening a teller, then surely he "used" it in the commission of the crime. But if he makes no reference at all to the gun on his hip, does that exclude him from the "while using a gun" sentence add-on?No, that would be possession. You did not use the firearm in the commission of your speeding violation. It played no role in that crime. WA state law says that you cannot use a device to suppress the sound of a firearm. It is completely legal in WA state to purchase, own, sell (with the right licenses), and even attach a silencer, but it is illegal to pass rounds through that silencer. There is a big difference in law between use and possession.
Sounds good.imperialism2024 wrote:If a guy goes into a bank with a firearm in a holster in the open (which I find VERY unlikely, for some reason they *also* like to have the element of surprise...hmmmm), then they are not "using" the firearm. And if the person point "at" the gun, it is still not "use" (although more than likely in most jurisdictions would probably constitute "use").expvideo wrote:If a guy is robbing a bank and points to the gun on his hip while threatening a teller, then surely he "used" it in the commission of the crime. But if he makes no reference at all to the gun on his hip, does that exclude him from the "while using a gun" sentence add-on?No, that would be possession. You did not use the firearm in the commission of your speeding violation. It played no role in that crime. WA state law says that you cannot use a device to suppress the sound of a firearm. It is completely legal in WA state to purchase, own, sell (with the right licenses), and even attach a silencer, but it is illegal to pass rounds through that silencer. There is a big difference in law between use and possession.
The simple fact of carrying a firearm in the open on your side is *not* use, nor should it ever be. Regardless of the circumstances.
Use is Use, and Possession, and Possession should never be illegal. Use should also never be illegal unless used in the furtherance of a crime.
And yes, taking out a firearm and aiming it at somone is considered assault, thus would be "used in the furtherance of a crime", and that assault would them become a felony.
And I believe video is saying that there are already "strict" limitations to "use". Thus more do not need to be made. If "Use" could be defined as simply having a firearm in a holster on your hip, then OC would be illegal in WA state, as the use of a firearm unless in Self Defense is illegal.expvideo wrote:He's in enough trouble anyway, that it wouldn't bother me if his lawyer was able to get him out of the gun charge. I'd rather thatthe oneperp get a break than all of us have to suffer from stupid gun laws. The road to a widespread gun ban is paved with "what ifs".
but just needs strict limitations.