Washington State is bought and paid for by Microsoft and Bloomberg

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Do you personally have a CC permit in TN?

Concealed carry permits isn't the topic here. It's a good topic though. The concealed carry section would be the place for general discussion.

This initiative goes way beyond a simple BC. All it really needed to do was state in one simple sentence that everyone who purchased a firearm had to do so through a FFL and pass a NICS check.

I would not consider voting for that simple sentence. You?

 

[LostintheOzone]

Concealed carry permits isn't the topic here. It's a good topic though. The concealed carry section would be the place for general discussion.

OK, we won't address that here if you want to make that a separate issue.

I would not consider voting for that simple sentence. You?

No, I wouldn't. But practically I did vote for it with my money every time I purchased from a dealer or transferred from out of state through an FFL. I would bet that at least 90% of all sales in this state go through an FFL. That's a lot of people submitting to BC's.

My point is if you are going to oppose something then you better be prepared to not participate in the thing that you oppose. This I-594 experience has opened my eyes to some things that I was rather casual about in the past. I've purchased my last firearm in this state and will no longer participate in any manner of state registration.

 

[GregoryJ]

My point is if you are going to oppose something then you better be prepared to not participate in the thing that you oppose. This I-594 experience has opened my eyes to some things that I was rather casual about in the past. I've purchased my last firearm in this state and will no longer participate in any manner of state registration.

I believe the anti's would consider the above to be a victory for them. They have convinced another pro gun person to give up.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I believe the anti's would consider the above to be a victory for them. They have convinced another pro gun person to give up.

So explain to me how non participation in a state registration is a win for the AG crowd. Would you have all of those folks in CN register their AR's because of the state law they passed. I believe most of them aren't participating in a registration.

I'm not sure you understand the situation here. Every gun that is transferred will go into a state registry. Very few states have that situation. For me this isn't about BC's, it's about registration. I can separate the two, some can't. One relates to a person, the other relates to one's personal property.

 

[GregoryJ]

So explain to me how non participation in a state registration is a win for the AG crowd. Would you have all of those folks in CN register their AR's because of the state law they passed. I believe most of them aren't participating in a registration.

I'm not sure you understand the situation here. Every gun that is transferred will go into a state registry. Very few states have that situation. For me this isn't about BC's, it's about registration. I can separate the two, some can't. One relates to a person, the other relates to one's personal property.

I fully understand the situation. I oppose registration in any form. As for explanation, you stated you would not buy another gun. That's a win for the anti's, anything and everything they do that results in decreased sales (including between individuals, not from a FFL dealer) is a positive to them. Even moving out of state could be looked at as a win for their position. One less member of the opposition to deal with in Washington state.

Did you mean CT?

 

[quneur]

...I'm not sure you understand the situation here. Every gun that is transferred will go into a state registry. Very few states have that situation. For me this isn't about BC's, it's about registration. I can separate the two, some can't. One relates to a person, the other relates to one's personal property.

I oppose background checks. The reason is because its trying to limit an individual right be it the 2nd, 1st or whatever. A right is recognized by government - not given by government. Governments and laws it passes are built around the rights of its citizens; to enfore it, not hinder it. Too many people believe otherwise.

The founding fathers recognized one of the most important right, the 2nd. They wrote the Constitution around it. Its what assures (enforces) the others.

People are starting to look at gun ownership as a 'priviledge' and not a 'right'. They are being too casual in their ownership. Driving a car is a priviledge and therefore the State (government) can force whatever laws limiting a person's ability to drive a car. People project this concept onto gun ownership. I believe one of the reasons is because ownership is a physical object (firearm) unlike the other rights. The others are conceptual (non-physical). And because its physical, people tend to believe it can be regulated. Again, you can't regulate a right else its no longer a right.

That is how the gun control crowd will get a foothold. When a gun owner believes in background checks, they will write up a monstrosity like I-594 and sell it to the unsuspecting crowd. Hidden within will be such things as registration, the ability of authorities to limit ownership, etc.

We, as gun owners need to be serious about gun ownership. We need to plan a way to limit those who will buy guns for nefarious means - without government involvement. If we can workout a plan then we can propose such plan into law. But the way we are currently doing it, we are letting others dictate our capabilities of ownership. Sound high and lofty but it could be a simple as don't sell to anyone unless they have a CCW/CPL. With moderate membership fees, Washington Arms Collectors could be a model for the rest of the nation (You have to have a CCW/CPL for membership and only members may purchase firearms at their shows.)

The above are just ideas but atleast this way, we dictate the laws that govern ownership not someone from another state who never seen or touched a firearm or some politician.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I fully understand the situation. I oppose registration in any form. As for explanation, you stated you would not buy another gun. That's a win for the anti's, anything and everything they do that results in decreased sales (including between individuals, not from a FFL dealer) is a positive to them. Even moving out of state could be looked at as a win for their position. One less member of the opposition to deal with in Washington state.

Did you mean CT?

Yes CT. I don't intend to fold up the tent and go home. I still support the NRA and SAF. There is an outside chance that this will be put down by the state supreme court. I'll wait until I see the outcome of that. The issue here for me is the tax and registration of personal property. The state tried last year to get something like this through and failed. They already have their tax (8.5%) collected on all firearms by the FFL at point of sale. Now they want the FFL to collect it on personal transfers. The only recourse I have here is to deny the state any tax on firearms. WA has the most regressive tax system in the US. and the (8) billionaires who live here keep it that way. We don't have an income tax. Big shocker there.

 

[LostintheOzone]

With moderate membership fees, Washington Arms Collectors could be a model for the rest of the nation (You have to have a CCW/CPL for membership and only members may purchase firearms at their shows.)

You said that you opposed background checks yet you aren't opposed to members of the WAC requiring a CPL. I have a CPL and I had to get a background check to get it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I'm not sure how that works. Please explain your reasoning here, I'm confused.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

For me this isn't about BC's, it's about registration. I can separate the two, some can't. One relates to a person, the other relates to one's personal property.

Once a background check system is in place it can be used for anything... from gun registration schemes to forbidding legal gun ownership because of a drunk driving ticket years in the past or because you've already purchased one gun during the month... or or or or -- anything gun-grabbers can dream up. It's the tool that enables government to link the "person" to "property".

The overriding theme should be to deny government the tool that all gun control flows from. Unless that fundamental understanding is in place, then it's just a matter of Bloomberg making a good sales pitch of a "simple" background check.

 

[LostintheOzone]

The overriding theme should be to deny government the tool that all gun control flows from. Unless that fundamental understanding is in place, then it's just a matter of Bloomberg making a good sales pitch of a "simple" background check.

And they did a great job of that here with I-594. I'm not going to disagree with you on that point. People do however need to wise up to the difference. In this state there is no gun information entered into the application for a CPL. I think there is in some states though and that's bad.

If you need a mule it might be better if you can recognize a mule when someone tries to sell you a burro. Same thing applies here. A mule isn't a burro and a BC isn't gun registration by itself. They can be in the same place, in the same sentence and on the same application but they are mutually exclusive. States have passed laws against gun registration and provided for fines for gov't employees who practice it.

FL 790.335
(c) The governmental entity, or the designee of such governmental entity, in whose service or employ a list, record, or registry was compiled in violation of this section may be assessed a fine of not more than $5 million, if the court determines that the evidence shows that the list, record, or registry was compiled or maintained with the knowledge or complicity of the management of the governmental entity. The Attorney General may bring a civil cause of action to enforce the fines assessed under this paragraph.

So lets not apply the same tactics that the AG crowd is using here. They hide behind BC's to enact gun registration. We hide behind gun registration to avoid BC's. Same tactic. If you are against BC's for what they are then just say so. Most would just like constitutional carry, I know I would, but if a CC permit is all you can get then that's all you have. Hopefully you can get it without gun registration.

I'm not in favor of paying for a BC to purchase a firearm, as a matter of fact I'm not going to do it again. I've already paid to have one for a CC permit. One should be good enough if it can be cleared. The real sidewinder in the grass here is gun registration, label it correctly, know it, fear it, avoid it at all costs.

 

[SpokanePaul]

Only in washington

Only in washington would the majority be punished for the actions of the minority while passing liberal laws in an effort to protect the liberal minority. These guys actually think that the criminals will get a background check before they buy a gun.
The majority of the state geographic is more conservative but it's the voters in Seattle that push this stuff through.

 

[SpokanePaul]

Some doctors offices are actually asking "how many guns" are in your home. I will not answer it.

 

[Bkreutz]

Some doctors offices are actually asking "how many guns" are in your home. I will not answer it.

I visited my cardiologist last week (normal 6 month check), and he asked me how I was doing in my USPSA matches. He likes the idea that I'm getting out and moving around. I think he's in the minority among doctors. I don't mind.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

So lets not apply the same tactics that the AG crowd is using here. They hide behind BC's to enact gun registration. We hide behind gun registration to avoid BC's. Same tactic. If you are against BC's for what they are then just say so.

I have said so, many times.

Background check: A tool for government to infringe upon your 2A rights.

A fundamental understanding of what background checks are requires no hiding behind anything.

 

[SpokanePaul]

Just imagine what could happen if the laws we have were enforced rather than making new ones. These people live in fantasy world. Yes, the government wants our guns. Blaming forks for fat people, cars for DUI and the banana for what the monkey eats makes sense to the gun control lobby.

 

[SpokanePaul]

More specifically , it was a pediatrician that asked about the number of guns in the visit paperwork

 

[quneur]

You said that you opposed background checks yet you aren't opposed to members of the WAC requiring a CPL. I have a CPL and I had to get a background check to get it. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but I'm not sure how that works. Please explain your reasoning here, I'm confused.

I'm against anything that will impede the 2nd but the reality of the situation isn't lost on me. Repealing background checks has a slim hope of passing. But there are steps we can take and one of those is the suggestion of WAC-type bylaws.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I'm against anything that will impede the 2nd but the reality of the situation isn't lost on me. Repealing background checks has a slim hope of passing. But there are steps we can take and one of those is the suggestion of WAC-type bylaws.

WAC made the statement that they ran BC's on everyone that wanted to purchase at their shows. I don't know that for a fact because I'm not a member but I believe it to be accurate. A friend of mine is a dealer/member and he sells at those shows. He told me no BC, no gun. So that's his position anyway. The reality is very few people in WA transfer without a BC or CPL, which is basically the same thing. No matter, the AG crowd wants total control of everything and the state wants it's revenue.

 

[quneur]

WAC made the statement that they ran BC's on everyone that wanted to purchase at their shows. I don't know that for a fact because I'm not a member but I believe it to be accurate. A friend of mine is a dealer/member and he sells at those shows. He told me no BC, no gun. So that's his position anyway. The reality is very few people in WA transfer without a BC or CPL, which is basically the same thing. No matter, the AG crowd wants total control of everything and the state wants it's revenue.

WAC laws are quite stringent but a revision to those laws is what would be what I would propose. They do another BC on top of CCW/CPL. I think one (when you apply for CCW/CPL) is enough.

The main point I'm trying to make is gun owners should take control and not the gun control crowd. Then, at the very least, you can trust the language to not have any hidden agenda behind it.

I'm really tired of the lies being feed to us.

 

[Airpark]

Have at it Washington State. My only comment is :

HAPPINESS was the Washington State Line in my rear view mirror.


Remember guys this is the same state that too FIVE counts to finally elect a govenor, recently.