• NRA suing to block new Washington state gun control measure
    30 replies, posted
NRA suing to block Initiative 1639 | krem.com SEATTLE (AP) - The National Rifle Association is suing to block a new, voter-approved gun control measure in Washington state. Initiative 1639 passed with 60 percent of the vote last week. It bars the sale of semi-automatic rifles to people under 21 and to people who don't live in Washington, and it requires buyers to pass an enhanced background check and prove they have taken a firearms training course. The NRA and the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation sued in U.S. District Court in Seattle on Thursday, saying the measure violates the 2nd Amendment and strays into the regulation of interstate commerce, which is the province of the federal government. I voted for this, so I'm kiiinda annoyed.
Fuck off National Retard Association.
Finally, 1639 was seemingly written by a toddler and is chock-full of issues. Like, 10% of it makes sense, and the other 90% is just stapled on nonsense regulations.
Why. Rifles of ANY kind are overwhelming the least likely type of firearm to be used in a crime. Do people who want to own handguns in that state also have to take safety courses and an extended background check? Because handguns account for the vast majority of gun related crimes.
Regardless of my opinions on gun control, I can't stand behind doling out rights incrementally by age. It's stupid with alcohol, and it's stupid for weaponry. If you can be drafted into the military and told to shoot at age 18, and civilian guns are a thing, a civilian should be able to get a gun at 18.
Cool, hopefully it works out for them. This bill won't/wouldn't have really put any dent in firearm homicides.
I am sympathetic to your plight. A lot of gun control bills seem to have no idea what the actual problem being addressed is. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if the gun-toting conservatives would be willing to compromise - make the laws better - instead of just stonewalling it all for year after year. You - or rather, your representatives and lobbyists - made it impossible to pass good gun control, and so we're winding up with shitty gun control now that enough of the population is fed up with all the mass murders to force it through. (One of these days, I ought to float my own concept for a gun-control framework here, we've got a decent bastion of non-nutter firearms fans, alongside all the liberals, it might be interesting.)
Good. This law is an absolute piece of shit of legislation. It's purely about disarming the poor and minorities. Not only that it's some of the most bastardized legislation their is. No safe = Felony? Automatic red-flagging if even one person reports you? All repeating firearms, regardless of actions are deemed Assault Weapons? Seriously, this is something where I had to take a double-take on how asinine everything is. The politicians and legislators who even suggested this crap need to be barred or put on probation for stupidity of near astronomical proportions.
As soon as decent measure to combat gun violence are proposed I'll support them. Until then, I'm not going to let someone take a big shit on me because maybe their shit will be slightly more palatable down the line. As it stands, I have no reason to believe the other side wants actual compromise instead of leaving some rights on the table to take away later, instead of taking them all at once.
You say this as if Liberals are any more willing to compromise on guns. Frankly, there's already been a shitload of "compromise" from gun owners in US gun laws. You want real compromise? Here's something: have a federal license you need to get before you can buy a gun that includes a background and mental health check, and safety training, but take away states' rights to impose stricter gun laws than those imposed federally and legalize all currently-prohibited or NFA restricted firearms and accessories for those with a license, including machine guns, short-barrelled rifles/shotguns, and suppressors. That's an actual compromise on what currently exists in America.
you keep telling yourself that https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/174983/aa9f12a0-105e-4b2c-bfdc-7aca947a8261/2a.png
Good. This legislation is fucking dangerous and written extremely poorly by know-nothings.
Even that I'm iffy on because the Democrats might just close the licensing office and de-facto ban all firearms. They did that exact thing with the Machine Gun Registry, and it opened a can of worms because now it's cited as the reason we can't have licenses. The law would almost have to be an Amendment or something with caveat that any alterations to the registry or rules surrounding it automatically void the entire system.
Closing all licensing would undoubtedly be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. The only ban that's been challenged so far is handguns, and the SCOTUS ruled you can't ban them. Stopping licensing would effectively ban ownership of handguns, meaning it violates DC v. Heller, meaning according to pre-established precedent they can't close licensing.
S H A L L N O T B E I N F R I N G E D They are in the US of A, baby.
Uh. You do realize this is an article about the US where they quite literally are a right, right? The Second Amendment is part of the collection of Amendments called the Bill of Rights even.
The US of A is not a particularly good legislative role-model.
And that means they're not a right here? You're trying to defend a post that is inarguably and factually untrue from an objective standpoint. Guns are legally a right in the US. End of story.
Marijuana is also legally considered as awful as methamphetamine in the US. Your point?
Gun rights in the US are a right. So regardless of your opinion on them that means throwaway, the person whose post you were defending, was outright wrong. You can argue they shouldn't be a right but that's something totally different to what you're doing.
No, that's exactly the point I'm making. Sorry if that wasn't more clear.
Not DuCT's post was in response to throwaway claiming guns aren't a right so that's definitely the impression you ended up giving.
No, you literally interpreted my response as "they're not a right" or somehow in support of that notion. All I said was, and I quote:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/347325/7270f4c1-2ef3-4f1a-ac71-6ce8f2bca93f/YCAQOuv.png
bad sign when you can't even tell if this is pro or anti gun
Man, I think you've got some serious misgivings about the actual bill itself. Don't get me wrong, 1639 isn't a perfect bit of legislation-- I personally disagreed with the 21 and under purchasing ban for rifles, just as I did for handguns - but the legislation never mentions that not owning a gun safe will become a felony. What the initiative does, instead, is encourage ownership of safes; dealers are required by the state to mention gun safes or trigger locks during the purchase, but it's entirely within your rights to refuse the offer, without any criminal charge whatsoever. What does become a crime, however, is leaving the firearm unattended to - without a lock of any kind or kept in a safe - and then having a child, felon, or other prohibited owner take that unattended firearm, and either discharge it, display it publicly, or commit a crime using it. Even then, that comes with a good handful of understandable clauses: the felony charge can be downgraded to a misdemeanor, or simply dropped outright if the charges would serve no public good. Likewise, those charges are invalid if the firearm was used in self-defense, or if the gun was used against the original owner during a home invasion. Like I said - it's encouragement for responsibility, especially for parents- because the alternative is for their children to take the firearm while it's unattended, and then shoot themselves, or their siblings. Also, I'm not sure where you got the whole 'automatic red-flagging' thing from the initiative. Something like that was never stated in any of my ballots, nor have I read it in the actual text itself, I mean, yeah, 1639 makes passing a firearms safety class mandatory before you can purchase one, but I dunno if that's what you meant by it. Same thing with the assault weapons thing. Sure, the bill redefines 'semiautomatic assault rifles' to this: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133710/ae385c6a-db40-40fa-b901-772733a2aa6a/84Hma5.png ... but that, again, mentions bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, and slide-actions as being exempt from that definition. I can't say I know much about guns, so maybe I'm missing some other actions, but that definition seems to cover everything- and, again, it doesn't sweep semiautos under the AWB-- or mention 'assault weapons' at all - it just means that a Washington gun owner will need to take the same background checks, age requirements, and safety courses as they would to own a handgun here. At the end of the day, I personally voted for it to pass because a good chunk of these changes seemed reasonable enough - encouraging, but not enforcing, locks and safes, while making gun safety courses mandatory before a purchase- which genuinely does seem like common sense, and not "common sense." At the same time, it also bans the purchase of firearms when you're under 21, which is dumb, but, thankfully, it doesn't criminalize ownership- just the purchase. I'd believed that 1639 is a good middle ground; something that doesn't fuck over gun owners unnecessarily, while also ensuring that firearms are meant to be kept safe - and, more importantly, that owners are trained to be safe with 'em. If I'm wrong in my judgement, though, I'd like to hear how or why.
"firearm unattended to - without a lock of any kind or kept in a safe - and then having a child, felon, or other prohibited owner take" So if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun you violated the safe storage law.
Naw, man. I mentioned home invasions in the post - but here's the clause itself. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133710/f0f55f65-0c35-4748-808b-227216376378/NH78FN.png You're clear if somebody steals it - as long as you report it to the police within 5 days, which, I mean, you should.
What.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.