ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gun laws

Reply
Old 25th August 2018, 01:28 PM   #81
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,769
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...on-the-ballot/
State Supreme Court ordered I-1639 back on Washington’s November ballot.
Quote:
State law governing the acceptance of initiative petitions is narrow, Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst said. “It does not allow for pre-election review of the form, process, subtance or constitutionality of an initiative petition,” she wrote.

Instead, it only allows a court to examine whether the petitions have the required number of signatures from voters.

“There is no actual challenge to the county of signatures,” Fairhurst wrote.

Wyman can’t be ordered to keep an initiative off the ballot “based on readability, correctness or formatting of the proposed measure printed on the back of the petitions.”
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 04:30 PM   #82
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,769
More info on I-1639.
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_I..._Measure_(2018)

This is the summary of the initiative that will appear on the ballot. I think it's just as inadequate as I-594 (bkgd checks) which was passed a few years ago. The I-594 summary did not say "all transfers without limitation" would require a bkgd check. Some people thought it only affected sales.
Quote:
Initiative Measure No. 1639 concerns firearms.

This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions.

Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Too bad it's worded like assault weapons are already a thing defined by WA law. I think if it included the I-1639 words which said all modern semi-auto rifles will be defined as assault weapons some people might be saying "WTF?".

Supporters of I-1639 are spending a lot of money;
Total raised: $4,111,027.12
Total spent: $4,174,818.26

Totals in opposition; most by the NRA. Not sure why it's not being spent.
Total raised: $118,029.81
Total spent: $16,485.03
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2018, 03:40 PM   #83
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,769
I-1639 passed about 60/40 like I-594 did. I can get around the training requirements for buying a semi-auto rifle (now they're all assault rifles) by purchasing the receiver only. I'm better off buying receivers for guns like the AR-15 and 10/22 anyway seeing as I normally piece them together myself.

As far as I know there aren't any classes set up that meet the new training requirements; but I'm certain various gun clubs will rise to the occasion.

I want to know more about how the state defines "secure gun storage", but with the AG being loathe to give an opinion on gun laws in WA, I think it might be a waste of my time.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 10:08 PM   #84
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,769
https://www.king5.com/article/news/l.../281-615035375
Quote:
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District court in Seattle challenging Washington Initiative 1639, one of the strictest gun laws on the books nationally.

According to a press release, the suit states I-1639 “violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.”
I'll take the required safety course when one is available. I doubt the new law will affect me anytime soon as the last few semi-auto rifles I built (assembled from parts) started out as stripped lower receivers which are not subject to the new law. I'll probably buy a few more if they go on sale at the end of the month.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 10:38 PM   #85
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,262
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I-1639 passed about 60/40 like I-594 did. I can get around the training requirements for buying a semi-auto rifle (now they're all assault rifles) by purchasing the receiver only. I'm better off buying receivers for guns like the AR-15 and 10/22 anyway seeing as I normally piece them together myself.

As far as I know there aren't any classes set up that meet the new training requirements; but I'm certain various gun clubs will rise to the occasion.

I want to know more about how the state defines "secure gun storage", but with the AG being loathe to give an opinion on gun laws in WA, I think it might be a waste of my time.
It's always a good idea to keep definitions as vague as possible so the law can be broadly applied when necessary.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 07:02 AM   #86
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,769
I hope you're being ironic. Since some laws are written to restrict the actions of the law abiding, they need to be precise and narrow so that they are not over reaching at the whim of law enforcement.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 07:16 PM   #87
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,769
Some info on the required safety course.
https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-16...ety%20training
Quote:
The proof of training must be in the form of a certification that declares under the penalty of perjury that the training included minimum requirements prescribed in the law.

The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or a firearms training school with certified instructors.

The training must include instruction on:

Basic firearms safety rules;
Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;
Firearms and suicide prevention;
Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
Safe handling of firearms; and
State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers.
On Facebook I found this link;
https://sporting-systems.com/free-16...piN1EITqLoSv44

In five minutes I was trained and certified. I feel like the legislature has ripped me off, again.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.