Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:19 pm



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  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Has anybody been prosecuted for 594 
Author Message
User avatar

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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: White Center
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 6489
https://www.google.com/amp/www.king5.co ... /337141858


Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:29 am
Profile
User avatar

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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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? :wink05: :angryfire: :cussing: :thumbsdown: :facepalm2:

_________________
-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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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
Profile
In Memoriam
User avatar
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Puyallup
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011
Posts: 4992
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
Profile
User avatar

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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Burien
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 5862
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
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Everson, WA
Joined: Sun Jan 6, 2013
Posts: 28149
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
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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 : 0.640s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]