• 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.

WA Legislature convenes, gun bills unveiled

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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!!!
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Capn Camo

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
165
Location
E TN
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
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
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!
 

Capn Camo

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
165
Location
E TN
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/News%20Releases/Pages/ArmedHomeInvasionSuspectShotandKilledbyHomeowner.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.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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?
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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?
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
imported post

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

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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).
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top