• 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..

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

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

slungshot.jpg
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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RCW 9.41.270 needs to either be repealed or significantly amended (would fix our OC issues)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.
 

Aaron1124

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

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
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.

Agreed, which is why I said:



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.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

I want a law, that says you can shoot the parents of kids you purposly walk in the road, cuss around your kids, and walk around with their underware hanging out of their pants. We parented our kids and even our kids complain about those kids, saying what idiots they are. I a proud parent of 2 very well behaved, respectable kids.

But seriously, I would like to see all the states adopt a same law, law, Pick the state with the best carry laws and lets go with it, I think either Alaska or Arizona top the list right now. No need for reciprocation that way, just put it on and go.
 

kschmadeka

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
174
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
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.
Here is the current version of the bill to do that. Poosharker and I will be looking for a new sponsor in the near future. Barring a Republican sweep, this is also the only bill with a chance of being heard in the House next year.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
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?

slungshot.jpg

Looks like it would qualify.



From Dictionary.com:



slung shot[suP][/suP] 

–noun
a weight, as a stone or a piece of metal, fastened to a short strap, chain, or the like, and used as a weapon.





Origin:
1835–45, Americanism
 

Aaron1124

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

So basically, it'd be against Washington State law for me to take a large rock, and tie a rope around the end of it, while leaving a few feet of rope for grip and leverage, eh?
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
So basically, it'd be against Washington State law for me to take a large rock, and tie a rope around the end of it, while leaving a few feet of rope for grip and leverage, eh?
A belt with a large belt buckle is ok, right?
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
I wonder if my Morningstar is illegal in this state?

morningstarflailSM.jpg

Hahaha I have a buddy who owns a morning star. He keeps it next to his bed as home defense. I as nice enough to buy him a shotgun for Christmas so he could use that instead. :)

My pick for laws would be firearms can carried everywhere, even schools and the like. With or without a CPL is up for debate.
 

sudden valley gunner

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

killchain wrote:
My pick for laws would be firearms can carried everywhere, even schools and the like. With or without a CPL is up for debate.
1000' rule is federal and has the interstate commerce clause in it. It does need to be done away with. How does picking your kids up while excercising 2A have anything to do with inter-state commerce.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
killchain wrote:
My pick for laws would be firearms can carried everywhere, even schools and the like. With or without a CPL is up for debate.
1000' rule is federal and has the interstate commerce clause in it. It does need to be done away with. How does picking your kids up while exercising 2A have anything to do with inter-state commerce.
Though not directly attacking the federal statute, it attacks the Wisconsin State Statute on 1000 foot school zones.

Wisconsin Carry Inc v. City of Milwaukee

This is the first suit to my knowledge in federal courts attacking the gun free school zones act using the 2A.
 

killchain

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
788
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
imported post

Gray Peterson wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
killchain wrote:
My pick for laws would be firearms can carried everywhere, even schools and the like. With or without a CPL is up for debate.
1000' rule is federal and has the interstate commerce clause in it. It does need to be done away with. How does picking your kids up while exercising 2A have anything to do with inter-state commerce.
Though not directly attacking the federal statute, it attacks the Wisconsin State Statute on 1000 foot school zones.

Wisconsin Carry Inc v. City of Milwaukee

This is the first suit to my knowledge in federal courts attacking the gun free school zones act using the 2A.
Well then, I change my recommendation to rewriting that federal law. I also am under the opinion that teachers or maybe a qualified person on campus should have access to firearms for defense. Think of how many school shootings would have been lessened or even stopped if a teacher could fight back?
 
Top