Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:14 pm


Vote NO 1639
NO on 1639 Fundraiser - $16,631
 
$0 YOU RAISED $16,631!!!
Vote NO 1639
Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms I5 Guns & Ammo Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
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  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Did a lawyer ever comment on the law regarding..... 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar
Site Admin

Location: Renton, WA
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011
Posts: 34888
Real Name: Steve
Selador wrote:
RocketScott wrote:
Technically the trigger is pressed by the trigger spring after releasing finger pressure.

The law doesn’t say that your finger has to do the pressing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically... You could justify full-auto by the same argument.


No, because with full auto the trigger doesn't move after the first shot.

_________________
Steve

Benefactor Life Member, National Rifle Association
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Legal Action Supporter, Firearms Policy Coalition
Please support the organizations that support all of us.

Leave it cleaner than you found it.


Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:33 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 8027
Real Name: Jeff
MadPick wrote:
Selador wrote:
RocketScott wrote:
Technically the trigger is pressed by the trigger spring after releasing finger pressure.

The law doesn’t say that your finger has to do the pressing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically... You could justify full-auto by the same argument.


No, because with full auto the trigger doesn't move after the first shot.

Ok, I can see the point about the trigger not moving any more.

But in the example, the trigger doesn't move the second time, because you moved it with your finger. It moves because of the spring pushing it back. So your finger doesn't move the trigger every time. But it moves the second time, because you pulled the trigger the first time.

In full auto, you pull the trigger, and every firing action after that, happens because of the fact that you pulled the trigger that first time.

One extra action per one trigger pull. Versus many extra actions per one trigger pull. Still extra actions...

_________________
-Jeff

Image

How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?

They can have my gun, when they have given up all of theirs.

Personally, I'd like to see cops kill fewer people, and the courts kill more of them.~snozzberries
The big takeaway is that PETA now has more mass shooters than the NRA. ~RocketScott


Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:06 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: West Olympia
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012
Posts: 5683
Real Name: Matt
All these technicalities create way too much risk for major legal issues. Is it really worth it to be able to shoot at a high rate of feed? It serves zero purpose other than fun. I don’t disagree that all these laws should be tossed, but the reality is we have to live with them. I am truly fascinated by people trying to manipulate words of laws on these types of things. Is it worth loosing your rights over? If the same money and energy was spent trying to get these BS laws changed we may actually get somewhere. I personally feel these things that skate the edge of legal set us back.

_________________
"I'm Hub McCann. I've fought in two World Wars and countless smaller ones on three continents. I led thousands of men into battle with everything from horses and swords to artillery and TANKS! I've seen the headwaters of the Nile, and tribes of natives no white man had ever seen before. I've won and lost a dozen fortunes, KILLED MANY MEN! And loved only one woman, with a passion a FLEA like you could never begin to understand. That's who I am. NOW, GO HOME, BOY!"



"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Albert Einstein 1947


Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:26 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Melmac (County of Pierce)
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 8899
Real Name: Gordon Shumway
mcyclonegt wrote:
All these technicalities create way too much risk for major legal issues. Is it really worth it to be able to shoot at a high rate of feed? It serves zero purpose other than fun. I don’t disagree that all these laws should be tossed, but the reality is we have to live with them. I am truly fascinated by people trying to manipulate words of laws on these types of things. Is it worth loosing your rights over? If the same money and energy was spent trying to get these BS laws changed we may actually get somewhere. I personally feel these things that skate the edge of legal set us back.


If it's time to bury them, it's time to use them...


something, something...

_________________
The only good cat is a stir-fried cat
DGM33 wrote:
That's quite the nut sack you have there!


Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:16 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 2923
I don't really have any interest in owning one. If I did I'd want some ruling or clarification of the law before buying.

This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

If there were no spring to push the trigger forward you could take your finger off the trigger and the gun would not fire. Yes, practically this would be stupid, but we're looking at this hypothetically.

The gun fires the first time by pressing the trigger rearward with a finger. To fire a second time it needs the action of being pressed forward by a spring. Removing the trigger finger initiates that action, same as release fire shotguns.

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:41 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Melmac (County of Pierce)
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 8899
Real Name: Gordon Shumway
For a 9mm PDW, they'd be perfect, IMO.

_________________
The only good cat is a stir-fried cat
DGM33 wrote:
That's quite the nut sack you have there!


Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:10 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 5088
Real Name: Curtis
RocketScott wrote:
This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.


Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:53 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 8027
Real Name: Jeff
Guns4Liberty wrote:
RocketScott wrote:
This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Good gawd!

Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.

You KNOW what the intention of the law is.

Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...

Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...

_________________
-Jeff

Image

How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?

They can have my gun, when they have given up all of theirs.

Personally, I'd like to see cops kill fewer people, and the courts kill more of them.~snozzberries
The big takeaway is that PETA now has more mass shooters than the NRA. ~RocketScott


Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:57 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 2923
Selador wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
RocketScott wrote:
This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Good gawd!

Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.

You KNOW what the intention of the law is.

Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...

Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...



The intention of the law is to ban a certain item. It's being misinterpreted to ban a different item.

Maybe the state should stop making laws that already exist on the federal level. We don't need 50 different definitions of machine guns, or anything else firearms related.

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:27 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 8027
Real Name: Jeff
RocketScott wrote:
Selador wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
RocketScott wrote:
This is interesting from an academic sort of way though. The state law doesn't say "trigger pull", it says "that the trigger be pressed"

It doesn't say which direction the trigger needs to be pressed. It doesn't say what needs to do the pressing.

+1

This is what I was getting at. There is a separate trigger movement/action that must take place for the 2nd shot. The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

Good gawd!

Laws are already too verbose, and lawyers already suck up way too much of the GDP.

You KNOW what the intention of the law is.

Quit picking at nits. Or you have no right to complain about the complexity, or the cost of the legal system, Nor how long it takes to 'get justice'...

Every law ends up being 1000 pages long, so that they can include several chapters describing what a finger is, what a trigger is, and what a press or pull is...



The intention of the law is to ban a certain item. It's being misinterpreted to ban a different item.

Maybe the state should stop making laws that already exist on the federal level. We don't need 50 different definitions of machine guns, or anything else firearms related.

That's an answer I can agree with!!!

Instead of picking at nits and in the process making everything ever more complicated, how about we just get rid of the law?

_________________
-Jeff

Image

How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?

They can have my gun, when they have given up all of theirs.

Personally, I'd like to see cops kill fewer people, and the courts kill more of them.~snozzberries
The big takeaway is that PETA now has more mass shooters than the NRA. ~RocketScott


Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:30 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 5088
Real Name: Curtis
If we don't explore the boundaries of the law, then we'll never truly know what is permitted and what is not. This thread is such an exploration; if you're not interested, I'm sure there are other threads that you will find interesting.


Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:35 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Index
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012
Posts: 8027
Real Name: Jeff
Guns4Liberty wrote:
If we don't explore the boundaries of the law, then we'll never truly know what is permitted and what is not. This thread is such an exploration; if you're not interested, I'm sure there are other threads that you will find interesting.

Really?

Dangit! I wish someone had told me BEFORE I went and got all upset! :wink05:

_________________
-Jeff

Image

How can I help you, and/or make you smile, today?

They can have my gun, when they have given up all of theirs.

Personally, I'd like to see cops kill fewer people, and the courts kill more of them.~snozzberries
The big takeaway is that PETA now has more mass shooters than the NRA. ~RocketScott


Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:18 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 2923
Guns4Liberty wrote:
...The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.


I don’t think it does. It says what it says.

Fostech made a business decision not to sell to WA. I’m sure our jack wagon of an AG had something to do with it. Legalities don’t seem to matter here and the threat of prosecution is real.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:09 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 5088
Real Name: Curtis
RocketScott wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
...The lack of specificity in the law leaves room for interpretation.

I don’t think it does. It says what it says.

Laws are always open to interpretation. That's one of the main reasons why we have scores of attorneys and judges. I don't think this law is any different. Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that these triggers are legal in WA. I'm simply poking at the RCW looking for holes. It's a purely academic exercise at this point; I don't have any interest in owning one, nor would I obtain one without some compelling clarification of the law. But I see no harm in pushing the boundaries of the law to the max; in fact, I think it's a worthy exercise.


RocketScott wrote:
Fostech made a business decision not to sell to WA. I’m sure our jack wagon of an AG had something to do with it. Legalities don’t seem to matter here and the threat of prosecution is real.

Agreed.


Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:27 am
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Lawton, OK
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 13015
Real Name: Chuck
Fostech will not ship here, but they will sell it to you at Triggrcon. (At least they did last year)

_________________
http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
"Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux


Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:25 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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



Rent Me Pintos NRA SAF CCKRBA
Aldersons e-arms.com


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.615s | 15 Queries | GZIP : On ]