Washington 1639

Status
Not open for further replies.
Register to hide this ad
Twelve out of 37 Washington State counties voted for that proposition, and that equaled 60% of the vote. Heavy urban population centers determined how 25 rural counties will exercise thier 2A rights. Is this a great country or what!:confused:
do you have a better system?
 
It’s much worse than you think.

For starters...

ALL semi-auto long arms are now categorized as “Assault weapons”. Yes, including your Ruger 10-22...

- Now you must be 21 to purchase a long arm.

- Now if you buy a semi-automatic long arm, you must take, and pass, a class. It is unclear what the curriculum is, who gives it, or how much it might cost.

- Now, “officials” can FOIA anyones medical records

- Now, if a firearm is stolen from your home if not properly secured (this term is not quantified), and used in a crime, you can be charged with a felony.

There is much more in the 30 page diatribe, including alot of anti-law enforcement elements.

GS
 
Looks the the voters in this state are intent on further restricting the rights of lawful gun owners with added restrictions on MSR’s and firearm storage.
I do not know how modern ugly black rifles winds up being abbreviated MSR so please spell that one out. Initiative 1639 defined all simi-automatic rifles and carbines as "assault rifles" so great grand dad's Remington tubular magazine .22 LR simi-automatic will be an assault rifle when the new law takes effect. As such it will be subject to the same buying requirements and age limitations as hand guns.

To protect their crops and chickens all three of the small farms I buy food from have a loaded rifle handy near a garage door. That will be illegal. They'll have to be in a locked safe as will all guns that are not on our person. Until a conviction is appealed to a judge who will follow DC v. Heller overturns that part of Initiative 1639 it will not be legal to have load guns in the night stand or stashed around the house.

I would love to opine but I do not want naughty forum member points.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I think we will see this kind of thing again elsewhere.

I never really knew my old Weatherby MarkXXII with the little 4x scope on it was an "assault rifle."

The things we learn as we grow older.
 
Initiatives have value, but not as a vehicle to be used by a mathematical majority to take rights away from the minority.

If it isn't struck down in the courts, then laws don't really mean much anymore, since the initiative breaks a number of them.
 
Until SCOTUS steps up to the task and declares all these violations of 2A unconstitutional, we will get nickled and dimed out of existence.
Also spot on. The SCOTUS needs to rule on these issues. Hopefully some of these laws will get litigated and appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS in order for them to get the chance. The changes to the composition of the court will hopefully result in them finally agreeing to hear some of these cases.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Folks, a reminder from the rules on this section of the forum:

Ideally, we should see nothing here that does not pertain directly to threats to or protection of or expansion of 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.

That means this forum is about PENDING LEGISLATION and responses from legislators or the actions of legislators or about PENDING CHANGES in carry permit laws and issues.

This forum is about ACTION that can and should be taken to protect or advance the cause of freedom.
Discussing various forms of government or how they function are NOT included in the preceding words. Please stay on topic.
 
before it went on the ballot, a court ruled that it was unconstitutional with respect to the Washington State constitution. Then the state court reversed it, but ONLY because the Washington State Constitution prohibits judicial review BEFORE an innitiative becomes law. So NOW it has become law, that same court may now legally strike it down. (that's the hope and theory at least)

So my old tube fed Marlin 60 is an assault rifle? ***? Idiots voting on emotion, not on fact.
 
Washington died this past Tuesday with the passing of 1639 and 940. The odds of them being corrected are modest. I donated $500 to the opposition of 1639 and spread the word as much as I could. I also tried to submit op-eds on 940 that actually provided the correct information about the law and tactics, but the newspapers to which I submitted them had no interest in printing them because the truth is of no merit or interest to them. There will be litigation on 1639, but I am not sure how well it will go and how it will be funded.

FWIW, trigger locks are both slow and a violation of the principles of rule 3; I own none and will not own any.

I have no expectation of being able to live in WA once I have enough time in to retire. The west side (King/Snohomish/Pierce/Thurston counties) will make us into California very soon. The I-5 corridor from Blaine to San Diego is a political, intellectual, and ethical wasteland.
 
They'll have to be in a locked safe as will all guns that are not on our person. Until a conviction is appealed to a judge who will follow DC v. Heller overturns that part of Initiative 1639 it will not be legal to have load guns in the night stand or stashed around the house.

Although the new law is densely worded, the above could be wrong. New Section 5 to 9.41 RCW reads:

Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must
be stored.

My quick reading is that guns do not need to be secured, but if they are not secured and something bad happens, the person owner is in for a world of criminal law hurt.

This from the passed bill:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. SECURE GUN STORAGE. A new section is
added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where
the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited
person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of
a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access
and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death
with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of
a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access
and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public
place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate
another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(2)(a) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm
in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to
chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(b) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in
the second degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable according to
chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
11
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a
trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the
unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the
basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful
permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and
supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges,
the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained
as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized
access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law
enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized
access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of
the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the
firearm had been taken.
(4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an
alleged violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the
prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though
technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations
where prosecution would serve no public purpose or would defeat the
purpose of the law in question.
(5) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited person" means
a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or
federal law.
(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must
be stored
.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top