Washington State I-1639: When Seconds Count Your Gun Should Be Locked in a Safe

courtesy Huffington Post

“Self-defense is the primary reason people choose to own a firearm. Unfortunately, Initiative 1639 will severely restrict law-abiding individuals from exercising this important right of self-defense, which has been protected here in Washington by Article 1, Section 24 of our state constitution.

“The strict mandated requirement of this initiative will force individuals to lock up their firearms and render them useless in a self-defense situation, or face criminal prosecution.

“It goes even further to state that if an offender does break into your house, and they steal your firearm, you would be held liable for that criminals actions — victimizing you twice. Once by the criminal, and again by the state.” – Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation in Don’t Criminalize Self-Defense

comments

  1. avatar Ken in commie kalifornia says:

    As the war on LEGAL LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS continues. The peasants must obey the gray suited masters sitting in seats of power. Rights? LOL LOL LOL.

    1. avatar Sgt Bill says:

      Urge WA State counties on the East Side (conservative gun owning area) to pass 2nd Amendment sanctuary counties like they are doing in Illinois. If Seattle can be a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens and ignore laws they don’t like, then Eastern WA residents should do the same. It drives libs crazy when you ignore their laws.

      1. avatar Spectre_USA says:

        As a fellow east sider, I really LIKE this idea!

        A 2A sanctuary County? Where do I sign up?

        1. avatar mnrobitaille says:

          Contact your county commissioners & ask them to look into it. Talk with the County Sherriff & ask him/her their thoughts/feelings about the 2nd Amendment & Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution & how I-1639 might affect their duties, responsibilties, & oath of office.

        2. avatar Not My Real Handle says:

          Can I have a sanctuary neighborhood 5 miles from the WA state capitol? All my neighbors have guns. Me too.

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘Once by the criminal, and again by the state.’ – You mean there’s a difference?

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      The one is better organized.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        And has the jackbooted thugs to enforce it. The left is spoiling for their Revolution and I think they will get it. It won’t be like the American Revolution, it will look like the French Revolution.

        Civil war is inevitable. We are clearly in a Fourth Turning. The strongman wins.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          ..”“It goes even further to state that if an offender does break into your house, and they steal your firearm, you would be held liable for that criminals actions..”

          Prosecute enough people for this and I can see a large backlash coming.

          Whats next? Someone steals your car from the garage and gets in a wreck, now legal owner is responsible too??

          How is this even constitutional on it’s face?

        2. avatar GUILTY First --- Then Trial ! says:

          So little coverage of this trampling of Due Process , ” gun writers ” and the N.R.A. just don’t seem to care anymore. ( By the time they do …. it will be far to late. )

          First Florida, Vermont , Washington + Oregon ….. now Pennsylvania , just yesterday seemingly under the radar and with NO outcry save from a few.

          This from Gun Owners of America on Law just Passed ; ( by a Republican majority ! )

          ” What HB 2060 would do is require you to forfeit your Second Amendment rights within 24 hours of the issuance of a “star-chamber” secret protective order against you.Pennsylvania already has such “temporary” protective orders, without accountability. HB 2060 would expand the loss of rights by “mandating” the relinquishment of ALL firearms, other weapons and all ammunition when a “permanent” protective order is issued “WITHIN” 24 hours or face prosecution. This bill will also cause police to lose their jobs to a weaponized protective order.When only the accuser is in the room a judge will normally sign the order without asking any questions

        3. avatar Ardent says:

          Re: the character of a second revolution. I think you’re largely right, it would more resemble the French revolution. What we face now isn’t so much revolution as civil war, and a hatefilled, contentious ugly thing it will likely be if it should come to pass.

          In the last US civil war, the rebels generally formed organized armies, and both sides largely obeyed the customary laws of war. Following military defeat in the field, the rebels largely ceased hostilities, and there was little in the way of reprisals.

          The way this is shaping up the left side won’t have anything like a formal army while the right is apt to have a great many irregular militias in conjunction with whatever regular forces are involved, with the former largely outside the control of the latter. It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee numerous atrocities, likely on both sides…but personally I’d imagine the left bearing the vast majority of the casualties once the cycle of atrocity and reprisal begins. The left thinks it is angry, even outraged. They think they are marginalized, even oppressed, but the fact is that we, mainstream Americans, the core of the nation, and the people of the gun are those oppressed by the proto fascists of the left, and I don’t think most of them have any idea exactly how outraged, how frightened and how disgusted we are with them and their antics.

          They deny the constitution and the rights it ensures, they’ve made a mockery of the courts, turned the Congress into a circus, and diminished us in thought, wealth, international respect and individual liberty. I expect that if the flood gates are opened and the dogs of war unleashed they will be quite surprised by the violence and and sheer viciousness they’ll reap at the hands of the people. A very loud, unruly and unreasonable but very small minority, they are likely to find that their friends are suddenly silent in the wake of many intense pogroms, and that their lives and property are largely forfeit until the very government they seek to destabilize can restore order.

          I’ve said here and elsewhere many times before that such will not originate with the right, we’ve too much respect for the rule of law and too much love for the republic, too much to lose, and a greater sense of order and duty to maintain the status quo for so long as it is tenable. Instead, it will be the left, stymied by the voters, judiciary and the constitution who will precipitate widespread disorder and violence, if it comes to that. Putting them at odds with not only the government, police and the army, but also the majority of the people across the vast majority of the land. I, for one, would not be surprised if, behind the veil of the general disorder, and loosely in the name of justice and the Republic, a great retribution were carried out, in small encounters and acts, spread out over the nation, each mere murder or destruction of property in itself, but cumulating in a very heavy toll.

          That the left would lose any such attempted coup should be no surprise to anyone, what I think will be shocking, when the smoke has cleared, will be the damage done to the universities, the establishment media, the institutions of the left and the more vocal of the treasonous, under the cover of the uprising.

        4. avatar DJ says:

          Ardent well said. I think the Marxist will start it and without question the right will finish it. The Universities as well as the news organizations will burn. No question about atrocities. This Marxist Revolution will be like none in history because of a well armed population. They believe their own bullshit. They count on door kickers. Once it starts what makes them think we will just wait to have our door kicked. And they don’t have the military. I think the Kavanaugh confirmation and they midterms might be the match. Marxist Democrats have overplayed their hand and the last two years has shown them to be cry babies and sore losers.

        5. avatar Kendahl says:

          If there is a civil war, it won’t be like the one between the Union and Confederacy during the nineteenth century. The only organized forces will be police and the armed forces of the federal government. The really vicious ones will be extremists on both sides forming small guerrilla groups and attacking the institutions and people they despise.

        6. avatar Southern Cross says:

          Kendall, and don’t forget both sides taking reprisals on the general population. Both extremists will say the ordinary people are collaborating with other side to justify their actions.

          Like Mexico right now.

  3. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Must be the local transplanted idiots from Kalifonia infecting the whole west coasts doing. Vote NO and even if it starts a fight with the neighbors. Make lots of noise about this stupid law to be.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Transplanted California IT millionaires and home-grown billionaires, plus the teeming hordes of liberal-voting IT immigrants that the likes of Microsoft, Google and Amazon have imported from China and India.

  4. avatar Swarf says:

    I have written 3 different letters to the largest newspaper in the state, the Seattle Times, explaining the reality of 1639 (my .22 becomes aa assault rifle and would-be gun owners forfeit their right to medical privacy) versus the rose-glasses version they put forth in their articles, and— a few days ago— official endorsement (21 to purchase a “semiautomatic assault rifle” and “enhanced” background checks), and they will not publish anything that opposes their view.

    Obviously, I know that the Times is a left-leaning paper (except when it comes to unions. They hate those), but I am disappointed that they are so cowardly as to not even publish a letter (and I don’t care if it’s mine, maybe mine suck) outlining simple facts of the ramifications of passing 1639.

    It’s shameful.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “(…and would-be gun owners forfeit their right to medical privacy)”

      How is that not a clear violation of the HIPPA act?

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        …is a question I keep asking.

        The whole thing will be challenged on several merits, but better to defeat it in the first place.

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        HIPAA doesn’t protect you from the government, that’s why. There are exceptions built in so they can do exactly this kind of thing.

  5. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    C’mon guys and gals,

    The State _always_ knows best. Everyone knows that. 🤮

  6. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    “The strict mandated requirement of this initiative will force individuals to lock up their firearms and render them useless in a self-defense situation, or face criminal prosecution.”

    Wait a minute – Wasn’t a part of the ‘Heller’ decision that locking up your guns when not in immediate use was un-constitutional?

    “(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Wait a minute – Wasn’t a part of the ‘Heller’ decision that locking up your guns when not in immediate use was un-constitutional?

      So? Take them to court for passing an unconstitutional law. If you manage to find a judge who agrees you have standing, you might get it overturned in about 8-10 years.

      Then, in a few hours (most likely between 1:00-3:00 AM) they’ll just pass another law with a different name that does the same thing. They might even have enough imagination to come up with something besides the “NY SAFE Act”.

      Rinse and repeat.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Geoff PR,

      This initiative in Washington so blatantly violates the Heller ruling that all government employees who are helping the initiative should go to prison for several years for breaking the federal law titled Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

      Send these jackasses to prison for this garbage and they might be reluctant to try it again.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wait a minute – Wasn’t a part of the ‘Heller’ decision that locking up your guns when not in immediate use was un-constitutional?”

      If Heller were universal, all such gun laws would have been instantly invalidated/repealed. Every state and local government would be required to wipe gun storage laws from the books immediately. That didn’t happen.

      Maybe Heller is actually applicable only to D.C (effectively), and every other government entity is saying “Make Me !!”, requiring law suits and positive decisions over thousands of locations, one-at-a-time.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “Maybe Heller is actually applicable only to D.C (effectively),…”

        That pesky ‘McDonald – Chicago’ decision incorporated ‘Heller’ to the states, no?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That pesky ‘McDonald – Chicago’ decision incorporated ‘Heller’ to the states, no?”

          Yes it did; in great futility. Both “Heller” and “McDonald” are effectively mirages. The States have declared secession from federal law in a number of instances, “gun rights” being one of them. Much like “Brown v. Board of Education”, wherein segregation in public schools was declared unconstitutional, it took years to have it almost fully implemented, one law suite at a time, “Heller” and “McDonald” will be ignored as long as possible, as long as individuals in state and local government remain immune from sanction for ignoring a Supreme Court decision.

        2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          ““Heller” and “McDonald” will be ignored as long as possible, as long as individuals in state and local government remain immune from sanction for ignoring a Supreme Court decision.”

          I fear you are right on that. Time for sanctions with personal liability for civil rights violations…

  7. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    the seattle communist/marxist politicians have never given any thought into the ramifications of the handcuffing the police. .the i631 and related attempts to legislate around the constitution is for restricting firearms by anybody. WHEN THEY RESTRICT THE STUPID SANCUARY CITY POLICY, then maybe we will feel safer in our homes.UNTIL THEN BUZZ-OFF. when the police are called on to BREAK THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE STARTING THE NEXT CIVIL WAR.

  8. avatar TommyG says:

    All the more reason we need a Judge like Brett Kavanaugh.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      And all the more reason for the Ginsberg and Breyer deathwatch.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        ‘Thoughts and prayers’ for a natural death.

        (Fuckit. I’ll take suicide from them as well… *snicker* 😉 )

        And make that *Justice* Brett Kavanaugh…

    2. avatar Realist says:

      I hope Trump can find another like Kavanaugh, because that man’s confirmation is going down like a MIG over Missouri.

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        Huh?

  9. avatar Don't Obey Asinine Laws says:

    If this initiative becomes the law, I’ll just ignore it. Problem solved.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Until you want to buy a rifle.

      You can ignore it, but it won’t ignore you.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        There will indeed be massive non-compliance. I-594 with UBCs is largely ignored, with the Sheriffs from many counties saying they won’t enforce it. The gun shops will be required to follow the law, but ordinary sales between individuals will continue, without background checks, age limits, or state registration.

    2. avatar Bart O K says:

      To ignore it would mean not purchasing pistols or semi auto rifles.

      Otherwise the FFL has to tax you extra and you have a 10 day wait, the police get to look at all your medical records, you have to take a class on gun violence (every 5 years) and if your gun is stolen and used in a extreme crime you become a felon and lose all gun rights for the rest of your life.

    3. avatar Colt Magnum says:

      You can ignore it until you want to buy a semi-automatic rifle. Then you’ll have to prove you’ve had training in the previous 5 years and sign away your HIPAA rights. Plus, you’ll have to be at least 21 years old.

      1. avatar Don't Obey Asinine Laws says:

        I’ve already got enough rifles, but I’ll buy a few more in case this nonsense passes. Plus I can just move. Fuck Washington anyway.

        1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

          I’m a scared coward and I really don’t know what I’m talking about. I’d also like to add that I don’t really own guns, because they make loud noises.

  10. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with making firearm ownership harder and more complicated, one small step at a time. Then they’ll go for the jugular and by then there won’t be enough defenders of the 2A to mount any serious opposition. Kind of a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ or ‘salami tactics’.

    On another note, why do I have to keep filling in the ‘Name’ & ‘Email’ field every single time I want to comment?

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “On another note, why do I have to keep filling in the ‘Name’ & ‘Email’ field every single time I want to comment?”

      It’s a bug.

      Double-click on the field and a drop-down will show up with your name-addy for each field…

      1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

        Thanks Geoff, doesn’t work for me I’m afraid. One good thing about having to re-enter the info each time is that it’s like a ‘cooling off period’!!!

  11. avatar Bugs Nasty says:

    Okay, so Washington State is trying to out-Commie California by making personal home defense as impossible as it can. Look out California Citizens!

    “Washington folks, get a powerful crossbow or good sturdy spear…then pin the intruder to a wall so you have time to go get your pistol out of the lock-up to shoot the motherf’er, if needed…of course, you could use a good sharp long knife to gut the intruder after you pin him to the wall…but all those intestines and blood will make quite a mess to get cleaned-up…maybe your only viable alternative is to get down on your knees and beg the intruder not to hurt you…is it illegal yet in Washington State to throw rocks at a home invader?” This PSA provided by Citizens for Abject Submission to Communist Tyranny in America

  12. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So who do you sue if you can’t get to your weapon(s) for self-defense ???
    This is the USA…sue-happy country of thew world.

  13. avatar MeRp says:

    This is a terrible bill. It turns a 10/22 into an assault rifle.

    But if a criminal breaks into your house and steals a gun, and you report it stolen, then you are exempt from the safe storage law repercussions, according to the bill.

  14. avatar Kyle says:

    yet another gun law that will be ignored by not only the law abiding but the criminal alike.

    As liberal state governments don’t actually recognize a difference, i guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

  15. avatar Francis says:

    WA I-1639 will make the 2A null and void for 18-20 year olds. It is already illegal for this age group to exercise their RKBA of any handgun. Handgun ownership allows the user to keep the weapon on their person, ensuring that the individual has personal defense while somewhat avoiding I-1639’s requirement to lock up the weapon in a safe. Previous to this law, 18-20 year olds were limited to the legal use of modern rifles and carbines for self defense. After I-1639 passes, it will be illegal for 18-20 year olds to acquire modern rifles and carbines for self defense. This age group will have no legal access to modern firearms at all. Those that do have access to a rifle or carbine will have their 2A rights further infringed by the requirement to lock up the rifle and carbine in a safe. The relative ease at which a handgun can be kept on the person helps to overcome this later infringement of I-1639. However, without access to any modern firearm due to WA I-1639, 18-20 year olds will have no right to self defense as intended by the 2A. Furthermore, this age group will continue to be required to register for Selective Service in a Federal Army. This is the antithesis of the US Constitution. The funny thing is, that voting liberals aged 18-20 years old in WA are largely lining up to vote their own natural right to self-defense away, while being ready to serve in a Federal Army to enforce a version of law that is unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Winterborne says:

      I sincerely doubt those “18-20 years old in WA” are ready to serve in any Army, much less a Federal one.

  16. avatar ROBERT POWELL says:

    One might remember the good old wrist-rocket, a little [tune-up] on the rubbers will give near 45cal velocity to a 40 or a 45 caliber ball.SILENT VERY ACCURATE, AND UNTRACEABLE.. or find a good machinist,and roll your own..gatling gun crossbow..or 22.

  17. avatar Ing says:

    I wonder if the people behind I-1639 would be okay with holding women liable for providing sex to rapists? Gun owners want their stuff stolen just about as much as women want to be raped.

  18. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    The way I look at laws such as this is I ask a simple question. “Is it truly a law if no one believes in it or obeys it”? I think you get my drift. Sounds to me like a lot of bloviators writing laws to make themselves seem in their and the other bloviators eyes around them seem somewhat important and powerful. F%#k em I say!!! Supposed laws like this aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email