594 vs 591 article today on Komo.

[jim_dandy]

You're entitled to your opinion. I already posted what I thought about the 18-20 yo issues with it.

Yes, you think it's too bad 18-20's will have their rights revoked, but you're still willing to vote them away. You're still avoiding the questions asked by others. Like I said, revisiting the issues requires visiting them, and in my opinion you're avoiding them because you don't have a legitimate answer.

No one here responded to this point:

In another thread I asked why people here on these forums ask to see CPLs (and WA DLs) when they sell a firearm. And the answer I got was "because we don't want to sell to felons"; a background check accomplishes the same thing but it requires everyone else who may not be as careful as us to check the buyer isn't ineligible.

So if background checks are ineffective, then I am not sure why people here want to see CPLs?

Because using CPLs still allows people to check backgrounds without creating a new registry, the foundation for a long arm registry, doesn't add an unnecessary fee, doesn't criminalize citizens 18-20, and doesn't criminalize "transfers".

This law adds a hornets nest of laws for no discernible benefit. MAIG and WAGR aren't interested in our rights, and their claims that this is for reducing violence is a sham. Remember when they linked these to Sandy Hook and the Naval Yard shootings? Dishonesty is their game.

Like has been said before, I-594 is a stepping stone.

[ANZAC]

Yes, you think it's too bad 18-20's will have their rights revoked, but you're still willing to vote them away..

I'm trying to make this discussion about the issues rather than who here has what agenda. I'm not going to revisit old discussions. If you think I never visited it and I'm avoiding a topic or point, I won't lost any sleep over it.

Because using CPLs still allows people to check backgrounds without creating a new registry, the foundation for a long arm registry, doesn't add an unnecessary fee, doesn't criminalize citizens 18-20, and doesn't criminalize "transfers".

This law adds a hornets nest of laws for no discernible benefit. MAIG and WAGR aren't interested in our rights, and their claims that this is for reducing violence is a sham. Remember when they linked these to Sandy Hook and the Naval Yard shootings? Dishonesty is their game.

Like has been said before, I-594 is a stepping stone.

The fee charged by an FFL occurs when they transfer an out of state private purchase .... do you think that fee is unnecessary too?

594 doesn't create a new registry. I am not sure how it lays a foundation for a long gun registry. You could say the current registry is already a foundation for long guns.

Unless someone adds something new to the discussion I don't see any point in continuing it.

[jim_dandy]

I'm trying to make this discussion about the issues rather than who here has what agenda. I'm not going to revisit old discussions. If you think I never visited it and I'm avoiding a topic or point, I won't lost any sleep over it.

I've read through this thread and I haven't seen you respond to any legitimate issues and questions people have. If you're trying to make this discussion about issues, you shouldn't avoid addressing them.

Since you won't address them, I'll just assume you're in favor of the problems they will cause, as well as the MAIG/Bloomberg gun control agenda.

The fee charged by an FFL occurs when they transfer an out of state private purchase .... do you think that fee is unnecessary too?

No. This bill creates an unnecessary fee. See how easy it is to answer questions instead of side-stepping them?

594 doesn't create a new registry.

The current system is a record of one-time sales of pistols from FFLs, which is of dubious value. What they want to create now is an updated registry, also with dubious crime fighting value.

I am not sure how it lays a foundation for a long gun registry. You could say the current registry is already a foundation for long guns.

Because now the prosecutions which you laughably said would be done with War on Drugs tactics would be easily defeated without an up to date registry. Real enforcement requires a registry, or are criminals just going to use long arms now and get away with "transfers"?

Unless someone adds something new to the discussion I don't see any point in continuing it.

This "discussion" is a bit one sided to be adding anything.

[golddigger14s]

Well, somebody with sunglasses got their wish:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/tacoma- ... ons/nfqj9/
By Essex Porter
TACOMA, Wash. — The Tacoma City Council has voted unanimously to put tighter restrictions on gun sales at the Tacoma Dome. Council members acted after learning that private sellers at a recent gun show did not have to conduct background checks on buyers.
“There is nothing extraordinary about what we're proposing. If you are a licensed gun dealer you already have to do this,” said Mayor Marilyn Strickland before the vote.

[Bill Starks]

Looks like there were 6 people in the stands....

Tonight's City Council Meeting Video (start time 46:26)
http://cityoftacoma.granicus.com/MediaP ... lip_id=756


Get your bingo cards ready....
Common Sense
gun owner
MAIG
safer
..............

[root]

Anzac you have yet to address the fact that the FFL becomes the owner of the firearm in the interim.

594 tries to tell people that if the person is delayed, they can take the firearm with them.

Lolnope. Its on the bound book, so it is the FFLs for now. Now if person B fails his transfer, person A is now going to have to go through the process now.

I sure hope they don't get dealyed, and are happy paying a transfer fee.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Urban X]

You guys are making it far more difficult than needed. Anyone with half a brain knows that more government is the answer. You know, we need progress here, you know?! What is it with people anyways, I mean it seems the peons by now with all the media, education, and everything else would know that this is about equality. It may be the lowest common denominator, but in the name of equality, it's only right that the peons be treated the same as the criminals. I mean with all the laws out there on the books already, each and every one of you could very well be a felon anyways, so you might as well vote for more! More, more, more! Really, what's another law at this point anyways? Really? Can't we just quit arguing about it, already? It will be much easier if you just open up and take what you are provided with. Trust your handlers. It's simple. After you become enlightened, it's smooth sails away. Just ask ANZAC, he knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh, and that thing about innocent until proven guilty, that's old news! That kind of talk came from those old founder dudes, back a very long time ago. They didn't know nothing, they had flintlicks, for crying out loud! lol Get with the times! They didn't know anything about government, that's for sure!

Limited government? Sheesh!

[jim_dandy]

Anzac you have yet to address the fact that the FFL becomes the owner of the firearm in the interim.

594 tries to tell people that if the person is delayed, they can take the firearm with them.

Lolnope. Its on the bound book, so it is the FFLs for now. Now if person B fails his transfer, person A is now going to have to go through the process now.

I sure hope they don't get dealyed, and are happy paying a transfer fee.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Addressing issues with the bill isn't really ANZAC's thing.

It works against 594's favor though, showing how indefensible this bill is by adding more legal traps gun owners can fall prey to.

[munchie]

I just use a Sharpie to write a big "fuck you" on my ballots anymore, and mail them.

[root]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/09/color ... o-new-law/

Nothing can go wrong with requiring background checks.

[AR15L]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/09/colorado-woman-cant-get-her-gun-back-thanks-to-new-law/

Nothing can go wrong with requiring background checks.

And we're off...

A new background check is not required in this case due to the fact that 'ownership' is not being transferred back to her, she was always the owner of that firearm. The police only took it for safekeeping and she in no way transferred ownership to them. That city attorney made a crazy wrong interpretation of the law.

[glockgirl]

The saddest thing about I-594 is how very little the general public, and even those who are actively working to advance it, understand the initiative. Myself, being an active Democrat and already assigned to the 2016 presidential campaign staff, I have managed to keep my head down and reserve comment, but it saddens me greatly to see my peers and colleagues at press conferences and the like promoting the initiative.

[AR15L]

The saddest thing about I-594 is how very little the general public, and even those who are actively working to advance it, understand the initiative. Myself, being an active Democrat and already assigned to the 2016 presidential campaign staff, I have managed to keep my head down and reserve comment, but it saddens me greatly to see my peers and colleagues at press conferences and the like promoting the initiative.

Are you voting for 594?
If Klinton runs, will you vote for her?

[RENCORP]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill the Cigar Dipper as well.

Heck, can't be half as bad as Hope And Change has been.

Now, after 8 years, I got no hope, and the bastards stole all my spare change as well.

Makes me pine away for the good ole days of Bush clearing, Bush wars, and Cheney shootings.

Please, God, take all of the politicians to heaven or hell soonest so rational men and women can live in peace and harmony world wide.

[glockgirl]

The saddest thing about I-594 is how very little the general public, and even those who are actively working to advance it, understand the initiative. Myself, being an active Democrat and already assigned to the 2016 presidential campaign staff, I have managed to keep my head down and reserve comment, but it saddens me greatly to see my peers and colleagues at press conferences and the like promoting the initiative.

Are you voting for 594?
If Klinton runs, will you vote for her?

How I vote is none of your damn business, Rick. That said, it should be obvious that I will not be voting for I-594. As far as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes, if she is chosen as the Democratic candidate (which, at this point, appears to be unlikely), then yes, I will vote for her.