So most people have heard by now that atrocious “Assault Weapons Ban” has been killed off. Do not believe any of the lies the sponsors are feeding now that it’s been uncovered it would destroy the 4th amendment as well. This is the same bill they introduced in 2009. What does scare me though is the number of people who weren’t even aware of 5737 and actually asked me if I was kidding when I mentioned it.
So the good news is we stopped that piece of horrible legislation from moving forward. The bad news is Bill 1588 is moving forward. It was passed through the House Judiciary Committee with the support of a Republican.
Rep. Mike Hope – From Lake Stevens
If you live in his district, I highly suggest you make sure that he is not re-elected. He has shown what he thinks of you and your right to keep and bear arms. The only way a law such as this could be enforced is through universal registration, and never mind the additional burden to federal services.
A right delayed is a right denied and that’s exactly what they would do by forcing everything through NICS. Make no mistake about this folks, there are simple things they could do to aid honest law-abiding people keep guns out of the hands of criminals as well as improving the load on the Federal system. Instead they decide to attack the innocent and criminalize them. Instead they do everything they can to prevent the law-abiding from being able to easily and effectively obtain arms. Make no mistake about the problems behind background checks.
What happens when I loan a friend a side arm for a USPSA match because his broke? What happens when another friend wants to use my AR for a coyote hunt and I’m not going to be there? The whole system is nothing more than a sham to destroy the ability for gun owners to be able to freely associate and exchange firearms. Tell me, if I know Bob and Bob has firearms, why can I not let him borrow one of my firearms? Yes this type of BS background check legislation serves to criminalize exactly that type of incident.
Start ringing the rules committee, hopefully we can kill it there.
TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.
Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.
Shea did not vote for the bill. Why is it that people get simple things wrong. The only R voting for the bill (substitute) was Hope.
Furthermore, the next step is a vote by the rules committee. In addition it does not prevent the borrowing of firearms.
BTW, I testified in Olympia against the bill.
Fixed. I found the an article and they listed Shea as having voted for it. It was prior to them actually updating the bill page.
As for borrowing, be assured that will be the next “loophole”, not to mention it makes enforcement of this BS law impossible. They can try to claim that it is some how exempt, but it will still result in nothing but problems for the person who has it in hand.
For instance game warden runs firearm. It comes back not tied to your name, now either you borrowed it or it was prior to this BS. Say the warden tries to call the registered owner, not a far fetched idea given the WA Pistol Registry, except there’s places that don’t have cell or radio service. The whole thing is a farce. They can claim you can borrow guns, but what will happen is the gun will be confiscated and the owner can come get it, after he presents documentation proving he owned it. Still have your receipts?
The whole thing is rife for abuse and I trust the government as far as I can collectively throw their fat asses.
Either they pass a law that is unenforceable and will make felons of people over night or pass a law they will enforce and can be abused in numerous ways despite exemptions for particular actions in a bill. Prosecutors I’m sure are drooling at this idea right now.
*Update* Also of note after reading the whole bill text, there is nothing excluding the requirements for loaning except by the use of the word seller. 9.41 has a definition of the word sale, which may help, however seller is not defined.
Further, it appears that there will be a burden on firearms owners to maintain the records to prove legal sale. Failure to maintain that record could easily hang you. Especially with regards to loaning. Tell me, if there’s no bill of sale tying cash to a particular transaction, how do you differentiate the two?
For example, say Bob pays me for helping resurface his deck and a pile of other work. A couple months later Bob really likes my old XD and I loan it to him for a couple matches in the Tri-Cities. Bob is pulled over, the weapon is confiscated for some reason, the WPR places that as being my weapon. I might still claim it as my weapon, but inspecting our bank accounts shows a recent cash transaction. Now we have to document that transaction. Now assuming Bob has a CPL that would help things considerably, but lets say he doesn’t. The burden shifts to me to prove it wasn’t a sale, not for the state to prove it was a sale.
Prosecutors thrive on convicting innocent people. This type of incident wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
And what happens with ‘family’ weapons, you know, the ones that are old and passed down. How do you ‘prove’ ownership???
You can give guns as gifts. Not a problem. The fact that you also sold the person a $600 holster is totally beside the point, right?
Yup, but they are placing the burden of proof on the buyer. The way I’m reading this law you will be guilty until proven innocent.
What really kills me is that for the most part, people don’t want to sell to felons etc. Instead of providing a framework to help honest law abiding people, they create a framework to punish and hang them.
They aren’t interested in helping us, they want to destroy us.
Yes, I’d agree that that is their goal, stated or unstated, realized or not. But, with the additions / substitutions that SAF is proposing, which includes destruction of the registration databases, it would be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I’d rather not see this pass, but if it DID, it would be nice if it was an actual compromise, where the pro-gun side GOT something as well as GAVE something, as opposed to the normal “just lose less than we might have.”
Pingback: Quote of the Day - Kathy Jackson (2/22/2013) - The Minuteman