• 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.

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

A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 
Bobarino

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
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.
Click to expand...
But then we'd have to have thought police, aka thinkpol.
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
imported post

I am just kidding;)about 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.
 
Beretta92FSLady

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
Click to expand...
But then we'd have to have thought police, aka thinkpol.
Click to expand...
Men who stare at goats--that is all I have to say about that:p
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:
I am just kidding;)about 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
H

Hammer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Skagit Valley, Washington
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,

Click to expand...
 
K

kchau

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
53
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
imported post

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

Matt85

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
176
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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,

Click to expand...

+1

those two really need to go!

-matt
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bobarino

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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?
 
K

kchau

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
53
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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?
Click to expand...
i think that means when the person is tried by the state, not by a private party (bad guy)
 
Bobarino

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
imported post

not quite. read the first paragraph.

No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever...
Click to expand...

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.
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
​
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
A

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Aaron1124 wrote:
That doesn't make sense. You can't possess a sling shot?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top