Civil disobedience and gun control...protest against stupid background checks....

[2aguy]

When a civil right is being violated, expect civil disobedience...here we have a new stupid law about requiring background checks, created without much thought as to how it would be applied and creating criminals out of law abiding citizens....and here we have the protest...

WA State Patrol We Won t Arrest Universal Background Check Protesters - The Truth About Guns

We recently reported that Washington state gun owners are planning an act of civil disobedience. In defiance of the Evergreen State’s freshly-minted Universal Background Check law – brought into being by a mid-term ballot initiative (I-594) – tooled up protestors will exchange firearms. Without a NICS check. In public. In front of the state capitol building. And now mynorthwest.com reports that they will do so without any law enforcement intervention from the State Patrol . . .

The Washington State Patrol say troopers won’t arrest demonstrators who plan to exchange guns at the capitol in protest of Washington’s new background check law.

Washington State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins says troopers have no plans to arrest anyone.

“We’re not sure we can prove that’s a transfer under the law,” Calkins says. “And we really try to be very accommodating of people who come to the state capitol to express political opinions, engage in free speech.”

However, Calkins says the state patrol is asking demonstrators to practice “good firearm safety practices” by handling guns safely and not pointing them at others or intimidating people.

Calkins says the state patrol doesn’t expect any problems. But troopers will be on hand to monitor the protest and step in if protesters do other things that violate the law or intimidate other capitol visitors.

I’m a little confused by all this. Politicians push and voters pass draconian gun control measures (e.g. New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban) that don’t get enforced. In this case, because the dog’s breakfast that is I-594 is so poorly written the state police don’t know if it’s enforceable. Or if they do, they can’t be bothered.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

Sorry bro, but you shouldn't need a law to tell you that.

And son, I own around 600 guns, so I'm certainly a gun aficionado. But damn some common sense please.

 

[2aguy]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

I agree....but this law isn't meant to stop criminals from getting guns, since background checks don't do that...it is about making it harder for law abiding people to freely pass guns to other people without running into a possible problem with law enforcement....they want people afraid to even consider owning a gun because of all the legal implications of owning guns....by making a simple mistake that before wasn't a crime...you can now become a felon....

That is what this law is about....and why so many gun owners are fighting it...

Background checks and gun registration are not about stopping criminals from getting guns...they are just methods of making law abiding citizens afraid to own and carry guns....

 

[Iceweasel]

And son, I own around 600 guns, so I'm certainly a gun aficionado. But damn some common sense please.

The law is more than that though, that's how it was sold. You, to stupid voters. The Dept. of Licensing will keep a data base of all transactions, which sounds like the first step in a registration list. And simply loaning a gun to a friend, even at the range, or a son, etc. makes you are criminal without going through a FFL.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And son, I own around 600 guns, so I'm certainly a gun aficionado. But damn some common sense please.

The law is more than that though, that's how it was sold. You, to stupid voters. The Dept. of Licensing will keep a data base of all transactions, which sounds like the first step in a registration list. And simply loaning a gun to a friend, even at the range, or a son, etc. makes you are criminal without going through a FFL.

Loaning a gun does no such thing.

But you know what, if you loan a gun to someone and they use that gun to commit a crime, you SHOULD be held liable.

It's called being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

How many times have we seen where some idiot bought a gun for someone who couldn't legally buy one their own and that person committed a crime with said gun?

How many times have we seen an irresponsible gun owner end up with a gun being stolen and used in a crime, because they didn't have their guns locked up.

etc,etc,.

I'm sorry, but just as with anything a few irresponsible people have necessitated laws.

I bet BOTH you and Bill are FOR voter ID laws right?

 

[2aguy]

How many times have we seen where some idiot bought a gun for someone who couldn't legally buy one their own and that person committed a crime with said gun?

this is already against the law...and is a felony...so if the guy who used the gun for the crime is arrested, they will ask him...hey....where did you get the gun...and then go arrest that person too....

No need for background check or registration....and the criminal who broke the law with the gun is still arrested....

How many times have we seen an irresponsible gun owner end up with a gun being stolen and used in a crime, because they didn't have their guns locked up.

That is called a felony...when someone breaks into a home or business and steals property that isn't theirs....again...no need for a background check or registration...police catch a criminal with a gun..."Hey...this guy is a felon and career criminal and has a gun in his possession..."...that is a felony...lock him up for 10 years...

In my area, Maxon's gun store had a group of guys break down their security door with sledge hammers....break the glass cases in the store...and stole a whole bunch of guns....

They had their guns locked up and they were stolen...which is again a felony....

These laws are stupid, and meant to trap law abiding citizens so that they can be used to scare other law abiding citizens into not owning or carrying guns...it is gun banning by other means....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How many times have we seen where some idiot bought a gun for someone who couldn't legally buy one their own and that person committed a crime with said gun?

this is already against the law...and is a felony...so if the guy who used the gun for the crime is arrested, they will ask him...hey....where did you get the gun...and then go arrest that person too....

No need for background check or registration....and the criminal who broke the law with the gun is still arrested....

How many times have we seen an irresponsible gun owner end up with a gun being stolen and used in a crime, because they didn't have their guns locked up.

That is called a felony...when someone breaks into a home or business and steals property that isn't theirs....again...no need for a background check or registration...police catch a criminal with a gun..."Hey...this guy is a felon and career criminal and has a gun in his possession..."...that is a felony...lock him up for 10 years...

In my area, Maxon's gun store had a group of guys break down their security door with sledge hammers....break the glass cases in the store...and stole a whole bunch of guns....

They had their guns locked up and they were stolen...which is again a felony....

These laws are stupid, and meant to trap law abiding citizens so that they can be used to scare other law abiding citizens into not owning or carrying guns...it is gun banning by other means....

You are right, laws of any sort are meant to scare people into not breaking the law.

I asked you a specific question. Are you for Voter ID laws?

 

[2aguy]

I bet BOTH you and Bill are FOR voter ID laws right?

Yes, and I support putting ink on the fingers of people who vote....not the same issue as background checks and gun registration...since the way the crime is committed works differently....

Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....registration is just for banning and confiscating guns at a later date...always used for that and the only real purpose for it....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When a civil right is being violated, expect civil disobedience...here we have a new stupid law about requiring background checks, created without much thought as to how it would be applied and creating criminals out of law abiding citizens....and here we have the protest...

WA State Patrol We Won t Arrest Universal Background Check Protesters - The Truth About Guns

We recently reported that Washington state gun owners are planning an act of civil disobedience. In defiance of the Evergreen State’s freshly-minted Universal Background Check law – brought into being by a mid-term ballot initiative (I-594) – tooled up protestors will exchange firearms. Without a NICS check. In public. In front of the state capitol building. And now mynorthwest.com reports that they will do so without any law enforcement intervention from the State Patrol . . .

The Washington State Patrol say troopers won’t arrest demonstrators who plan to exchange guns at the capitol in protest of Washington’s new background check law.

Washington State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins says troopers have no plans to arrest anyone.

“We’re not sure we can prove that’s a transfer under the law,” Calkins says. “And we really try to be very accommodating of people who come to the state capitol to express political opinions, engage in free speech.”

However, Calkins says the state patrol is asking demonstrators to practice “good firearm safety practices” by handling guns safely and not pointing them at others or intimidating people.

Calkins says the state patrol doesn’t expect any problems. But troopers will be on hand to monitor the protest and step in if protesters do other things that violate the law or intimidate other capitol visitors.

I’m a little confused by all this. Politicians push and voters pass draconian gun control measures (e.g. New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban) that don’t get enforced. In this case, because the dog’s breakfast that is I-594 is so poorly written the state police don’t know if it’s enforceable. Or if they do, they can’t be bothered.

Nonsense.

A law is not 'un-Constitutional' until a court rules as such, where arrest is warranted when 'civil disobedience' seeks to violate the law.

Indeed, the proper recourse for those opposed to the law is to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the measure. Be aware, however, that the courts have upheld as Constitutional other similar provisions:

Colorado Gun Laws Upheld As Constitutional The Daily Caller

And don't be so ignorant and ridiculous as to compare the 'civil disobedience' concerning the Washington State law with that of the civil disobedience which occurred during the 50s and 60s with regard to the Civil Rights Movement, as those acts of civil disobedience manifested after the Supreme Court had invalidated laws authorizing segregation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I bet BOTH you and Bill are FOR voter ID laws right?

Yes, and I support putting ink on the fingers of people who vote....not the same issue as background checks and gun registration...since the way the crime is committed works differently....

Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....registration is just for banning and confiscating guns at a later date...always used for that and the only real purpose for it....

Bill, you just admitted to being a hypocrite.

Voting is a constititionally enumerated right, therefor laws should be passed restricting such..... Oh, except that NO right is absolute.

Of course the reverse is also true for the morons who believe in background checks for guns but not voter id laws.

You see, this is why we have so much strife in this country. People who don't think logically.

 

[2aguy]

You are right, laws of any sort are meant to scare people into not breaking the law.

Gun control laws that do not prevent criminals from getting guns are meant to create criminals out of law abiding citizens...it is just that simple....they want to march out John Doe, father of 2 who gave his son a rifle for his birthday...didn't get the kid background checked and now faces 10 years in prison and a felony conviction...

Mean while, the 12 year old gang banger gets his gun from a drug dealer, who got it from a drug addict who stole it from a home....none of the three went through a background check, or registered the stolen gun....on a side note....felons cannot be forced to register their stolen guns as per a United States Supreme Court decision which said that trying to enforce it would be a violation of self incrimination....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are right, laws of any sort are meant to scare people into not breaking the law.

Gun control laws that do not prevent criminals from getting guns are meant to create criminals out of law abiding citizens...it is just that simple....they want to march out John Doe, father of 2 who gave his son a rifle for his birthday...didn't get the kid background checked and now faces 10 years in prison and a felony conviction...

Mean while, the 12 year old gang banger gets his gun from a drug dealer, who got it from a drug addict who stole it from a home....none of the three went through a background check, or registered the stolen gun....on a side note....felons cannot be forced to register their stolen guns as per a United States Supreme Court decision which said that trying to enforce it would be a violation of self incrimination....

Bill, don't be ridiculous. before the background check law OF COURSE there were people who went into gun stores, pawnshops, and what have you and bought guns and used them illegally.

That's just common sense.

The law forced them to have to resort to trying to buy guns elsewhere, that's true, but it certainly prevented them from buying them from legal stores.

 

[2aguy]

Bill, you just admitted to being a hypocrite.

Sorry, doesn't even come close, the issues are completely different....voting is not the same activity as buying a gun at a gun store....

Background checks are actually the equivalent of poll taxes and literacy tests....you must pay for the background check before you buy the gun (much like the poll tax) and is a prior restraint on your right to keep and bear arms...

A voter i.d. simply identifies that you are who you say you are when you vote...and you get the voter i.d. for free...no poll tax....

 

[2aguy]

Look, I don't have a big problem with a background check at a gun store that is instantaneous and leaves no record...I'll ben d that much to the silliness....the universal background check is not meant to stop criminals from getting guns but to make it easier to go after law abiding citizens by making a law that is undefined, and easy to scoop up innocent people....it has nothing to do with stopping criminals...again...

A drug addict breaks into a home and steals a gun, trades the gun for drugs with a drug dealer, the dealer sells gun to a gang who uses it to murder a rival...or shoot someone who gets in the line of fire...

No background checks, no registration...neither would prevent this....

the Colorado theater shooter, Santa barbara theater shooter, both Fort Hood shooters, Sandy Hook shooter, the navy yard shooter, Columbine shooters, ....the first four passed background checks, the Santa Barbara shooter passed multiple background checks, the Sandy Hook and Columbine either killed to get their guns or bought them illegally....

Again...background checks didn't stop the crime, and registering guns would not have stopped the crime or solved the crimes....and registration is a huge waste of police time and money....without any benefit...except to lead to banning and confiscation...as is happening in New York when someone dies...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bill, you just admitted to being a hypocrite.

Sorry, doesn't even come close, the issues are completely different....voting is not the same activity as buying a gun at a gun store....

Background checks are actually the equivalent of poll taxes and literacy tests....you must pay for the background check before you buy the gun (much like the poll tax) and is a prior restraint on your right to keep and bear arms...

A voter i.d. simply identifies that you are who you say you are when you vote...and you get the voter i.d. for free...no poll tax....

It's this sort of ignorance and stupidity that most jeopardizes the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

The courts have held that fees charged pursuant to possession of a firearm are Constitutional:

Residential Handgun Fees Are Constitutional 2nd Cir Affirms - U.S. Second Circuit

And in order for your 'argument' to be valid it must be consistent, consequently you must also be opposed to citizens possessing concealed weapons licenses, as the issuing jurisdiction will charge a fee to process the license, including doing a background check of the applicant.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Bill, you just admitted to being a hypocrite.

Sorry, doesn't even come close, the issues are completely different....voting is not the same activity as buying a gun at a gun store....

Background checks are actually the equivalent of poll taxes and literacy tests....you must pay for the background check before you buy the gun (much like the poll tax) and is a prior restraint on your right to keep and bear arms...

A voter i.d. simply identifies that you are who you say you are when you vote...and you get the voter i.d. for free...no poll tax....

The issues are different because partisan idiots like yourself want them to be different.

and what you need to do is ***** about your local state laws you know "states rights" LOL, there is no federal fee for a background check.

The Costs of Owning a Gun a State-by-State Permit Breakdown Outdoor Life

I have never paid such a fee.

 

[2aguy]

And in order for your 'argument' to be valid it must be consistent, consequently you must also be opposed to citizens possessing concealed weapons licenses, as the issuing jurisdiction will charge a fee to process the license, including doing a background check of the applicant.

As a matter of fact I am....it is wrong and unconstitutional...regardless of what a few people in robes say...they are not Gods...

If someone is carrying a concealed weapon and they are a felon...arrest them.

If someone is carrying a concealed weapon and it is used improperly...arrest them.

Otherwise...it is unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to keep and bear arms....

 

[2aguy]

The issues are different because partisan idiots like yourself want them to be different.

Look moron, I have been polite in discussing this with you...so if you want to name call a*****e I can do that to and quite well...why is it that all you morons who support stupid and ineffective gun laws start calling names....what a moron...

 

[Iceweasel]

And son, I own around 600 guns, so I'm certainly a gun aficionado. But damn some common sense please.

The law is more than that though, that's how it was sold. You, to stupid voters. The Dept. of Licensing will keep a data base of all transactions, which sounds like the first step in a registration list. And simply loaning a gun to a friend, even at the range, or a son, etc. makes you are criminal without going through a FFL.

Loaning a gun does no such thing.

But you know what, if you loan a gun to someone and they use that gun to commit a crime, you SHOULD be held liable.

It's called being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

How many times have we seen where some idiot bought a gun for someone who couldn't legally buy one their own and that person committed a crime with said gun?

How many times have we seen an irresponsible gun owner end up with a gun being stolen and used in a crime, because they didn't have their guns locked up.

etc,etc,.

I'm sorry, but just as with anything a few irresponsible people have necessitated laws.

I bet BOTH you and Bill are FOR voter ID laws right?

Have you read all 18 pages of i594? It has nothing to do with voter ID or loaning guns to murderers. I'm not aware of that being a problem here, where did you get that?

I-594 is fundamentally dishonest - Washington Arms Collectors
FACT: There are some exceptions included in I-594 that would be reasonable were they not drafted so ridiculously narrowly as to be essentially meaningless. Examples:

• There is NO general loan exemption for family members or friends; even in the presence of the owner!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i think EVERY responsible gun owner should perform a background check when selling a gun.

Sorry bro, but you shouldn't need a law to tell you that.

And son, I own around 600 guns, so I'm certainly a gun aficionado. But damn some common sense please.

If I don't know you I'm not selling you any guns. I don't mind back ground checks but **** the agenda behind a universal back ground check.