WA state: possible new gun laws

[Strykervet]

The fuckers are at it again. So they didn't get the ban they wanted last year, they tried to push it through again but when told it would go up for a public review, they didn't want that and changed it. Now they are currently trying to do this to us:

1. All "assault weapons" (cosmetically determined by the least firearms proficient person they can find I'm sure) and be treated as handguns for all practical purposes in WA. They didn't mention it, but I wonder if that'll mean I can CC rifles. If they leave a loophole, I sure as shit will exploit it just to show how STUPID this is. Gotta be 21 and jump through more hoops. Wait times (unless you have the CC card, wonder how long that'll last now...). More background checks. More paperwork. Does NOTHING for crime.

2. All firearms to be locked in a gun safe, if firearms are stolen or misappropriated, you are to be held liable in civil court. I mostly agree with this, but don't agree that you are still held accountable if you are robbed or the weapons are stolen in some other manner. It doesn't cover you if the weapons were stolen from the safe. Short of jewelry safes, which are rare and very expensive, gun safes can be peeled like sardine cans in about 5-15min. depending on experience and access to proper tools. If they reworded this law to make sense to gun owners, I'd be for it.

If you live in WA, keep an eye peeled for these fuckers because they have been trying throwing shit at the wall trying to get something to stick for years now. Turns out they changed the permit rules without my knowing, went to replace a lost ID and 40 days prior they changed the rules to that I have to wait up to a month to get my card (which they have in hand at the window BTW). I JUST did this, and those fucking assholes didn't bother to tell me that it expired in 30 days and that I should probably do a re-up instead. Nope, nothing. So now I get to go back and play the same fucking game again.

Dealers and mfg.'s need to make the police in these states stand up on our side, and I think a good way would be to deny weapons to police in states that adopt laws like this. A blanket policy the entire industry follows. Let 'em deal with the State Dept. instead and buy some overpriced shit overseas. Maybe some ANA trade ins. Something has to change though.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Well that sucks hard. Keep up the fight. Sounds like some pieces of dog dodo have traveled north from komifornia.

As far as #1 goes. In Utah if you get your CC permit you can as the law states "carry any weapon". So yea CC a rifle (SBR in my case) is a not an issue.

#2 if someone is injured inside the home from a misplaced firearm then yea i think they should be liable. Just like I think if a 8 month old gets into the laundry packets the parents should be held liable. Since my daughter was about 15 or so i have been more lax in firearm storage. Mostly because she would bring friends over who I did not know before that. Last 5 years no one under 17 or that i did not personally know has been in my home. When the grand kids start happening it will be time to reevaluate that situation.

But if you are a victim of a crime then you should not be liable for anything.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

The fuckers are at it again. So they didn't get the ban they wanted last year, they tried to push it through again but when told it would go up for a public review, they didn't want that and changed it. Now they are currently trying to do this to us:

1. All "assault weapons" (cosmetically determined by the least firearms proficient person they can find I'm sure) and be treated as handguns for all practical purposes in WA. They didn't mention it, but I wonder if that'll mean I can CC rifles. If they leave a loophole, I sure as shit will exploit it just to show how STUPID this is. Gotta be 21 and jump through more hoops. Wait times (unless you have the CC card, wonder how long that'll last now...). More background checks. More paperwork. Does NOTHING for crime.

2. All firearms to be locked in a gun safe, if firearms are stolen or misappropriated, you are to be held liable in civil court. I mostly agree with this, but don't agree that you are still held accountable if you are robbed or the weapons are stolen in some other manner. It doesn't cover you if the weapons were stolen from the safe. Short of jewelry safes, which are rare and very expensive, gun safes can be peeled like sardine cans in about 5-15min. depending on experience and access to proper tools. If they reworded this law to make sense to gun owners, I'd be for it.

If you live in WA, keep an eye peeled for these fuckers because they have been trying throwing shit at the wall trying to get something to stick for years now. Turns out they changed the permit rules without my knowing, went to replace a lost ID and 40 days prior they changed the rules to that I have to wait up to a month to get my card (which they have in hand at the window BTW). I JUST did this, and those fucking assholes didn't bother to tell me that it expired in 30 days and that I should probably do a re-up instead. Nope, nothing. So now I get to go back and play the same fucking game again.

Dealers and mfg.'s need to make the police in these states stand up on our side, and I think a good way would be to deny weapons to police in states that adopt laws like this. A blanket policy the entire industry follows. Let 'em deal with the State Dept. instead and buy some overpriced shit overseas. Maybe some ANA trade ins. Something has to change though.

Damn, I hate to hear this kind of shit. Doesn't it SUCK when your "fellow citizens" are your Enemy? How else do you look at it?

 

[jrassy]

I don't see being held liable if my guns are stolen a good idea at all. I had a handgun stolen from my locked truck, I reported it. Now if the thief uses it to go commit any crime, I should be accountable? BS.

 

[Strykervet]

Yeah, considering how many the cops have lost here... One time a weapon was stolen from chief's car in Seattle while he was Christmas shopping at Macy's or Nordstrom's!

The police at the courthouse told me not to leave my pistol in my truck once, told me to bring it in and they'd check it. So I do that when I have to go there. I just walk in and say "I'm armed" and I go straight to front of the line too. Why the chief didn't secure his, I'll never know.

They've been trying to shove gun laws through ever since Bloomberg came up here and gave 'em money. They don't stop. Usually they don't go through, but they really peeled these back to try and appeal to reason, which for them is a slippery slope, always. I'm just tired of every year having to do something new, something more difficult, and something that doesn't affect crime at all. We were going the right direction here for a while, WTF happened?

As for locking them up, we already have a no-tax sale on safes. You pay NO tax for a safe. Pretty good deal here, it shows responsibility and it's a good law. I think anything else needs to be handled case by case, if someone negligently left arms laying around, had no safe, etc., then yeah, maybe they are liable in certain circumstances. A one size fits all law that ropes me into it to further a political agenda? Not fucking cool. My stuff is ALWAYS locked up in a serious safe save for what I have out to work on or what I have on me. When I leave, nothing is left unsecured and it's under a UL alarm.

I would be okay with a law saying firearms owners have to own sufficient safe storage for what they own... A gun safe at minimum of appropriate size, maybe a large tax break or refund on a larger jewelry safe. No shipping/moving/installation costs maybe. And that it be used to secure all firearms not being used or under control of the owner. That's the best you can expect anyone to do, that's actually responsible ownership and encoding responsible ownership into law is okay by me as long as it's not nefariously used to further agendas or to fuck with owners in general, like this is. Plus, I think the more safes we get into more hands the better, because I think people will just naturally use them. If the feds double down and offer a large tax break based on the cost of one, it could reduce the cost enough so that all firearms owners have quality, safe storage. It would help the economy based on how many rifles were sold the last several years.

And what about all the SN's under other people's names? You know, the ones that were sold for decades prior to us having to register ALL sales through an FFL? They aren't thinking this shit through at all. Or maybe that's what they want. I didn't sell that many rifles over the years, but I did sell a few FTF when it was legal. I bought a couple too, including my, uh, wife's awesome revolver.

Registering "assault rifle" sales like pistol sales and upping the age to 21 is just pure bullshit. It's a backdoor registry and ban on responsible, younger owners --who can get an automatic one issued by the army, do 2 years with 1 in A'stan and STILL have to wait 2 more years to drink a beer and (maybe) buy an AR, what a place. No, we gotta put the brakes on this too.

So instead of getting something meaningful, we'll have to say "NO!" on these like we did the ones last year. Then they'll come up with another one. And another one. Gets old.

 

[oneshot86]

i am absolutely not in any agreement with having to lock any fucking shit up
no way no how should they tell me what to do...
someone steels my shit and kills someone? its on him
wake the fuck up, you guys are pussin out

 

[srtsam]

slowly but surely the liberal mindset takes over the coastal states........

 

[EddieNFL]

I don't see being held liable if my guns are stolen a good idea at all. I had a handgun stolen from my locked truck, I reported it. Now if the thief uses it to go commit any crime, I should be accountable? BS.

Mine are either with me or locked in my house. In a safe or not is my business. To hold someone accountable because their home was robbed means it is no longer your castle.

 

[jrassy]

I read up on this on the www.nra-ila.com website, what a shit show. There ought to be a law that these anti gun politicians need to go through about 6 months of political 2nd amendment history classes before they can author a bill. It might open their eyes. Constantly having to battle in court is draining taxpayers money.

 

[Rthur]

The never ending erosion of the 2nd.
See "Chicago" for lack of proof of any of these concepts.
Can't sign off on any of this.

R

 

[EddieNFL]

I read up on this on the www.nra-ila.com website, what a shit show. There ought to be a law that these anti gun politicians need to go through about 6 months of political 2nd amendment history classes before they can author a bill. It might open their eyes. Constantly having to battle in court is draining taxpayers money.

I think they could not care less about the history or what the constitution guarantees.

 

[softcock]

So what do you do ? You want to live free, but how do you fight it ? . Like many have said, It's the same o'l political bullshit forever since beginning of time . government politicians and lawyers, it's there mindset to pass laws,to change, control your behavior, limit your endless free choices to only a few regulated choices your forced you to purchase by permit to practice. You think your born with free will . But they are born and live to take what is yours today, remove it . So you to wake up the day after and find your daily practiced behavior is now crime on society .
.

 

[Redmanss]

i am absolutely not in any agreement with having to lock any fucking shit up
no way no how should they tell me what to do...
someone steels my shit and kills someone? its on him
wake the fuck up, you guys are pussin out

Exactly. Locking them up is recommended, but there is absolutely no reason to have a law to require them to be locked up, especially when there are no minors in the house. I have several firearms that aren't behind lock and key other than my house's doors, how the hell else am I to get to them quickly in the event of an intruder? I can barely get the safe open first try when calm, those tumblers are finicky as hell...

 

[Strykervet]

I use a safe because I don't want my shit stolen for one, and for two, I don't want my shit being used to destroy someone else's life. I'd also like to not be shot with your rifle if it gets stolen. I take this shit very seriously. It's a big responsibility. So everything stays locked up under alarm, what's out is with or on me. But I can't be held responsible if someone determined enough gets into the safe (that'd be some determination, probably destroy what's in it to get at it) or if they ambush me somehow and take mine. I can report it immediately, but that's it. I've literally done all I can do, and I've actually done more than most.

I went through and wrote against all the stuff that came up on NRA's site. One state senator already got back, one word: Agreed. So this shit doesn't always go through, last year they tried and failed. This year they tried to make it more palatable, more reasonable. Or rather, it's designed to appear that way to the uneducated, something they feel they can slip by...

The other one is an AW ban, the start of one. So yeah, not buying it either.

There are 3 federal ones you guys all need to write about also, 2 against (one an AW and mag ban essentially, that they appear to be trying to slick by, never heard about it once before today) one for (safe transportation and moving of firearms through ban states basically).

Sick of the damn rules, especially when they are greasy like these. Making safes mandatory to own, and that's all, would probably get by here... If they did that, people would buy them and then would probably use them rather than leave shit laying out when they aren't at home. Some are fairly inexpensive, sometimes it doesn't take much. But without a "gotcha" connected to it, they aren't interested. As far as new laws go, well, they used up all their credit with me over bullshit laws when they should have been coming up with better ideas.

I'm basically a 2A issue voter and I vote. Even if I hate the guy/lady. I also write 'em, even if I know they don't represent me.

 

[EddieNFL]

I use a safe because I don't want my shit stolen for one, and for two, I don't want my shit being used to destroy someone else's life. I'd also like to not be shot with your rifle if it gets stolen. I take this shit very seriously. It's a big responsibility. So everything stays locked up under alarm, what's out is with or on me. But I can't be held responsible if someone determined enough gets into the safe (that'd be some determination, probably destroy what's in it to get at it) or if they ambush me somehow and take mine. I can report it immediately, but that's it. I've literally done all I can do, and I've actually done more than most.[/QUOTE}

Commendable. I have a different standard. Should I be legally bound by your's?

 

[1J04]

These are some tenacious asshats we're dealing with again. Thanks for bring this up Strykervet . Need to stay on top of this shit. Wish there was another form letter like before to send out to all the reps n such. Made it so easy with one click. Anyhow, I'm gonna send some email out on this to them.

 

[Sniperwannabee]

slowly but surely the liberal mindset takes over the coastal states........

Not Florida and the other gulf coast states

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Your home is your safe. Adding more inside is your business.

 

[Strykervet]

These are some tenacious asshats we're dealing with again. Thanks for bring this up Strykervet . Need to stay on top of this shit. Wish there was another form letter like before to send out to all the reps n such. Made it so easy with one click. Anyhow, I'm gonna send some email out on this to them.

I wish I'd posted the link but it was an NRA email, I just clicked on it and it sent a form letter that I could modify (I did one) and it does send them to ALL state reps and senators, and for the federal stuff, it sends it to your rep and to the two senators we have. NRA is the easiest way to send these letters, just go there and search your state.

Different people have different standards, but I seriously don't understand the backlash on here against storing weapons in a safe when not being used or not at home. Most people want to secure their stuff. Your home is a castle insofar as it is a fortress... That's what castles are, fortresses. I've also seen a 14yo shoot himself in the head with a stolen, unsecured weapon bought from a gangmember. So I'm trying to appeal to your rationale, not attack your way of doing things.

 

[Rthur]

I wish I'd posted the link but it was an NRA email, I just clicked on it and it sent a form letter that I could modify (I did one) and it does send them to ALL state reps and senators, and for the federal stuff, it sends it to your rep and to the two senators we have. NRA is the easiest way to send these letters, just go there and search your state.

Different people have different standards, but I seriously don't understand the backlash on here against storing weapons in a safe when not being used or not at home. Most people want to secure their stuff. Your home is a castle insofar as it is a fortress... That's what castles are, fortresses. I've also seen a 14yo shoot himself in the head with a stolen, unsecured weapon bought from a gangmember. So I'm trying to appeal to your rationale, not attack your way of doing things.

While it would seem to be logical to have these requirements it's really disguised attack on what we are "allowed" to do in our homes by the "Law".
In your premise you may want to consider these words in your statement.
"Stolen", "Gangmember",.
Unsecured is a talking point of the anti 2nd crew.
For the above to happen someone had to remove the weapon from the home sans permission by theft.
Next they had to have access to the market where a "gangmember" can get in possession to sell it.
After said gangmember sells it to said individual there is an accident or intentional discharge into his head.
Couple of questions.
1. Why isn't the removal of a lawful weapon from the original location/residence the beginning of a different chain of responsibility?
2. Why isn't the gangmember responsible and guilty of selling a stolen weapon?
3. Why doesn't the 14 year old have any responsibility in these actions?
These are simple tactics used to try to push the actions of criminals back onto the first person of possession.

R

 

[2ndamendfan]

I wish I'd posted the link but it was an NRA email, I just clicked on it and it sent a form letter that I could modify (I did one) and it does send them to ALL state reps and senators, and for the federal stuff, it sends it to your rep and to the two senators we have. NRA is the easiest way to send these letters, just go there and search your state.

Different people have different standards, but I seriously don't understand the backlash on here against storing weapons in a safe when not being used or not at home. Most people want to secure their stuff. Your home is a castle insofar as it is a fortress... That's what castles are, fortresses. I've also seen a 14yo shoot himself in the head with a stolen, unsecured weapon bought from a gangmember. So I'm trying to appeal to your rationale, not attack your way of doing things.

I dont think anyone is attacking on the idea of safe storage. I have a safe (vault really). And 95% of my collection is in it all the time. But as stated earlier i am not as anal as i was when my daughter was younger. If i am cleaning a gun and get pulled away i leave it on the bench and come back later. I have a couple stashed in "tactical walls". And right now my truck has 3 guns in the back seat from shooting last weekend. Going to try to go again next wekend so leaving the truck packed up.

Anyway I would have to understand the law. But many places that have such laws do not allow for either having one out for protection when you are home or do not recognize the little single gun bed side lockers as a viable option.

I think the real issue is the owner being held responsible if the guns are stolen. That is just fucked up thinking.

 

[oneshot86]

exactly, i am not opposed to locking firearms up, i am opposed to having a law that dictates it

 

[Redmanss]

The backlash isn't against proper storage of firearms, the backlash is the mandate for it with serious legal repercussions for gun owners who become the victims of criminals. This has nothing to do with accountability, this has everything to do with scaring off average citizens from exercising their constitutional rights out of fear of eight-figure civil lawsuit awards when their LadySmith .38 gets stolen and lethally used to jack a 7-11.

Leftists want us to stay out of their bedroom, and I want them to do the same. If I have a loaded 12ga and G19 in the closet, and they have a hide the salami habit, what's the difference? Both are constitutionally protected rights.

 

[jrassy]

Update, according to NRA-ILA, these bills failed to meet committee deadline and are dead themselves.

 

[Strykervet]

Yeah, that's a good thing. Everytime they come up I bombard them with letters and let everyone know. Some get back and are as against it as I am, so that's good. I wrote regarding the federal ones too.

 

[Jakebrake300]

Not sure if this will copy but there were
A few bills amended and are still alive like the one banning bump stocks.I've
lived in Arlington,WA my whole life and I'm raising my family here as well but I can't take it anymore...probably headed for Montana or Idaho.

https://d97yz4wvpgciz.cloudfront.ne...ntrol-bill-fails-deadline-others-still-moving

 

[Unknown]

Would locking your front door qualify as locking the guns up, or does the law specify that they have to be in some kind of specially defined locking container such as a safe, gun case, etc?

Finally read the proposed law..."or other secured storage space" is an exemption, so I would think that a locked house is an "other secured storage space", but this law pertains to firearms, so all bets are off on how a court would interpret it. Certainly, (if past history is any indicator) the 9th Circuit would lean toward a ruling that inconveniences gun owners as much as possible.