Author |
Message |
Hunter399
Location: Spokane Joined: Fri Dec 2, 2016 Posts: 32
|
Just thought I would ask some of you on here , if anybody they know has been prosecuted. under 594 law. You always hear people say they won't comply. I never have seen anybody get in trouble,so what's the deal.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:44 am |
|
|
Benja455
Site Supporter
Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489
|
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:29 am |
|
|
Hunter399
Location: Spokane Joined: Fri Dec 2, 2016 Posts: 32
|
Wow, thanks for the reply.That's what it took for somebody to get prosecuted.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:42 am |
|
|
Benja455
Site Supporter
Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489
|
No problem. Yeah...the law has been pretty pointless and hasn't "prevented crimes or saved lives" as they claimed.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:20 am |
|
|
Selador
Site Supporter
Location: Index Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 Posts: 12963
Real Name: Jeff
|
Benja455 wrote: No problem. Yeah...the law has been pretty pointless and hasn't "prevented crimes or saved lives" as they claimed. It's not pointless. It has harassed plenty of gun owners, hasn't it?
_________________ -Jeff
How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?
You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to tell me what mine must be.
Do justice. Love mercy.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” ~ Richard P. Feynman
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:33 am |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
A better question is how many prohibited people were denied from getting a gun vs before.... (we don't know that number either)
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:34 am |
|
|
Benja455
Site Supporter
Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489
|
ANZAC wrote: A better question is how many prohibited people were denied from getting a gun vs before.... (we don't know that number either) Meh. If we're going to play that game - I'll ask you to complete a background check before making any speech and practicing your religion.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:53 am |
|
|
jdhbulseye
Site Supporter
Location: Rochester, WA Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
|
ANZAC wrote: A better question is how many prohibited people were denied from getting a gun vs before.... (we don't know that number either) More important would be how many denials actually face prosecution. Sent from Proxima Centauri b through the ether using FTL transmission technology, Honey encryption, and Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches
_________________MadPick wrote: Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use. - Spoiler: show
- "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot
"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker
A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.
Jeff Cooper 1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.
- Spoiler: show
- SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.
The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.
You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.
“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.” - Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote: I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:56 am |
|
|
deadshot2
Site Supporter
Location: Marysville, WA Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 Posts: 11581
Real Name: Mike
|
It's just like I predicted. Only ones to be prosecuted will be those that are caught up in the net cast after someone kills another person with the illegally transferred firearm.
This almost sounds like "token prosecution". Charging this dude merely because the State needed a case to justify I-594.
Even if the transfer followed the rules set forth in I-594 the article says nothing about whether the sale would have been rejected or not. A good chance that the 20 year old shooter still could have purchased the firearm legally.
I-594 prevented NOTHING.
_________________ "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
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:57 pm |
|
|
Guntrader
In Memoriam
Location: Mukilteoish Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 Posts: 11595
|
You'd think four people involved in a murder conspiracy would figure out how get a gun regardless of the laws.
_________________ NRA Endowment Member. How did they know my member was well endowed?
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:04 pm |
|
|
skey
Site Supporter
Location: Not Washington : ) Joined: Thu Aug 2, 2012 Posts: 2832
|
Guntrader wrote: You'd think four people involved in a murder conspiracy would figure out how get a gun regardless of the laws. There you go with the common sense thing again.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:48 pm |
|
|
chevytruckman
Site Supporter
Location: Puyallup Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 Posts: 4996
Real Name: Sean
|
A good chance that the 20 year old shooter still could have purchased the firearm legally.
I-594 prevented NOTHING.[/quote]
I hate 594 with a passion.
The problem with the statement above is, he was 20 and it was a pistol I believe, been awhile. wouldn't been able to purchase the firearm used in this case legally, without it being the "family" type transfer I believe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_________________ smfh
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:42 pm |
|
|
Hunter399
Location: Spokane Joined: Fri Dec 2, 2016 Posts: 32
|
Thanks for all replys,more or less if they would enforce the current gun laws we wouldn't need new ones.
|
Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:31 pm |
|
|
jackass
Site Supporter
Location: Burien Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 Posts: 5885
|
The lawyers were clear headed on what they were to accomplish and who it was intended for. I-594 was NEVER for the criminal, it was for the law abiding gun owner who is of the vast majority of gun owners. Stifle trade, make their "bad" guy lists, lessen interaction with law abiding gun owners, and give law enforcement yet another reason to lock you up.
Last edited by jackass on Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:31 am |
|
|
Pablo
Site Supporter
Location: Everson, WA Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013 Posts: 28191
Real Name: Ace Winky
|
jackass wrote: The lawyers were clear headed on what they were to accomplish and who it was intended for. I-594 was NEVER for the criminal, it was for the law abiding gun owner who is of vast majority of gun owners. Stifle trade, make their "bad" guy lists, lessen interaction with law abiding gun owners, and give law enforcement yet another reason to lock you up. We have almost universal agreement among gun owners on this. The slimy scheme needs more public exposure.
_________________ Why does the Penguin in Batman sound like a duck?
Because the eagle sounds like a hawk.
|
Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:58 am |
|
|
|