"Official" i594 Rally Thread - December 13, 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Gun Rights Coalition secured the permit to keep the anti-gunners from locking us out.
Click to expand...

SAMCRO.

Supposedly it's the Sons of whatever motorcycle club (sorry, I don't remember the name)/Gun Rights Coalition. They are good guys and are involved in many of the 2nd Amendment rallies. It's probably good that they got it. I really don't think there is an actual conflict.
Click to expand...

http://seattleguns.net/showthread.p...Saturday-December-13th/page3&highlight=permit

http://waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=48310&hilit=permit
 
I have to agree about Gavin. Heard him on KIRO doing a 20 min interview as the organizer of the rally. He spent half the time talking about how everyone should have a bazooka and he would feel safer if his neighbor had a tank in his front yard. The rest of the time was spent on how the goverment had no right to make any laws on weapons and that was what he was going to be making his speech about at the rally. Not the face I want at this time representing me as the general population would disagree. Not the time to be making that fight. IMHO
 
People spouting things like that hurt our cause, not help it. The holders of the permit better step up and organize or the vacuum gets filled quickly.
 
'Theohazard'
Don't believe for a nano-second that the police don't know what a "transfer" is. That's pretty well defined at the bottom of Page 6 of the Initiative.
What they're really saying is that they have no intention of confirming to the general publi that this measure is as big a stinker as gun rights advocates said it was in the months leading up to the election.

That much was confirmed by the museum flap up in Lynden.

It would have been nice if people now complaining had turned out every vote they could. That might have stopped this thing from becoming law.
Also, if they had voted FOR the alternative, I-591, it would now be a constitutional crisis that at least would delay any implementation of the law.

Ah, but too many people tried to be too smart by half. Oh, well.
 
"But if the police claim those actions aren't illegal under the law ..."
Then we win. Game over.
How is it a problem if a 'law' is either unenforceable or ignored by those in law enforcement?
Personally i don't see 594 as legal under the State Constitution, but that won't resolve until someone takes it to court.
 
Having the authorities pick and choose what provisions of the law are enforced whenever and wherever they decide is not a win.
 
Next time we get the family together for "shooting day", we will keep track of how many times we "transfer" the guns.

If its before 594 is in effect, I will post the results.
 
Lets not forget, with all the problems 594 the reality is it is about gun registration. Why else is a CPL holder excepted from the 10 day waiting period but not a sale, 60 days to report all inherited guns to the Wa Dol It is to make sure all gun sales from this date forward are registered with the state. The temporary transfers are nothing but a bonus.
 
Last edited:
I 594

@hso: It's a win.

Years ago there were laws on the books here (Blue laws) that required a man with a flag by day and a lantern at night [told you it was years ago] in front of those horseless carriages to warn the populace...

Cops ignored this and other laws like it for decades...finally someone got a neuron activated and cleaned up the books.:)
 
Scenario question:

Two out of state hunters visit Washington State to hunt deer. If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?


What about two resident hunters? If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?

If that is the case...wouldn't I-594 affect local hunters and out of state hunters where it may not be worth the hassle to hunt anymore in Washington State? Thus could the law ultimately affect the amount of money that the state collects from hunting licenses?
If so could this be a reason (or one of the reasons) for having the law overturned.

If these questions have been addressed already, I apologize....I missed the answer.
.
 
Midwest said:
Scenario question:

Two out of state hunters visit Washington State to hunt deer. If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?


What about two resident hunters? If one of them wanted to borrow the other hunter's rifle in the course of a hunt...would the hunter be required to go to a FFL and undergo a background check before the hunter could use the rifle?

If that is the case...wouldn't I-594 affect local hunters and out of state hunters where it may not be worth the hassle to hunt anymore in Washington State? Thus could the law ultimately affect the amount of money that the state collects from hunting licenses?
If so could this be a reason (or one of the reasons) for having the law overturned.

If these questions have been addressed already, I apologize....I missed the answer.
.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, loaning a gun to another while lawfully engaged in hunting is an exception to the transfer rule. However, if my hunting pal and I sit down to breakfast prior to a day in the field, it would be unlawful for us to exchange shotguns for the day's hunt without an FFL transfer. Once in the field hunting, no FFL transfer needed.
 
Two things

I have written mine and

Does it really take effect ? Has the AG signed off on it ? As I understand it he has been bombarded with questions about the finer points. LOL
 
So, I'm unclear. Are there any defined steps WA residents are taking at this stage or is everyone just kind of doing their own thing in protest?
 
So some may find this helpful

An attorney put together a flowchart to show what is allowed and what is not...SPOUSES ARE EXEMPT according to this

click the link then click the picture to zoom in
http://i.imgur.com/QLMj1Em.png

(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
 
finally someone got a neuron activated and cleaned up the books
Click to expand...

And that would be where a "win" might happen. If the law is rescinded or modified in our favor so that there's no ambiguity, and therefore no selective enforcement, then we would have that "win". BUT where you can be subject to the provisions of the law differently than another citizen based on the ambiguity or conflicting interpretation of what the law actually means we all are still losers.
 
I'm clear on the other side of the country but I feel for you folks. Haven't read entire thread, but spot-reading.
A suggestion is to amend the bill...a sunset clause, an effectiveness review clause. It's always easier to amend a bill then delete it altogether. Some may not have the political will to do one; the other becomes more politically palatable.
Then, if there's not sufficient evidences to proceed with the bill past sunset, it's the EVIDENCE, or a DATE, that stopped it not a particular elected official.Clean hands.

High Ground:) , the best position to be in an encounter

Just a suggestion , rubbing 2 pennies together here paying for thought! Good luck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
*"I WILL NOT Comply Rally" Dec. 13, 2014, OLYMPIA*
Replies
2
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
M
  • Locked
2ND Amendment Rally's April 5th.. Check Your State!
Replies
1
Views
885
SAGEEN
S
P
  • Locked
Pro 2A Rally in Every State Capitol - Feb. 8, 10:00 AM
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Pyzik
P
D
  • Locked
Minuteman border group plans D.C. rally
Replies
0
Views
319
Desertdog
D
L
  • Locked
Anti gun rally near Chicago
Replies
5
Views
653
Texan Scott
T
Back
Top