Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: WA Legislature convenes, gun bills unveiled

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Washington Legislature convenes, gun bills unveiled

    There are important links to all Washington State Senate and House member e-mail addresses in this column.



    So far, bills target gun shows.

    Also, the Washington State Sovereignty Act has been introduced.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Washington-Legislature-convenes-and-gun-bills-crop-up

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/y8jx49t

  2. #2
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I don't f..g think so!!!!

    Now I'm pissed.How far are we going to let these people infringe on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.Time we let them here about it.Every freaking gun owner in the state.Time to talk of a march on Olympia and let them know it ..they will no longer be tolerated.This session I believe ends in March and we must take decisive action before they bring this to a vote!!!


    We have a meet coming this sunday in Everett and it would be good to have as many there as possible to plan action.this time no more waiting. Done with that....I will be a cold day in hell I let these people dictate to me what I can own or carry for my personal use.This flys in the face of every Constitutional right we have and they have to be stopped and abruptly.We let them do this there will be no end to the rights they will comprimise!!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    I'm not so sure I see how HB2477 really infringes on my right to own and carry a gun. I don't see it doing anything different than essentially exists today in different form. If I sell a gun to someone who shouldn't own one, then shame on me. If it is then used in a crime I can be prosecuted under various current laws and am no doubt also vulnerable in Civil Court for damages to any family member that is harmed from the result of my sale.

    For those that might think BS, look into the followup to Columbine. Jail time was served by one of the parties that provided a gun to the actors and the lawsuits went on forever.

    There really shouldn't be the need for a law like this at all but in today's society where indiference is rampant, too many guns are sold to those who are disqualified for various reasons. What I believe is missing in this bill, as well as the companion bill re: gun show sales, is a solution. A method where a private person would have the same access as a Gun Dealer to check a purchaser's ability to purchase and posses a firearm. As always, the lawmakers only look at the "feel good" part, not the total picture.

    That's just my opinion and mileage may vary depending on the operator.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Heres my 2 cents to Olympia. Think they'll take notice? Think they BETTER. I aint joking, a treason suit would be MOST entertaining, especially when Im on the prosecuting side.


    Sen. Jeanne Welles
    219 John A. Cherberg Building
    PO Box 40436
    Olympia, WA 98504-0436

    Rep. Ross Hunter
    330 John L. O'Brien Building
    PO Box 40600
    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    Sen. Adam Kline
    223 John A. Cherberg Building
    PO Box 40437
    Olympia, WA 98504-0437

    Washington Ceasefire
    Ralph Fascitelli
    PO 20216
    Seattle WA 98102


    In Re. the Seattle Times article on your proposed gun ban

    Hello Subversives!

    The amount of FALSE information you all have fed to the Seattle Paper is staggering,
    and we are communicating with the paper and the People to expose it. Your goal is an attempt to institute the assault rifle ban.

    In the mean time, this is the crux of the matter. The Seattle Times newspaper quotes Jeanne Welles as making some FALSE statements:

    "What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state,"

    There ARE NO such weapons sold in the State now, nor have there been. This is a DELIBERATELY false statement.

    "She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms."

    There is NO "Right to Bear Arms" granted by the Constitution.

    Both US AND WA Constitutions FORBID you to infringe on that right.

    Since it is clear you all are operating from deliberately false information, there is
    no point in correcting you, except to say to you all:

    In a time when our Nation is at WAR with radical Islam and you are acting
    to aid and abet them by attempting to disarm Citizens from having weapons that can defeat Terrorists, decide whether you wish to be put on trial for SUBVERSION or TREASON.

    You'd better look up the penalties in RCW for those CRIMES before deciding.

    The People will NOT tolerate lawmaking to push Washington Ceasefire’s Leftist, subversive, utopian agenda, especially when such laws are a directly contrary to both Constitutions.

    Here are some talking points:

    In Richland where people own guns, there is little crime except the illegal drug dealing Mexicans you Legislators have allowed to come here.

    It’s interesting that the type of crime you’re crusading against doesn’t happen here. It only happens in Cities that share your Leftist Agenda.

    You must want crime. We won’t tolerate it here.





    CC.via Email to Klippert, Delvin, Van De Wege

  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    I'm not so sure I see how HB2477 really infringes on my right to own and carry a gun. I don't see it doing anything different than essentially exists today in different form. If I sell a gun to someone who shouldn't own one, then shame on me. If it is then used in a crime I can be prosecuted under various current laws and am no doubt also vulnerable in Civil Court for damages to any family member that is harmed from the result of my sale.

    For those that might think BS, look into the followup to Columbine. Jail time was served by one of the parties that provided a gun to the actors and the lawsuits went on forever.

    There really shouldn't be the need for a law like this at all but in today's society where indiference is rampant, too many guns are sold to those who are disqualified for various reasons. What I believe is missing in this bill, as well as the companion bill re: gun show sales, is a solution. A method where a private person would have the same access as a Gun Dealer to check a purchaser's ability to purchase and posses a firearm. As always, the lawmakers only look at the "feel good" part, not the total picture.

    That's just my opinion and mileage may vary depending on the operator.
    You're just as bad as the gun grabbers. I'm sorry, but if I sell a kitchen knife to someone who uses it as a kitchen knife for a year, then stabs their whole family to death with it a year later, should I be held responsible??? This law, and every other "common sense" gun law is an absolute infringement on our Liberty. So take your hypocrisy elsewhere. My Liberty is NOT UP FOR A VOTE... and if it is, the Republic is Dead and this conversation is moot.

    From my cold, dead hands!!! Not just a catch phrase!
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    You're just as bad as the gun grabbers. I'm sorry, but if I sell a kitchen knife to someone who uses it as a kitchen knife for a year, then stabs their whole family to death with it a year later, should I be held responsible??? This law, and every other "common sense" gun law is an absolute infringement on our Liberty. So take your hypocrisy elsewhere. My Liberty is NOT UP FOR A VOTE... and if it is, the Republic is Dead and this conversation is moot.

    From my cold, dead hands!!! Not just a catch phrase!
    and youre DAMN RIGHT brother! (or Sister as the case may be)

    There are subversives operating on this board, I've challenged several of them, they get angry, go off topic or disappear when challenged. Whatever their escape route, they NEVER want to acknowledge the facts, laws and Constitution.

    You don't really think the anti Freedom crowd would let a BBS like this go untouched, do you?

    The "cold dead hands" phrase was heard MOST CLEARLY at the Clint Didier campaign social last night in Pasco. It came from the crowd. It came from Clint that he was absolutely in support of the Constitution.

    Analysis of this posers post:
    "
    There really shouldn't be the need for a law like this

    [then dont have one(cop a convenient attitude)]

    at all but in today's society where indiference is rampant

    [hmm, somehow THATS a crime? (blame/criticize/slander someone else)]

    , too many guns are sold to those who are disqualified for various reasons"

    [overgeneralization, some vague guns sold to some vague people. HOW MANY? 6? 5,000? So THATS another excuse to infringe on the rights of ALL? This statement prives that the maker is anti 2A. Sorry, I missed the part of both Constitutions that prohibits ex cons from owning guns. Its not there. After they rationalize their rights away, its after yours they come!]

    OMDB

    You wanna know why ex cons should have the right to bear arms?

    1.) Nothing in the COnstitutions against it
    2.) theyve paid their debt, havent they?
    3.) this story from the Polk Co Florida S.O.:

    http://www.polksheriff.org/NewsRoom/...Homeowner.aspx

    Yes, the homeowner was afoul of the law, thats another matter. He needed to defend himself against other criminals.

    Bobcat Golthwaite once said about war: "draft the f-ing criminals, they are the ones with the experience"

    He makes a valid point. If Obama Bin Laden attacks America, Ill take a handful of armed Ex cons and maybe a couple retired spec ops versus most of american society that cant stand up to blow its own nose.

    Some fool recently was disparaging (they always resort to attacking someone) people who couldnt shoot straight to pass a CCW class. I told him that if the SHTF, Id TAKE THEM. Its QUANTITY, not QUALITY. Ill train them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Capn Camo wrote:
    Heres my 2 cents to Olympia. Think they'll take notice? Think they BETTER. I aint joking, a treason suit would be MOST entertaining, especially when Im on the prosecuting side.


    Sen. Jeanne Welles
    219 John A. Cherberg Building
    PO Box 40436
    Olympia, WA 98504-0436

    Rep. Ross Hunter
    330 John L. O'Brien Building
    PO Box 40600
    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    Sen. Adam Kline
    223 John A. Cherberg Building
    PO Box 40437
    Olympia, WA 98504-0437

    Washington Ceasefire
    Ralph Fascitelli
    PO 20216
    Seattle WA 98102


    *In Re. the Seattle Times article on your proposed gun ban

    * Hello Subversives!

    * The amount of FALSE information you all have fed to the Seattle Paper is staggering,
    and we are communicating with the paper and the People to expose it. Your goal is an attempt to institute the assault rifle ban.

    * In the mean time, this is the crux of the matter. The Seattle Times newspaper quotes Jeanne Welles as making some FALSE statements:

    "What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state,"

    *There ARE NO such weapons sold in the State now, nor have there been. This is a DELIBERATELY false statement.

    *** "She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms."

    * There is NO "Right to Bear Arms" granted by the Constitution.

    * Both US AND WA Constitutions FORBID you to infringe on that right.

    *Since it is clear you all are operating from deliberately false information, there is
    no point in correcting you, except to say to you all:

    * In a time when our Nation is at WAR with radical Islam and you are acting
    to aid and abet them by attempting to disarm Citizens from having weapons that can defeat Terrorists, decide whether you wish to be put on trial for SUBVERSION or TREASON.

    *You'd better look up the penalties in RCW for those CRIMES before deciding.

    * The People will NOT tolerate lawmaking to push Washington Ceasefire’s Leftist, subversive, utopian agenda, especially when such laws are a directly contrary to both Constitutions.

    * Here are some talking points:

    * In Richland where people own guns, there is little crime except the illegal drug dealing Mexicans you Legislators have allowed to come here.

    * It’s interesting that the type of crime you’re crusading against doesn’t happen here. It only happens in Cities that share your Leftist Agenda.

    * You must want crime. We won’t tolerate it here.





    CC.via Email to Klippert, Delvin, Van De Wege


    Did you actually SEND this to those people?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    I'm not so sure I see how HB2477 really infringes on my right to own and carry a gun.
    So I'll refrain from calling you names since it is counterproductive and instead just explain why I think you're wrong.

    1) This increases the expense of purchasing a gun. Dealers generally charge about $25 to do a check so every gun purchased now costs $25 more.

    2) This results in defacto registration. Since the dealer is obligated to keep those records, the government now has a list of every firearm you purchased. I am not comfortable with that.

    3) This increases the hassle of purchasing a firearm. I now have to find a dealer that is willing to do the transfer and not all of them may be interested in taking the time to do so. (This last is probably a small issue, but could arise).

    4) This means that I might not be able to buy the gun that I want if there is an NICS delay or hold. If I am buying a gun from you and you live in Tacoma while I live in Blaine, a hold means that you and I would have to meet at the dealer's shop (not Tacoma or Blaine) in order to complete the transaction, otherwise I am out $25 for a gun I never got to purchase.

    Numbers 1, 3, and 4 are inconveniences that make it more difficult for me, a law abiding citizen, to exercise what is supposed to be a right. Number 2 is a step towards complete registration and potential confiscation.

    Finally, what purpose does all this serve. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shows anyway. The FBI or ATFE have confirmed this over and over. All this does is make it less likely that we can get together as fellow gun enthusiasts and buy, trade, and sell our hobby.

    PS You might look and see what they consider as "at a gun show". In the past bills that have been introduced at the federal level, if you met someone at a show and three months later bought a gun from them, it counts, so long as they had that gun for sale at the show.

    PPS Apparently I was thinking of the other bill that would require all gun sales to go through a dealer (HB2264). This one would still have the same effect in my opinion in that no one would sell a gun without a dealer transfer. I also would echo that this is the only area of life where one can be held responsible for a legal sale that is then used to commit a crime. What if I sell my old truck to someone who currently has a suspended license and six months later they kill someone while driving drunk. What's the difference? Should I be held criminally liable for selling them the truck?

  9. #9
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Heresolong......good point.it is as is all of this another step towards confiscation and complete control.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    I'm not so sure I see how HB2477 really infringes on my right to own and carry a gun.
    So I'll refrain from calling you names since it is counterproductive and instead just explain why I think you're wrong.

    1) This increases the expense of purchasing a gun. Dealers generally charge about $25 to do a check so every gun purchased now costs $25 more.

    2) This results in defacto registration. Since the dealer is obligated to keep those records, the government now has a list of every firearm you purchased. I am not comfortable with that.

    3) This increases the hassle of purchasing a firearm. I now have to find a dealer that is willing to do the transfer and not all of them may be interested in taking the time to do so. (This last is probably a small issue, but could arise).

    4) This means that I might not be able to buy the gun that I want if there is an NICS delay or hold. If I am buying a gun from you and you live in Tacoma while I live in Blaine, a hold means that you and I would have to meet at the dealer's shop (not Tacoma or Blaine) in order to complete the transaction, otherwise I am out $25 for a gun I never got to purchase.

    Numbers 1, 3, and 4 are inconveniences that make it more difficult for me, a law abiding citizen, to exercise what is supposed to be a right. Number 2 is a step towards complete registration and potential confiscation.

    Finally, what purpose does all this serve. Criminals don't buy guns at gun shows anyway. The FBI or ATFE have confirmed this over and over. All this does is make it less likely that we can get together as fellow gun enthusiasts and buy, trade, and sell our hobby.

    PS You might look and see what they consider as "at a gun show". In the past bills that have been introduced at the federal level, if you met someone at a show and three months later bought a gun from them, it counts, so long as they had that gun for sale at the show.

    PPS Apparently I was thinking of the other bill that would require all gun sales to go through a dealer (HB2264). This one would still have the same effect in my opinion in that no one would sell a gun without a dealer transfer. I also would echo that this is the only area of life where one can be held responsible for a legal sale that is then used to commit a crime. What if I sell my old truck to someone who currently has a suspended license and six months later they kill someone while driving drunk. What's the difference? Should I be held criminally liable for selling them the truck?
    I've been called names by real professionals and it doesn't bother me. Keeping this in the form of a dialog, rather than screaming match, I will agree to disagree.

    We all complain that the crimes with guns are comitted by those who posses them illegaly but when any attempt to limit their access is made we all scream like a child who's pacifier was taken away.

    On Item one, don't complain about the background check charge, lobby for public access to the system. Right now it is the private domain of Dealers and the fee they charge is not necessarily in tune with the actual cost to them.

    Item two--what makes you think that guns aren't traceable today, at least to one or two parties before you purchase it. With a little footwork I would wager that almost any gun can be located if the Government wanted to.

    On Item three, refer to my response to Item 1. If background checks for firearm purchases were as readily available as one is on you the cost could be as little as $5 and take only a couple of minutes on the computer. Welcome to the age of electronic information. If you don't want to leave a record, don't hold a job, buy or rent, have a credit card, driver's license, serve in the military, or sign you name to any application for anything. Lastly, you don't want to even get a traffic ticket.

    #4 could also be solved at the time #1 is solved.

    I can only speak for myself but in the over 40 years of buying guns, as long as a background check has been required I have never had to wait longer than it took for the clerk to finish the paperwork. I'm sure there are those who have. I can't speak to that but I suspect that there are more reasons for the delay than often are shared.

    Let's face it, the SCOTUS has allowed for "reasonable" regulation to insure the safety of the public. Unless you, and others, can come up with a better way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, why not look at legislation like this as a start.

    Why not offer your own proposal? (I believe I have done so in my response).
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    Let's face it, the SCOTUS has allowed for "reasonable" regulation to insure the safety of the public. Unless you, and others, can come up with a better way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, why not look at legislation like this as a start.

    Why not offer your own proposal? (I believe I have done so in my response).
    You'd have to prove that these measures or legislation actually act to "keep firearms out of the hands of criminals." Instead of focusing on "keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals," the legislation should focus on "keeping the criminals out of the public." This goes multiple directions - decriminalization of those things that don't harm third parties, rehabilitation for those who prove capable, and continuous incarceration for repeat offenders who are found incapable of integrating with society.

    Presuming that a person is a criminal and therefore must prove their innocence violates one of the basic premises of our society. You do that when you require the entirety of the public to undergo background checks in order to engage in private enterprise. Moreover, it does nothing to prevent people who intend to do bad deeds from carrying out those wishes. Since they've already decided to circumvent those regulations placed upon society by harming or threatening another (the only harm that would ever come out of a "criminal with a gun"), what would stop them from taking one more step and ignoring another regulation requiring them to register all firearms?

    Thus, my proposal is simple: instead of focusing on something that affects the whole of society, innocent people included, focus on the criminal aspect only. This requires broader changes in law and society, but it shifts the focus from various inanimate objects to the way people choose to use and interact with those objects.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Amlevin I disagree with you argument.

    Because the government and other institutions have already forced us to leave a trail it should be ok, for them to force more registration etc on us?

    We need to become freer not more compliant.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    when any attempt to limit their access is made we all scream like a child who's pacifier was taken away.
    this is not an attempt to limit their access, it is an attempt to make it more difficult for the public to buy guns. As stated earlier it has been proven that most criminals don't buy their guns at gun shows.


    "what makes you think that guns aren't traceable today, at least to one or two parties before you purchase it. With a little footwork I would wager that almost any gun can be located if the Government wanted to.
    I can guarantee you that at least half my guns are completely untraceable due to when and where I purchased them. I intend to keep it that way.

    "On Item three, refer to my response to Item 1. If background checks for firearm purchases were as readily available as one is on you the cost could be as little as $5 and take only a couple of minutes on the computer."
    True, but still wouldn't keep criminals from getting guns.

    "Welcome to the age of electronic information. If you don't want to leave a record, don't hold a job, buy or rent, have a credit card, driver's license, serve in the military, or sign you name to any application for anything. Lastly, you don't want to even get a traffic ticket."
    See SVG's response. Also, there is a difference between the government having a list of my guns, which they will eventually use to confiscate them, and the government knowing where I work and when I got a speeding ticket.

    "Let's face it, the SCOTUS has allowed for "reasonable" regulation to insure the safety of the public. Unless you, and others, can come up with a better way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, why not look at legislation like this as a start. Why not offer your own proposal? (I believe I have done so in my response)
    My proposal is that we not treat law abiding citizens like criminals in order to stop the criminals. If someone is a criminal, lock them up. If they are caught with guns, lock them up. If they are seen doing something illegal, lock them up. I doubt you would be OK with the police just stopping everyone on the street just in case there were outstanding warrants; searching our houses in case we had contraband; hacking into our private computers just in case we were hiding income from the IRS, etc. They have to have reasonable suspicion in order to get a search warrant to do any of those things or RAS to believe that a crime is currently being committed. And yet when it comes to my purchasing a gun, I have to prove to the government that I am a law abiding citizen first. This is an assumption of guilt. Prove that you are not guilty, rather than innocent until proven guilty. This is the only area of our society that I can think of where citizens are treated this way. I have a strong suspicion that if the penalty for illegally possessing a firearm where ten years in jail with no possibility of parole there might be fewer criminals carrying firearms, and this is backed up by the statistics from Project Exile in Virginia. A highly effective program that does not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

  14. #14
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Again, I will agree to disagree.

    Something we will all have to face, whether we like it or not is more regulation. As I see it, there are three choices.

    The first is to merely accept what is forced upon us and then sit around bitching like a bunch of disgruntled Seahawk Fans after last season.

    Second, we can realize that regulations are here to stay and we can become active in the forming of them.

    Third, we can all just revolt. Essentially refuse to accept any regulation and defy government when they come to enforce them. Anyone want to guess what the outcome might be then?

    In closing, I would like to state that the people in this country are essentially right of center in their thinking. Neither extreme right or extreme left. One thing that seems to be a common thought, the majority of the citizens fear extremists. The more that gun owners sound like extremists that they fear, the more they will side with the Anti-Gun Whackadoodles that want everyone to disarm. Work with the system to guide any regulation that is almost a foregone conclusion or be worked over by the same system that the "anti's" have seemed to manage far better.

    Again, my thoughts, feel free to disagree. That's another right we have here in this country.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    Again, I will agree to disagree.

    Something we will all have to face, whether we like it or not is more regulation.* As I see it, there are three choices.*

    The first is to merely accept what is forced upon us and then sit around bitching like a bunch of disgruntled Seahawk Fans after last season.

    Second, we can realize that regulations are here to stay and we can become active in the forming of them.*

    Third, we can all just revolt.* Essentially refuse to accept any regulation and defy government when they come to enforce them.* Anyone want to guess what the outcome might be then?*

    In closing, I would like to state that the people in this country are essentially right of center in their thinking.* Neither extreme right or extreme left.* One thing that seems to be a common thought, the majority of the citizens fear extremists.* The more that gun owners sound like extremists that they fear, the more they will side with the Anti-Gun Whackadoodles that want everyone to disarm.* Work with the system to guide any regulation that is almost a foregone conclusion or be worked over by the same system that the "anti's" have seemed to manage far better.

    Again, my thoughts, feel free to disagree.* That's another right we have here in this country.
    I could not agree more. As long as SCOTUS says reasonable restrictions are OK there will be restrictions. Concessions will have to be made by one side or another. I would prefer that the other side make them.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    There is going to bemore restrictions so just accept that and compromise?

    Yep that's why we are so far down this path we have gone. People just accept it. We need to reverse what has been going on.

    I have different opinion where most people are. And it isn't on an illusional left/right scale that the supposed left and right want us to believe we are on. Here's an interesting quote you won't here from one of these main "leftist" today. Wow how much things have changed in 40 years or so, you won't hardly hear anyone on the so called "right" talk like this anymore.



    "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take
    arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of
    their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that
    freedom."



    "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the
    right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the
    essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
    fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever
    be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important
    declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
    ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."


    John F. Kennedy
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    I always use JFK to my liberal friends and it drives them nuts!

    I agree, we need to reverse the trends, they are not insurmountable or inevitable.
    Live Free or Die!

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    I always use JFK to my liberal friends and it drives them nuts!

    I agree, we need to reverse the trends, they are not insurmountable or inevitable.
    Its a good one to show all those fools who think 2A only applies to Federal Government. And also that the reason we have 2a is to stop tyranny, for example, excessive law after law like this ridiculous assault weapon ban.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    265

    Post imported post

    It's my opinion that the trends have already started to reverse in favor of gun rights. Castle Doctrine in several states, firearms purchases increasing, Concealed carry permits increasing, getting several pro 2a democrats elected, stats showing more people support the individual right over collective right, etc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    erps wrote:
    It's my opinion that the trends have already started to reverse in favor of gun rights. Castle Doctrine in several states, firearms purchases increasing, Concealed carry permits increasing, getting several pro 2a democrats elected, stats showing more people support the individual right over collective right, etc.
    In some respects yes. We need to keep the ball rolling.

    There are some major court cases waiting, like "incorporation" of 2A.

    The heller case waswon only narrowly and sadly along party lines. I believe this wouldn't have been the case 40 years ago.

    I think our legislature will shut this proposed ban down though.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kennewick, WA, ,
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    Good article Dave. Thanks for the info. I just emailed my reps.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    And here's the email I sent out to the Senator and Representatives of the 22 District:


    SenatorShin and Representatives Roberts and Liias,

    I understand that Rep. Williams is sponsoring two bills, both assigned to the House Judiciary. These are HB 2477 and HB 2264.

    HB 2477would hold a person responsible if they sell a gun at a gun show to someone who would not have passed a NICS background check, and who subsequently uses that gun in a crime, especially if someone is injured or killed.


    HB 2264requires every transaction to go through a licensed dealer.


    I am a five year Lynnwood resident, a commercial banker, co-founder of a local non-denominational community church, and am the first to bring the Wells Fargo-sponsored Reading First Program to the State of Washington by partnering with one of the local elementary schools in our neighborhood. Additionally, I am a husband, father of three and a Desert Storm Veteran.

    Like MANY, I am completely sick to my stomach about what I've seen happen to our country as a result of rampant, unchecked government control, abuse and spending during these last couple of years. Frankly, I no longer recognize the country I spent nine years protecting while in the Army National Guard and the U.S. Navy. Certainly there is scant resemblance to the one our founding fathers envisioned. It is to one of those men that we will return in a moment.

    The specific reason whyI write is to address the issue of government control to which I alluded above. What's needed is less government control and intervention on all levels of government and acrossthe span of oursociety, not more. AsI see it, the two bills I refer to here only seek to hand yet more control to the government at the cost of our privacy and personal freedom to conduct transactions without government intervention and oversight.


    Some of your consituentsmay say, "But allowing these transactions to take place at the (potential)risk of public safety and security is irresponsible."

    And in answer to that sentiment, let me refer you to the familiar words ofone of the founding fathers mentioned earlier. One of my favorite statesmen of all-time, Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


    Onewould behard-pressed to say it any better than that. Vote "No" on HB's 2477 AND 2264.


    B.K___________
    Voter

  23. #23
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    amlevin wrote:
    I'm not so sure I see how HB2477 really infringes on my right to own and carry a gun.
    You're just as bad as the gun grabbers. I'm sorry, but if I sell a kitchen knife to someone who uses it as a kitchen knife for a year, then stabs their whole family to death with it a year later, should I be held responsible??? This law, and every other "common sense" gun law is an absolute infringement on our Liberty. So take your hypocrisy elsewhere. My Liberty is NOT UP FOR A VOTE... and if it is, the Republic is Dead and this conversation is moot.

    From my cold, dead hands!!! Not just a catch phrase!
    I agree, Ginsu crimes happen alot. Now on that note, is this just for the private sector on sales? Or will they try to hold Gun dealers responsible also? Whats next, if you sell a car to someone, and they kill themselves or someone else while driving drunk will you be held responsible for that also?Chainsaw to someone and they move to texas and kill 5 young women with it will you be responsible? Where does it end, and how would you ever know if someone is going to commit a crime? especially in todays world with the job market, forclosures, and so on. HB2477 is making me tense, I have to go meditate.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kennewick, WA, ,
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    From my congress critter Maureen Walsh.

    Hi Bob,

    Thank you for your email. Believe me, Rep. Walsh is NOT supportive of these pieces of legislation, it is ludicrous to say the least. Certainly, these are not very well thought out bills. HB 2011 certainly is a worthy bill, we can use more firearm safety education in our society today.

    Again, thank you for writing to express your concerns.

    Marge Plumage
    Legislative Assistant to
    Rep. Maureen Walsh
    16th Legislative District
    (360) 786-7836


Posting Permissions

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