Heads up Washington/Georgia gun owners

[the ringo kid]

While introducing that sort of bill might improve the odds of being reelected for a legislator from whatever district downtown Seattle is in, on the whole Washington's elected officials do not dare vote for that stuff. All the state level Democrats from my district are rated A or A+ by the NRA. Visitors from Seattle never believe this, but every one of the post cards that I've received from the NRA suggesting which way I vote at the state level endorsed a Democrat.

Do not forget that Bloomberg and his mayors' group combined their donations with millions from King County's software billionaires and spent eleven million promoting I-594. They plan to topple all the states like dominoes. The big news outlets recently reported that Bloomberg said he will spend 50 million of his own money toward that end.

The bloomingidiotbergs group hasn't tried anything in Texas because it would only waste their money. They know that Texas is lost to their cause.

 

[Mainsail]

Yea, yea. I've read your laws:
1) Several Washington Supreme Court rulings have found, however, that the right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation by the state under its police powers.

How many policeman have the right to call this regulation?

I'm not sure what you have there is a sentence- it doesn't make any sense. What are you asking? There is no "regulation" the police can cite. It only means that under very narrow limitations, the state can enact some gun laws, which they've done. Things like "you cannot set your shotgun up so it blows someone's face in when they walk through the front door" or "you may not carry your rifle into divorce court" are the sorts of things in mind there.

2)"Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized..".

Does this mean that a guy can't discharge a weapon around a cat, or around an area near my property of a car?

No, it means they can write a law prohibiting you from target shooting in the back yard of your suburban home, where there are kids jumping on a trampoline 25' away. They can write a law that say you cannot set up targets on one side on the interstate freeway and shoot from the other. Most of the counties have a five acre minimum before you can shoot on your property. In *most* cases it is a completely reasonable prohibition.

3) A person may legally open-carry in Washington state in any place it is legal to possess a loaded handgun, as long as it does not manifest "an intent to intimidate another or alarm them for the safety of other persons."

How do you define a loaded firearm as it relates to someone that that may be intimidated?

This RCW was often cited by police and others to make the claim that open carry was illegal in Washington; and that's what we were fighting ten years ago. The problem they had was like your quote, it was a paraphrase of the actual statute. Let's see what the law actually says:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

There are three elements that must be met for you to be charged under this RCW;
1 in a manner,
2 under a circumstance
3 time and place

The "and" that I bolded in the quote above means that all three are required. Carry "in a manner" by itself does not "manifest an intent to intimidate" and likewise neither does "under a circumstance" or "at a time and place".

On this RCW the State Supreme Court opines: "The statute does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public."

As to the "warrants alarm" part, the same court said: "… the trial court found that Casad did not carry the weapons in a manner that would warrant reasonable alarm. This factor is heavily contested by the parties, primarily based on individuals' reactions to seeing a gun carried on a city street and whether Casad pointed one rifle barrel toward the roadway. We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad's appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual's lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people."

 

[k22fan]

Well done Mainsail! Good research is a time consuming PIA.

GA1911,
The "Bloomingidiotberg" initiative did not alter any of the laws and customs Mainsail posted about. I-594 was about transferring ownership and possession. Laws passed by initiative here can be altered or even wiped off the books by the legislature after they have been in effect for two years. I have no idea whether opining if that is good or bad violates the rules here so I won't.

 

[Whitwabit]

The way to stop the BS is to VOTE !!! Get people registered to vote then vote them out of office !! volunteer to pick people up and take them to the polling place to vote .. take the long way and discuss with them the need to honor the 2nd amendment on the way !!!

If you can recall those representatives and I use that word lightly in this case for those people because there not representing anyone but themselves .. and their special interest groups ..

So many times I see people willing to complain but not willing to take the time to register and VOTE !!! It has never been a more important time then right now .. Election coming up soon ..

GET OUT AND VOTE !!!!!!!

 

[k22fan]

[...] Are you [Washingtonians] really comfortable with not being able to transfer old revolvers among friends and family members without involving more FFL fees and paperwork? [...]

Obviously not. That's what all the Rosie O'Donnelling has been about. See my previous comments about Bloomberg & software billionaires spending 11 million to influence our Nov. 2014 election. I 594 was debated at length in 2014 threads.

 

[Whitwabit]

I agree completely with your statements .. Illinois has some of the most restrictive laws ..

As for voting .. I am 66 years old and I have only missed voting one time and that was when I was at the top of the world at Thule, Greenland in 1971-1972 !!

I pick up older folks and others who would have trouble getting to the polls and take them to vote .. and along the way I talk to them about what we need to do to change the laws .. I am doing my part !!

The reason for some of our laws is the law makers in and around Chicago .. and believe me we are trying to change this !!! and our voices are being heard more and more !!

Illinois was the last state to allow CCL and we fought long and hard for this right under the 2nd Amendment !!! and we will continue to fight for our rights not only 2nd Amendment rights !!..

I in no way meant to slight Georgians I was just stating the way to change is to vote !! I apologize if my statement offend you !