Elderly and Minorities.

Let me explain.

In order for a transfer to take place the buyer and seller need to go through an FFL.
Elderly people may not have the physical ability to travel to an FFL in order to make a transfer.
A disproportionate number of minorities receive public assistance and may also not have the ability to travel to an FFL.

Elderly people may not have the ID necessary to complete a transaction through an FFL.
Minorities may not have the ID necessary to complete a transaction via FFL (because as stated, dosproportionately on public assistance and may not have the income or documents necessary to get an ID)

594 makes no mention of a maximum fee dealers can charge for these transactions, but even if it is $25 (Which is relatively normal at this point)
Elderly people who are not working and live on a fixed income may not be able to afford the $25 transfer fee. Not to mention the additional "use tax" that would be imposed.
Minorities (remember, disproportionate public assistance) may not have the ability to afford the $25 fee and associated "use tax"

Therefore, one must conclude that because of the travel, ID requirements, and fees associated with 594, the initiative disproportionately targets the elderly and minorities, therefore making it difficult or impossible to legally purchase a firearm, this infringing on their rights. You can't exercise a right to bear arms if you can't legally purchase one.

So 594 DIRECTLY infringes on the rights of the elderly and minorities.

If the response is, "Well, it won't infringe on all elderly or minorities, so it's ok"

Then is it ok to infringe on some peoples rights as long as it doesn't infringe on everyone's rights?

If the response is, "That's something the courts will have to decide"

Then were the Jim Crow laws acceptable while the courts figured it out? How many years of Jim Crow were "acceptable?"

Sounds 'just a little' like the arguments against voter ID cards . . . so the Left oughta be in full agreement with you.

No, one is a "right" and the other is "something dangerous omg so scary".

*Might* be imposed. I got a big shoulder shrug from the DOR.

FFL fees are imposed private taxes. Apple Commission got nailed to the wall for it.

End of file.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

So if you can't think of a good counter argument, that's what you post? Brilliant.

What does it matter? After strong counter arguments on 594 infringing on gun rights and more vague language than 591, you're still going to support 594 but not 591. It would be one thing if you were consistent. This discussion is tired and stale. I commend the others on continuing the debate, but I accept that it's fruitless.

I agree with you that it is fruitless, although I believe I've been very consistent, even if you don't agree with my reasoning. And who cares what I think or what I support? I'm just one person. And I don't think I've changed anyone's position here.

A larger group of people than are on this forum will decide the outcome, the voters of WA.

If 594 passes and 591 fails, I'll be interested to see how the classifieds/rules change here. Would someone asking to see a good guy card be seen as implying they don't want to go to an FFL? Would any suggestion of avoiding a FFL be verboten?

There will have to be some small changes, no doubt. Regardless though, the CoC States that " All WaGuns users are expected to comply with all local, state and federal laws when posting on the site...."

Perhaps we should add a legal section for adoptions.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Would love to see a response to this...


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Wow...that's the real mic drop, right there.

Yeah might be imposed my ass do you really think this state isnt going to jump at the chance to add another tax to line thier pockets, for a quick lesson look at this states liquor sales and the taxes on that, you have the state tax(wasnt that supposed to go away a year ago?) Which they tax you per liter then when you get to the checkout counter and go to pay for your items you have to pay sales tax ontop of the booze tax because yanno the states gotta get its money too... oh wait isnt being double taxed illegal in this state?...