Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:46 am



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 No 594 prosecutions... 
Author Message
User avatar

Location: Kent Station
Joined: Sun Jun 8, 2014
Posts: 242
ANZAC wrote:
ccontrol wrote:
"Unknown number of guns changing hands" divided by "Lots of forum posts"

Either way your post lacks a position defensible by actual facts.
But that's not a new position, is it?


It is a sample.

Do you think people on this forum are complying with the new law (mostly) or mostly not?

(edit) it would be interesting to know the number or % of private transactions FFLs are doing across the state. It wouldn't measure non-compliance, but it would still be interesting to know.


Its not about think, which has previously been addressed ITT.

ANZAC wrote:
RENCORP wrote:
Sooo - gun crime will be solved, felons caught, and gun origins traced - exactly the way they were done - before 594.

Shocking news, just shocking.


No, the difference is the seller can now be prosecuted if they fail to ensure the buyer got a background check, even if they unknowingly sold to a prohibited person.


Key word being can, however not one prosecution has gone through. Tell me how effective your bull shit law is again. :popcorn:

_________________
skey wrote:
Actually this is probably a big success for Seattle. They have finally managed to dig a hole they can't get out of. :bigsmile:


Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:23 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Olympia, WA
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011
Posts: 38292
Real Name: Dan
ANZAC wrote:

Do you think people on this forum are complying with the new law (mostly) or mostly not?


Honestly? I think when 594 first took effect, you had a lot of people complying... I would be surprised if it was 50% now, and I see that number continuing to decline further.


Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:08 am
Profile WWW
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: everett
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011
Posts: 510
ANZAC wrote:
RENCORP wrote:
Sooo - gun crime will be solved, felons caught, and gun origins traced - exactly the way they were done - before 594.

Shocking news, just shocking.


No, the difference is the seller can now be prosecuted if they fail to ensure the buyer got a background check, even if they unknowingly sold to a prohibited person.

Prosecuted? It's just a misdemeanor. Tell me how that is a big deterent? Pretty much a "my bad" and walk away to a first time offender. Unless they want to make an example of someone and then the lawyers have their example to wreck this shit law.


Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:33 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
platz wrote:
Prosecuted? It's just a misdemeanor. Tell me how that is a big deterent? Pretty much a "my bad" and walk away to a first time offender. Unless they want to make an example of someone and then the lawyers have their example to wreck this shit law.


Well, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is also a misdemeanor.... I don't think failing to go to an FFL (the buyer might have been ok) should be a felony. In both cases the thrust of the law is "get a CPL" or "go to a FFL".... neither assumes a connection with a violent felony.

If they have a prior conviction on 9.41.113, then it becomes a felony.

That's why I said .080 needs to be beefed up as well. There's no reason we can't have both.


Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:49 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Marysville, WA
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011
Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
Massivedesign wrote:
ANZAC wrote:

Do you think people on this forum are complying with the new law (mostly) or mostly not?


Honestly? I think when 594 first took effect, you had a lot of people complying... I would be surprised if it was 50% now, and I see that number continuing to decline further.



A nice poll to conduct would be one asking FFL's how may private or "594" transfers they conduct each month. Run this poll on a monthly basis and see the trend over a year, two years----.

I'll bet the line on a graph would look like a kid's playground slide. First the climb and from there downhill until it goes flat at the bottom.

_________________
"I've learned from the Dog that an afternoon nap is a good thing"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
" - William Shakespeare


Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:01 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: everett
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011
Posts: 510
ANZAC wrote:
platz wrote:
Prosecuted? It's just a misdemeanor. Tell me how that is a big deterent? Pretty much a "my bad" and walk away to a first time offender. Unless they want to make an example of someone and then the lawyers have their example to wreck this shit law.


Well, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is also a misdemeanor.... I don't think failing to go to an FFL (the buyer might have been ok) should be a felony. In both cases the thrust of the law is "get a CPL" or "go to a FFL".... neither assumes a connection with a violent felony.

If they have a prior conviction on 9.41.113, then it becomes a felony.

That's why I said .080 needs to be beefed up as well. There's no reason we can't have both.

So what you are basically saying is oh well it makes me feel better? I'm glad. oh yea and let's change our current laws to be more strict. How about we enforce the laws we have.


Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:00 am
Profile
User avatar

Location: Kent Station
Joined: Sun Jun 8, 2014
Posts: 242
platz wrote:
ANZAC wrote:
platz wrote:
Prosecuted? It's just a misdemeanor. Tell me how that is a big deterent? Pretty much a "my bad" and walk away to a first time offender. Unless they want to make an example of someone and then the lawyers have their example to wreck this shit law.


Well, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is also a misdemeanor.... I don't think failing to go to an FFL (the buyer might have been ok) should be a felony. In both cases the thrust of the law is "get a CPL" or "go to a FFL".... neither assumes a connection with a violent felony.

If they have a prior conviction on 9.41.113, then it becomes a felony.

That's why I said .080 needs to be beefed up as well. There's no reason we can't have both.

So what you are basically saying is oh well it makes me feel better? I'm glad. oh yea and let's change our current laws to be more strict. How about we enforce the laws we have.


Excellent plan right there. thumbsup

_________________
skey wrote:
Actually this is probably a big success for Seattle. They have finally managed to dig a hole they can't get out of. :bigsmile:


Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:19 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
platz wrote:
ANZAC wrote:
That's why I said .080 needs to be beefed up as well. There's no reason we can't have both.

So what you are basically saying is oh well it makes me feel better? I'm glad. oh yea and let's change our current laws to be more strict. How about we enforce the laws we have.


Enforcing the previous laws we had wouldn't have any consequences for people who don't care who they sell guns to.


Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:15 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Snohomish County
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013
Posts: 2300
ANZAC wrote:
platz wrote:
ANZAC wrote:
That's why I said .080 needs to be beefed up as well. There's no reason we can't have both.

So what you are basically saying is oh well it makes me feel better? I'm glad. oh yea and let's change our current laws to be more strict. How about we enforce the laws we have.


Enforcing the previous laws we had wouldn't have any consequences for people who don't care who they sell guns to.


And why exactly is that necessary? Oh yes, because revoking inalienable rights despite time served is A OK.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

_________________
“I'm cracking eggs of wisdom!”


Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:22 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 1.014s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]