Advancing gun rights: common sense proposals

kparker · Nov 11, 2013

Alpine said:
Here's an idea. Florida recently expanded their defense laws to allow warning shots. We should get that passed here. That would show Sherry Appleton a thing or two.

Yes, it's an idea. It's also a TERRIBLE idea. What problem are you trying to address with this proposal?

acmariner99 · Nov 11, 2013

I think we should also place an exception on who may apply for a CPL or carry on an out of state carry permit if they are 18-20 and are members or veterans of the Armed Forces. I think it is pretty ridiculous how young adults can carry a weapon or have their finger on "the button" while on duty, but once they are out of uniform are defenseless. I think the rules for foreigners could also be revised to allow anyone with a firearms license from their country of residence can apply for a WA CPL.

I would like to see something like a "firearm's freedom act" in WA, but I think that is a pipe dream. Getting rid of the pistol registry I think is feasible if we can prove that its costs vs. benefits are out of sync.

mikeyb · Nov 11, 2013

acmariner99 said:
I think we should also place an exception on who may apply for a CPL or carry on an out of state carry permit if they are 18-20 and are members or veterans of the Armed Forces. I think it is pretty ridiculous how young adults can carry a weapon or have their finger on "the button" while on duty, but once they are out of uniform are defenseless. I think the rules for foreigners could also be revised to allow anyone with a firearms license from their country of residence can apply for a WA CPL.

I would like to see something like a "firearm's freedom act" in WA, but I think that is a pipe dream. Getting rid of the pistol registry I think is feasible if we can prove that its costs vs. benefits are out of sync.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The gov't has no right to dictate the manner in which I carry. Anti's lack any compromising attitudes, therefore, we cannot compromise either.

marshaul · Nov 11, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
The legislature is meeting again this january, there are anti gun bills from last session that are still a threat this session,

furthermore, there seems to be little effort to advance gun rights this session,

however we cannot expect to maintain our current level of rights if we are focused only on defending what we already have, we need to go on the offensive legislation wise and make the anti gunners defend the status quo....

furthermore, we still seem to be fighting over the same issues, we need bold new ideas to begin working towards, a long term idea is better because it will force the anti gun side to use what little resources they have comparatively speaking stopping our "extremist ideology" instead of advancing theirs.

This legislative session (and the next couple ones after that) we should get some sypathetic eastern legislators to introduce legislation.....
>eliminating the pistol registry
>allowing CPL holders to bypass NICS check
>shortening/eliminating the wait period, whichever is more politically feasible
>expanded CPL reciprocity

furthermore Jan Angel's likely to win this election, meaning the republicans with the majority coalition caucus have +2 in the senate. democrat Tim Sheldon is in a gun friendly district. furthermore Spokane senator Padden is an NRA A+ senator and he controls the law and justice committee.

does anyone here think we can exert some effort and get some pro-gun bills passed and put the antis back on defense?

there's some other grand ideas in my head, but they're long term and I'd rather discuss them another time.

I see a lot of talk about P4P, but very little in the way of "gun rights".

EMNofSeattle · Nov 11, 2013

mikeyb said:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The gov't has no right to dictate the manner in which I carry. Anti's lack any compromising attitudes, therefore, we cannot compromise either.

wrong, Antis "compromise" frequently. they want full registration and if they get universal background checks they're happy as a first step. you're not going to eliminate every law regulating firearms overnight, we need to be willing to be just as patient but actually work towards loosening and eliminating laws...

Alpine · Nov 11, 2013

kparker said:
Yes, it's an idea. It's also a TERRIBLE idea. What problem are you trying to address with this proposal?

Right now our current law does not allow warning shots, that means if you fire your gun someone will likely die as a result which can possibly be bad for everyone involved. As law abiding citizens we should have the legal right to fire warning shots, or do you want to see every legit defensive gun use wind up with someone shot or killed? That is how the MSM is trying to portray gun owners, as blood-thirsty nuts who WANT to harm others, but that is NOT what we want in image OR reality.

Often killing a criminal is a huge legal burden on a gun owner, and I can't see how giving gun owners the option to fire warning shots is a bad thing. They can still kill the perp if their life is threatened, but it would be nice to have the legal protection of firing a warning shot if one so chose.

davidmcbeth · Nov 11, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
so here's my ccw reciprocity proposal

Proposed CPL Reciprocity law

The Washington State Visitor’s Self Protection Act

Be It Enacted by the State of Washington

RCW 9.41.073 shall be amended to read as follows

(1)(a) A person licensed to carry a pistol [strike]in a state the laws of which recognize and give effect in that state to a concealed pistol license issued under the laws of the state of Washington is authorized to carry a concealed pistol in this state if:[/strike] under the laws of any other state or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia is authorized to carry a concealed pistol in this state, provided:

Why would a license be required? Some states require no license ... and if meant to not require a license, then almost anyone could carry as many states that don't require a license would allow a visitor to carry.

just something I noticed ..

509rifas · Nov 12, 2013

How about eliminating the need for CPLs?

And what's this about a pistol registry?

EMNofSeattle · Nov 12, 2013

NavyLCDR said:
I must disagree with you. A compromise means giving up something that you have. What are the anti-s giving up that they already have? Just because they don't get everything they want does not mean they compromised. What are they giving up? Nothing. We simply are losing less. That's not compromise. If I put a gun to your head and say give me $100 and you say "How about $50" and I say "OK, I'll take $50", did I compromise? Nope. I still robbed you. I gained something that I did not have before and you lost something that you previously had - that in no way equates to compromising.

but they consider it a compromise, and they're ok with compromise because any increase in regulation is a win for them.

if we adopted the same attitude, that any loosening of gun laws is a win for us even if it's not everything we want, we'll have plenty of success.

Kryteon · Nov 12, 2013

Ban gun free zones

Require gun safety classes in public schools.

Establish an advisory committee for "Armed Citizens for the Protection of Children", (or Single Mothers, or Minorities, or any other special group).

Remove state sales tax from gun purchases, (like gun safes).

Stop the police from confronting open carrying law abiding citizens without RAS.

OC for ME · Nov 12, 2013

Kryteon said:
Remove state sales tax from gun purchases, (like gun safes).

Yeah, right, good luck with this one.

acmariner99 · Nov 12, 2013

mikeyb said:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The gov't has no right to dictate the manner in which I carry. Anti's lack any compromising attitudes, therefore, we cannot compromise either.

If you bite off more than you can chew, you won't get any support for it, or rather not enough. I would love to eliminate the CPL and have Constitutional Carry in WA, but that is just not practical. I am talking about small practical steps we can take to improve carry rights in WA.

kparker · Nov 13, 2013

Remove state sales tax from gun purchases, (like gun safes).

No way. Remove the silly ad-hoc law that provides for tax-free sales of gun safes. Let's be consistent here, and pull for decent fair and consistent laws for everyone and everything. Supporting this tax break just feeds into the idea that guns are oh-so-special and so different; it will come back to bite us.

Ban gun free zones

Far too much infringement on individual freedom. Instead, what about imposing a strict liability for safety regimen on gun-free zones instead? I'd do almost anything (moral!) to get insurance companies and attorneys on the other side of the liability issue for a while!

EMNofSeattle · Nov 13, 2013

kparker said:
No way. Remove the silly ad-hoc law that provides for tax-free sales of gun safes. Let's be consistent here, and pull for decent fair and consistent laws for everyone and everything. Supporting this tax break just feeds into the idea that guns are oh-so-special and so different; it will come back to bite us.

guns are special, they're the only personal property mentioned in the constitution.
furthermore the state has every right to encourage purchase of a product by eliminating tax on it. saving just one kid from an accidental shooting probably saves the state more money out of Harborview Trauma Center's budget then they lose from not collecting sales tax.

Far too much infringement on individual freedom. Instead, what about imposing a strict liability for safety regimen on gun-free zones instead? I'd do almost anything (moral!) to get insurance companies and attorneys on the other side of the liability issue for a while!

because the type of crime that a personally carried pistol will protect you from is relatively rare, that the establishment imposing a gun free policy has no control over the acts of a third party, and that you can always choose to go somewhere else.

marshaul · Nov 13, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
guns are special, they're the only personal property mentioned in the constitution.

Wrong.

5th Amendment said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 13, 2013

marshaul said:
Wrong.

those sections only refer to "property" and not to a specific type of item as property. furthermore, the founders probably had "real property" in mind when they wrote those sections as opposed to "personal property"

davidmcbeth · Nov 13, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
those sections only refer to "property" and not to a specific type of item as property. furthermore, the founders probably had "real property" in mind when they wrote those sections as opposed to "personal property"

Hey, u changed your sig .... smart move!

Founder had property - like slaves? lol - they real or personal I forget

marshaul · Nov 13, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
those sections only refer to "property" and not to a specific type of item as property. furthermore, the founders probably had "real property" in mind when they wrote those sections as opposed to "personal property"

So, are printing presses not a specific item of property? What about churches?

Also, considering that government has a long history of fining people for all sorts of conduct, it's ludicrous to say that the founders didn't envision a need to protect against government seizure of monetary and other forms of personal property without due process.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 13, 2013

marshaul said:
So, are printing presses not a specific item of property? What about churches?

Also, considering that government has a long history of fining people for all sorts of conduct, it's ludicrous to say that the founders didn't envision a need to protect against government seizure of monetary and other forms of personal property without due process.

but fines are not taken "for public use", they're puntitive in nature and you certainly aren't "compensated" for the government fining you....

I'll rephrase my original

arms are the only class of personal property whose ownership and use is specifically protected.

churches are not a specific class of property protected, it's the activity inside the church that is protected, the first amendment does not protect ownership and use of personal property, it protects specific acts. the property you mention, printing presses, church buildings etc, are incidental to protected acts, but they're not specifically protected by statute. the government can eminent domain your church (and because it's on real property they constitutionally have to compensate you for taking it) and it's grounds, but they cannot constitutionally prohibit you from meeting to take communion or do whatever your church does.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 14, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
those sections only refer to "property" and not to a specific type of item as property. furthermore, the founders probably had "real property" in mind when they wrote those sections as opposed to "personal property"

Wrong. These documents are founded on natural law theory ( or at least sold to the public that way).

The theory is that all rights are property rights, that we have property within ourselves and that extends to all we rightfully acquire or do.

Advancing gun rights: common sense proposals

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member