Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: If Washington would pass or remove just ONE firearm law..

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    If you had a choice to pass just ONE more firearm law in the state of Washington, what would you pass? Or you have the option of removing a law.

    State Preemption as it is, only applying EVERYWHERE, including any and all government facilities belonging to the state, county, or cities. (Meaning you can OC or CC in any court facility, school, liquor establishment, etc etc)

    Withdrawing the No Loaded long arms in a vehicle law, making you lawfully eligible to carry your rifle or shotgun, loaded, and in your possession, or near your reach.

    Or insert your own.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    I would pass a eat/west/north/south sweeping ban on all firearms including BB/Pellet gun and anything that look like or resembles a firearm. I would even ban the mere thought of a firearm.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    repeal RCW 9.41.190:

    RCW 9.41.190
    Unlawful firearms -- Exceptions.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machinegun , short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.


    and repeal 9.41.250(1)(c)
    RCW 9.41.250
    Dangerous weapons -- Penalty -- Exemption for law enforcement officers.

    (1) Every person who:

    (a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

    (b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

    (c) Uses any
    contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    I would pass a eat/west/north/south sweeping ban on all firearms including BB/Pellet gun and anything that look like or resembles a firearm. I would even ban the mere thought of a firearm.
    But then we'd have to have thought police, aka thinkpol.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    I am just kiddingabout the above

    I would pass a "shoot-to-kill" law of any thug that intimidates law-abiding citizens and/or deals drugs--especially to kids. Any thugs standing on the corner of a street at two in the morning is open season.

    Something realistic:

    I would make it unlawful for an officer to stop any citizen that is carrying a holstered sidearm and if an officer does and the citizen is found to be in their right the citizen is awarded 500.00 taken proportionally fromthe Governor's salary and the salary of the mayor of said city law-abiding citizen was stopped in illegally.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Post imported post

    G22Paddy wrote:
    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    I would pass a eat/west/north/south sweeping ban on all firearms including BB/Pellet gun and anything that look like or resembles a firearm. I would even ban the mere thought of a firearm.
    But then we'd have to have thought police, aka thinkpol.
    Men who stare at goats--that is all I have to say about that:P
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Sylvia Plath wrote:
    I am just kiddingabout the above

    I would pass a "shoot-to-kill" law of any thug that intimidates law-abiding citizens and/or deals drugs--especially to kids. Any thugs standing on the corner of a street at two in the morning is open season.

    Something realistic:

    I would make it unlawful for an officer to stop any citizen that is carrying a holstered sidearm and if an officer does and the citizen is found to be in their right the citizen is awarded 500.00 taken proportionally fromthe Governor's salary and the salary of the mayor of said city law-abiding citizen was stopped in illegally.
    Sounds like a good one. Although I was never stopped by the police when I open carried. Maybe I just live in a good area where the police are well informed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Skagit Valley, Washington
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    I'm with Bobarino here- repeal the statute against autos and suppressors, and enact one to exempt any firearm manufactured in WA from federal statutes. I could go into business.


    Bobarino wrote:
    repeal RCW 9.41.190:

    RCW 9.41.190
    Unlawful firearms -- Exceptions.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machinegun , short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.


    and repeal 9.41.250(1)(c)
    RCW 9.41.250
    Dangerous weapons -- Penalty -- Exemption for law enforcement officers.

    (1) Every person who:

    (a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

    (b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

    (c) Uses any
    contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Isn't Washington State in the minority of the states that actually ban automatic firearms and suppressors?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    Isn't Washington State in the minority of the states that actually ban automatic firearms and suppressors?
    automatics banned
    suppressors OK to own, illegal to send a bullet through.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    repeal RCW 9.41.190:

    RCW 9.41.190
    Unlawful firearms -- Exceptions.
    (1) It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machinegun , short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle.


    and repeal 9.41.250(1)(c)
    RCW 9.41.250
    Dangerous weapons -- Penalty -- Exemption for law enforcement officers.

    (1) Every person who:

    (a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

    (b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or

    (c) Uses any
    contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,

    +1

    those two really need to go!

    -matt

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
    There are several states like that.

    Here in California I can carry a loaded, concealed handgun, and it's only a misdemeanor (well, two of them technically), but if I own a sling shot I am a felon.

    Kids can't have any fun in this state. I mean, aren't they the vast majority of slingshot owners?

    Edit: Apparently it is "slungshots" which incur felony charges for mere possession, whereas "slingshots" merely cannot be carried concealed.

    I didn't know there was a difference until now.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Add a provision of RCW protecting a citizen using deadly force in self defense from civil prosecution.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    it's already there:


    RCW 9A.16.110

    Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030

    (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

    (3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

    Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

    (4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

    (5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:



    p.s. Why the hell isn't copy/paste working?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    it's already there:


    RCW 9A.16.110

    Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.

    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030

    (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

    (3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

    Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

    (4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

    (5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:



    p.s. Why the hell isn't copy/paste working?
    i think that means when the person is tried by the state, not by a private party (bad guy)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    not quite. read the first paragraph.

    No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever...
    you cannot be sued in civil court if you actions have met the criteria outline in the first paragraph. of course, "any reasonable means necessary" is open to interpretation and a civil lawyer will argue that your actions were not reasonable, but this state has a pretty good track record when it comes to protecting someone who acted in self defense.

    if you do get put on trial for manslaughter/murder/homicide and are found not guilty by reason of self defense, the state will pay your legal fees and you can't be sued in civil court.

    it's a pretty good law, solidly on the side of the good guy.



  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Bobarino I have read this RCW many times and I must agree with you on your understanding of it.

    I feel before what took mine or maybe others interpretation was what follow section (1) which relates to being found not guilty, by a jury or judge along with the test questions so ones fees would be paid by the State.

    Section 1 Stands on it's own
    (1)No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.



    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    you cannot be sued in civil court if you actions have met the criteria outline in the first paragraph. of course, "any reasonable means necessary" is open to interpretation and a civil lawyer will argue that your actions were not reasonable, but this state has a pretty good track record when it comes to protecting someone who acted in self defense.

    if you do get put on trial for manslaughter/murder/homicide and are found not guilty by reason of self defense, the state will pay your legal fees and you can't be sued in civil court.

    it's a pretty good law, solidly on the side of the good guy.

    There has been cases where a person was found to be not guilty by the means of Self Defense and then denied to have State to pay the fees.
    It is my recollection that they reason the fees where not paid was because the person had some involvement or involved in illegal activity when this occurred.

    answer yes or no
    1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
    2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
    3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
    a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
    b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
    c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
    d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
    e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
    f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged?
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
    There are several states like that.

    Here in California I can carry a loaded, concealed handgun, and it's only a misdemeanor (well, two of them technically), but if I own a sling shot I am a felon.

    Kids can't have any fun in this state. I mean, aren't they the vast majority of slingshot owners?

    Edit: Apparently it is "slungshots" which incur felony charges for mere possession, whereas "slingshots" merely cannot be carried concealed.

    I didn't know there was a difference until now.
    So if you make your own home made sling (or slung) shot, you're breaking the law? I remember Fred Meyer use to sell kids sling shots. Were those illegal, too?

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
    There are several states like that.

    Here in California I can carry a loaded, concealed handgun, and it's only a misdemeanor (well, two of them technically), but if I own a sling shot I am a felon.

    Kids can't have any fun in this state. I mean, aren't they the vast majority of slingshot owners?

    Edit: Apparently it is "slungshots" which incur felony charges for mere possession, whereas "slingshots" merely cannot be carried concealed.

    I didn't know there was a difference until now.
    So if you make your own home made sling (or slung) shot, you're breaking the law? I remember Fred Meyer use to sell kids sling shots. Were those illegal, too?
    Many places sell sling shots. When I managed G.I. Joe's we sold sling shots.
    Live Free or Die!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
    A sling shot is not the same as a slung shot.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    MrGray wrote:
    Aaron1124 wrote:
    That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
    A sling shot is not the same as a slung shot.
    Is this a slung shot?



  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    The *one* law isn't really possible because of the interconnections between statutes, and we need a priority list method similar to AZCDL. I talked about this during the SAM rally in Olympia

    RCW 9.41.270 needs to either be repealed or significantly amended (would fix our OC issues)

    RCW 9.41.290 needs to be amended to include knives and other weapons, and to repeal RCW 9.41.250 entirely (with conforming amendments to RCW 9.41.300 and RCW 9.41.280). We have Wyoming, Arizona, and Georgia with knife/weapons preemption now. This would also fix our suppressor problem.

    RCW 9.41.070 needs to be amended to lower the age to get a CPL to 18 years of age, and correspondly, RCW 9.41.240 needs repeal and RCW 9.41.073 (reciprocity) needs changes. Perhaps put in universal recognition for all out of state licenses.

    RCW 9.41.290 should be amended to add a private right of action directly into the statute including attorneys fees and damages, and allow ANY person or organization to have standing to sue (this is the situation in Ohio, Virginia, and others) Most of Seattle's defense against SAF's suit was that none of us have standing. SAF sued in state court, despite no chance of any reimbursement of attorney fees to us, where we won.

    Make it applicable to state agencies in a similar fashion to Utah, and overturn the thinking of the colleges and universities that they are public property when it comes to protests, but private property when it comes to gun owners. Universities have been repeatedly ruled to be public in terms of the 1st amendment, they need to be brought into the fold when it comes to A1S24. Essentially, I am calling for the overturning of Cherry v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.

    RCW 9.41.300 needs some amendments, too.

    First, allow persons to carry in 21 and over establishments as long as they are not drinking (currently it is completely illegal for a non-bar employee to carry unless you're a LEO). This allows the 21+ to set their own policy, but there's no criminal penalty attached to this unless you drink. I designated drive sometimes and I'd like the ability to carry.

    Second, change the statute to overturn Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, by exempting from gun shows completely from any regulation other than by state law. The state Supreme Court cracked both RCW 9.41.290 and 300 which made Seattle think they could regulate Parks via private property ownership (even though it's owned by the public). Though a local court struck down a ban as not applicable, what the Supreme Court of Washington did with Sequim is unacceptable, and we need to specifically pass legislation to keep it from happening again.

    Vehicles should be considered an extension of your home similar to NM, KY, LA, and MS, full carry ability openly or concealed. This also should preempt employee parking lot policies of private businesses, against both guests, employees, and students.

    Pass civil liability tort for any business that bans carry.

    Make unlawful the ability of any landlord to ban the lawful possession and discharge of weapons firearms under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, and prohibit commercial landlords from banning guns on their property (leave it to the individual commercial tenants, subject to civil liability, aka no more mall bans or strip mall bans on carry even if the business on the propertywants to give you business)

    Eventually, "constitutional carry" in a similar vein to Arizona.

    Going after Title 2 weapons is and should bethe last priority. Reason being is that A) Because of 18USC922(o), select fire weapons are prohibitively expensive and B) We need some good case law on the subject OUTSIDE of the 9th Circuit before going after it here.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I'd like to see TASER products preempted. Same with knives. I don't like the fact that I can't conceal carry my 4" blade in a few cities. Seattle being one of them.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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