Washington Passes Strict Gun Control Laws While Some in Seattle Wait Hours for Police To Respond

From the Seattle Times:

“My generation has been defined by gun violence. We have been defined by continued and repeated inaction by our elected officials,” Stephen Paolini, 22-year-old campaign manager for Initiative 1639, said at a gathering at Seattle’s Edgewater Hotel where Tuesday’s results drew cheers. “I hope tonight this victory is a message to our elected officials: Enough is enough.”

That “victory” about which Paolini was so euphoric was the passage of I-1639, the billionaire-financed ballot initiative that will:

  • Raise the age to buy semi-automatic rifles to 21 years old
  • Require those buying semi-autos to pass an “enhanced background check” and undergo a training course
  • Establish a 10-day waiting period for semi-auto firearm purchases
  • Allow dealers to charge a $25 surcharge for semi-autos to comply with the law
  • Require all firearms to be stored with a trigger lock or in a safe

Look for a court challenge based on the initiative’s questionable legality in how it got on the ballot. As the Second Amendment’s Alan Gottlieb said,

“A handful of billionaires put in millions of dollars to buy votes and we were outspent,” Gottlieb said. “But while they were able to buy votes, our hope is they won’t be able to buy judges.”

And yet 1639 passed by 20 points in the wake of news that residents of Seattle are waiting hours at times for a police officer when they dial 911.

“There are cases where someone waits an extraordinary amount of time for police service,” (Seattle police Sgt. Sean) Whitcomb said. “Everyone would agree we would be able to do more, and perhaps do a better job, if we had more resources.”

Population growth has skyrocketed in King County, adding 36,000 people between July 2015 and 2016. But growth inside the Seattle Police Department hasn’t been so quick. The department said they have added 111 new officers since 2014 – but this year alone more than 30 have left.

Do you have a potential burglar in your house? Settle in and be prepared to deal with it yourself.

Jennifer Brosius said she waited 10 hours for Seattle police to respond to her 911 call back in June.

“It was infuriating. It was scary and terribly frustrating,” Brosius said.

Brosius and her husband had come home from work to find their house had been burglarized, her bedroom ransacked. They weren’t sure if the thieves were still inside.

“It was ‘are you sure no one is still in the house?’ We weren’t completely sure,” she said.

The 911 dispatcher told her not to touch anything and to wait outside. The daughter of a police officer, Brosius was quick to listen – she plopped down on her porch and waited the full 10 hours.

Fortunately for Brosius, the burglar was gone. And yet the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue area was the part of the state that gave 1639 its strongest support. Go figure.

So if you live in the Evergreen State, be prepared to be your own first responder, even more so than in other locales. Just be sure you’re complying with 1639’s provisions because once the police finally show up, you could be charged with a gross misdemeanor or felony community endangerment if your guns aren’t properly secured.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar little horn says:

    Establish a 10-day waiting period for semi-auto firearm purchases
    so charles whitman would have passed and the fort hood shooter who used a pump shot gun and the various “sniper” murderers we’ve had. fucking morons.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      That was the Washington Navy Yard guy who took an 870 to work. Both Fort Hood guys used pistols- a Five-seveN (2009) and an M&P (2014).

    2. avatar Zippy says:

      Well the anti gun crowd (which is now anyone who knows nothing about firearms) thinks the root cause of all the violence and killing is guns…

      Reality and the real root causes mean nothing to them

    3. avatar What about...? says:

      Just went to Cabelas, Lacey WA, almost every gun stocked is a “semiautomatic assault rifle” after the law passed. Good thing you don’t have to compete with the 18-20 year old customers anymore for a customer service number. You can basically walk right up to the counter and ask to see any of the “new” semiautomatic assault rifles you want to get your hands on. Also, as a older privileged gentlemen, the increased cost to buy a gun under the law doesn’t really impact me. I guess the left-wing discriminators effectively priced underprivileged buyers out of the market, in addition to removing the under 21 year old customers. There you go, increased access to guns for the older privileged group of buyers who have the money.

    4. avatar JasonM says:

      And it’s not all semi-autos. The article is wrong. Handguns (semi-auto, revolver, or others) only require a five day wait (or no wait with a concealed pistol license–which anyone who can pass a background check can get with $48, ten minutes of effort, zero training, and a couple weeks of waiting by the mailbox).

      So handguns, the most commonly used crime guns in Washington by a large margin, are unaffected, as are AR-pistols. But a Ruger 10/22 is now an assault rifle.

      It also doesn’t apply to receivers, so you can buy an AR-15 lower and separate upper and walk out the store with them after the FBI says you’re good.

      I really hope the gun stores in Washington start selling assembled AR lowers (not a semi-automatic rifle) right next to AR uppers. Or AR-pistols with 16″ barrels right next to AR stocks.

      1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

        Since we’re being tecnical, it’s actually 5 BUSINESS days… Which could be up to 10 calendar days depending on weekends and holidays.

        “… get with $48, ten minutes of effort”. Takes me at least 30 minutes just to get to the appropriate office to apply. And do you think they are open when I’m NOT at work? Some places require appointments to apply for and pick up their permit.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          The requirement is only for 10 minutes of effort. My wife stopped by the Bellevue PD on her way to the mall on a Saturday. My point was that it’s fairly easy to get, which means anybody who’s now being forced to wait ten business days to legally buy a rifle is able to walk out of the store with an AR-pistol or other handgun. I was pointing out how stupid and inconsistent this law is.

        2. avatar Icabod says:

          My daughter has been trying to get her concealed carry permit. The only place she can apply is in Tacoma and every time she’s gone in, the line is several hours long. I checked in my city and was told you have to apply in your city of residence.
          What doesn’t often come out is that those with concealed carry permits (even the “shall Issue” in Washington) have extreme low crime rates. Even less then those of police officers.
          https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

        3. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Facts interfere with the agenda to disarm us. Facts, truth, are irrelevant, and will be countered at every turn. We know, of course, that this has nothing to do with safety, because the truth is that an armed society is not just a polite society, it is a safer society. This has only to do with the incremental march toward total disarmament.

          What follows after that, won’t be pretty.

    5. avatar Frank says:

      My generation has been defined by gun violence. We have been defined by continued and repeated inaction by our elected officials,” Stephen Paolini, 22-year-old campaign

      His generation has seen less gun murder than ever. US gun murder is half the rate it was 25 years ago.

      This campaign manager literally INVERTS the trend, he is as flat earth as possible.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You are seeing the future unfolding before your eyes.

        The “campaign manager” is admitting something very important – the child-like propensities of 20-somethings today. If it didn’t happen in their lifetime (especially if it wasn’t posted on social media), it just didn’t happen, which makes that which did not happen irrelevant.

        You are seeing the fruit of three generations of children (brought up to remain children) raising children to remain children. This is why the history of the world is nonsense to these child-minded adults. Which also makes our founding irrelevant (actually, mythical fantasy).

        While “the greatest generation” actually ended up destroying American culture, this latest generation could never manage the wherewithal to endure that which created “the greatest generation”.

  2. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Tyranny of the majority.

    1. avatar Spectre_USAF says:

      BINGO!

      As a Spkaonite, I am deeply ashamed that my County passed this clap-trap.

      It was closer than the Seattle area, about 50-50, but it should not have even been close!

      Who are they to tell me how to live my life, as I am causing no one any harm?

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      That’s what happens when you have direct democracy and Californians moving into your state. A bunch of rich people can fund adverts to manipulate the idiots into voting their human rights away without their representatives being necessary. The government loves it because they can’t take the blame and they get what they wanted. Don’t worry, there are many states with a similar setup, which means it is only a matter of time for very bad things to happen there too.

      There is no point to a Constitutional Representative Republic if you have direct democracy to subvert it. There is too many stupid people in the U.S. to have direct democracy and a republic doesn’t work when no one knows the law or follows it. Sounds and looks like America is fucked.

      1. avatar arc says:

        One of the many reasons why its time to double down on fortifications and supplies for the inevitable reset war.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          It’s not really my fight. My people are still on a reservation that the U.S. controls. Physically fighting for the U.S. would seem counter productive for someone like myself. It kind of doesn’t make sense to sacrifice my life for a bunch of European-Americans who are destroying themselves and won’t appreciate the help… I don’t have allegiance to the government itself, I am more of a defender of the concept it supposed to live up to.

          So, what do you do when the American people don’t even live up to the oath or pledge they take? If you can’t live up to your word, why should anyone else help you? They’ve made their bed, now they must lie in it.

  3. avatar thegoyimknow says:

    Funded by [[[bloomber]]] [[[ballmer]]] [[[hanauer]]] [[[allen]]] [[[kessel]]] and [[[frankenberg]]]

    OY VEY!

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      [[[Alan Gottlieb]]] is on our side, at least.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      allen funded it and died before the election. thanks for that kick in the ass before death.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “allen funded it and died before the election.”

        WTF are you talking about?

        Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are very much alive…

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          Paul Allen (Microsoft cofounder) != Alan Gottlieb (SAF founder).

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Geoff PR,

          The commenters above are referring to Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, not Allen Gotlieb.

    3. avatar Guns not hate says:

      Wtf is this anti-Semitic BS? Keep your hate to yourself.

    4. avatar Oh Geez says:

      Really, man? You’re really going there with that (((echo))) garbage?

  4. avatar Zippy says:

    Not surprised it passed…

    You forgot to mention 1639 also reclassifies every semi auto rifle into an evil scary semi auto assualt rifle. (I bet the next initiative will ban all semi auto assualt rifles)

    As of last night, my Ruger 10/22 was a regular rifle for plinking, now it’s an “assualt rifle”. My M1 carbine was a handy little rifle and piece of history and now it’s an “assualt rifle”. Hell, my FN FAL is now classed as an assualt rifle?! Same with my 9mm PCC…even my Remington 1100 with rifled barrel is now an assualt rifle @@

    And don’t forget we give up our HIPAA rights when buying a firearm as well.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      they definitely will not stop pushing ballot gun control in WA. At a minimum, it’s a paying job to the leftists who run the ballot question and they know they have billionaire willing to pay for it. I’d expect to see mag limits and AWB the next round

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        agree completely

      2. avatar Defens says:

        Of course, since they just re-defined “assault weapon” as any semi-auto rifle, the whole “evil features” cosmetics issue just went away. POTG have always claimed that an AR-15 is no different than a Browning BAR hunting rifle, and the law now recognizes that fact. So if they want to ban “assault weapons” they have to ban the vast majority of rifles now in common use – clearly unconstitutional.

  5. avatar Cliffg says:

    The Seattle Times stated that if 1639 just saved one life it would be worth it. In 2016 11 people died from the use of some kind of rifle. 180 died from drowning. Hopefully our next initiative will put severe restrictions on water use. If it only saves one life it would be worth it.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      Every time we have an extended power outage in Washington, people die from using BBQs and gas heaters inside homes. It’s just common sense to ban them to save one life, right? Man crashed into a tree and died in the past week – Hoping that Gates, Bloomberg and company roll out the tree-banning initiative soon.

      I’ll be curious to hear what they consider to be a secured method of storage, and what they consider to be an appropriate training course. The State Patrol will have to administer all of this, I’m guessing – they can’t be thrilled about the expenditures of time and money on something they know will have zero effect on crime.

      Now that it’s passed, look for additional legal challenges that I hope tie it up for some time to come – time enough, I hope, for some action at the Federal level to deal with these feel-good restrictions.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      I hear they have water restriction laws in California. So, yeah, it could come to Oregon, Colorado and Washington too.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Aliso Viejo, CA did ban water. It shows how progressives love to act without thought.

    3. avatar Falcon642 says:

      They should really apply that “if it saves one life” logic to alcohol in the name of reducing DUI deaths. How about universal background checks on all alcohol purchases. Sure it would be a major pain in the butt, but if it saves just one life right?

      That’s how I try to get anti-gunners to have some empathy for our stance. Take their proposed anti-gun laws and apply them to alcohol in the name of reducing the 10,000 DUI deaths that happen every year. If they are not willing to deal with a provision of alcohol control then why should I have to deal with the same thing with my guns.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Moreover, it’s perfectly clear that the several states are completely within their power to regulate alcohol any way they wish; they could vote themselves “dry”. Why don’t they?

        Their power to regulate guns is limited by the prohibition against “infringement”.

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          There is a LOT of infringing going on…

  6. avatar doug says:

    They also approved Initiative 940. Hours after your lifeless body, trigger-locked gun in hand, has started to assume room temperature, the police will treat the murderer with all of the kindness and deescalation tactics in the book.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Doug……. You left out that they will blame the gun and not the murderer.

  7. avatar Casey says:

    I’m sure someone will say something along the lines of “thanks for nothing, traitor”, but I am SO glad I moved out of WA last year. This sort of stupidity is exactly what prompted the move.

    1. avatar Zippy says:

      No wonder we’re ending up like California?

      All you folks are running away…

      Yeah, yeah…I know, nothing we can do. So let’s just give up /s

    2. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Gun laws like this make it tempting to get the hell out of this state. Gun storage: is my front door lock enough? I keep a .45 on top of my fridge, loaded. My 90-year old mother is with me under my care. She can’t walk or get around on her own. Am I safe from prosecution? Is the Glock 43 I keep a couple feet from my head at night, now putting me at risk because I don’t have a lock on it? Gee, I’d hate to fumble for a lock if someone has broken in just now. ‘Hold on, pal, hold on … I’m a goddamned law-abiding citizen, see … just wait a second, will ya!!??? … where’s that fucking key for this fucking lock … would you get that gun out of my face? Where are you manners, man??? I can’t even see the lock! could you get my flashlight over there for me? … right there, on the nightstand … there, thanks … okay, almost …. got it …. unlocked!!

      I grew up here, it’s home, I love the area. But it’s going communist. It has been for a long, long time.

      1. avatar L says:

        The U.S. Constitution guarantees your rights as a free citizen of the country. A ballot vote in your state elections cannot deny you, without due process, your natural rights which were stated on the founding of this country. The implications of that I leave up to you. It sickens me that there are a majority of people in a state that willingly vote to strip away their own rights and the rights of their peers. Good luck to you and your mom, Michael. You’ll need it in 2018 WA.

        1. avatar Defens says:

          The Washington State Constitution is far less ambiguous than the 2A on gun rights within our state:

          SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

          Mandatory lockup of firearms would certainly be an infringment – however the new law doesn’t “require” that you lock them up. It prosecutes you if you don’t, they are stolen, and subsequently used in a crime. This will be a sticky one to unravel, but I’m sure it could be done.

          Most certainly the law imposes multiple infringements on the purchase of firearms that are commonly used in defense – waiting periods, bans for “underage”, privacy-violating background checks, training requirements.

          The part of the Section 24 that I would like to see be put to work for pro-gunners is to ban the use of “an armed body of men” to protect billionaires. This clause was originally included to prevent companies from hiring goons to break up unions. I’d like to see laws put enacted to prevent billionaires from hiding in their armored ivory towers, immune from the criminal acts that affect us deplorables.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The U.S. Constitution guarantees your rights as a free citizen of the country.”

          Afraid those days are long gone. Today, you are permitted whatever constitutional protection the courts deem appropriate (with preference given to not encumbering government). As always, you have only those right you can personally defend.

          One can choose to ignore the laws on the books, and act as if they are sovereign citizens. One risks being dead right. I would say that after 242 years, no one is willing to take that alternative.

          BTW, this is how empires die. If you ever wanted to know why some of the most powerful and wealthy empires lasted only a few hundred years, you are seeing it.

      2. avatar rick3 says:

        I live in Seattle, and I’ve seen several discussions recently that mentioned that the state “storage” aspect of the law is going to be very much like what the city of Seattle has already in place:

        (hmmm…I was trying to post a screen shot of the details, but it looks like I can’t. Too many details for me to re-type them all, but one of the key items is:
        “safe, gun safe, gun case, gun cabinet, or lock box that is…”
        so, just keeping it in the SECURED house probably won’t be acceptable. Sucks.

        I think, in addition to using all the previous arguments that people have brought up in a law suit, that any attorneys need to ask why our houses are not considered “SECURE” enough, since the expectation is that houses are secure enough to keep people safe…

      3. avatar JasonM says:

        The initiative text is

        A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm is guilty of …

        No prohibited people have access to my home or my car. The list of safe storage locations is an list of storage options that protect someone from prosecution, it is not an exhaustive list of the safe storage options for all firearms.
        The initiative adds children to the list of prohibited people for this purpose, so it really only affects people with kids in the house.

        1. avatar Assault Rimfires says:

          There is a reporting requirement. If you don’t report a theft within 5 days (or within 5 days of when you SHOULD have known) there is no protection from prosecution. This sounds like you could end up in court having to prove you didn’t know your guns were stolen from your locked home.

          Also earlier someone suggested buying an AR pistol and using a rifle barrel. Not OK Federally as I understand. A big no-no.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          I’m a proponent of locking up anything I’m not carrying. All of my guns are secured in a RSC right now, except my carry gun. At night it sits on my nightstand next to my bed. If somebody stole one of my guns, I’d notice it pretty quickly.

          I’ve been suggesting buying pistols and turning them into rifles, or buying receivers and building them into rifles, to avoid this law.

          It’s perfectly legal to turn a pistol into a rifle with a 16″ or longer barrel, or into an SBR, once the ATF approves your Form 4. I’ve done both multiple times.

        3. avatar Anymouse says:

          A rifle is always a rifle, so you must keep to the minimum and overall lengths to not be a SBR. A pistol can have any length barrel you want. You can add a stock to make it a rifle, as long as you add a barrel that meets the minimum rifle barrel and overall lengths. If you make a pistol receiver into a rifle, you may go back to a pistol configuration. The reasoning for treating identical receivers differently is that pistols have stricter requirements for sales than rifles. They don’t want you making a rifle into a pistol and bypassing the extra taxes and age requirements.

        4. avatar Meh says:

          So it takes extra steps with the ATF to convert a pistol to a rifle? You can’t just order the barrel online. Without mentioning the paperwork you could have people breaking more laws.

          It is good you always know where your firearms are. Don’t you think a potential felony for someone stealing your gun and not reporting it within 5 days is too extreme? I am thinking of times in our lives where big events occur, good or bad, and people’s minds and time are elsewhere.

          Victim blaming is what it sounds like to me.

    3. avatar SadDayForWA says:

      I vote against these initiatives every time. Notice the effect I am having? Staying in WA just means a bunch of ignorant progressives get to take away more of your rights every two years.

      The only avenue to fight this is in the courts, and that hasn’t gone anywhere as yet with the asinine UBC law that was passed. The state supreme court is not exactly gun friendly here. I think our only hope is to change the referendum process. Maybe one person shouldn’t be able to give a gazillion dollars to a referendum campaign?

      1. avatar DDay says:

        You’re hope is the 9th circuit court of appeals. There are 29 judges on the court and currently 16 are democrat appointees, that’s why all the ruling are loony.

        Trump has picked 2 judges for there already and there are currently 6 more openings. Obama only got 7 picks for his 8 years in office, trump will have 8 in his first term alone. That would bring the GOP nominees up to 13, almost a 50/50 split

        Clinton had 14 nominees out of the 29 judges, that and obama’s picks are why it’s so liberal. Those clinton judges have already started to retire. It’s very possible trump will get another 6 or 7 picks for the court if he serves 2 terms. So by 2024 there maybe a 16-13 conservative majority on the 9th. That is the hope for people in CA, WA, HI, OR.

        1. avatar Tom says:

          Day, it’s a sad commentary on U.S. ” justice ” ( which is supposed to be blind), that simply written Constitutional amendments can be allowed interpretation completely opposite as to what is written.

  8. avatar Zippy says:

    22 year old campaign manager?

    And last I checked that generation was not defined by mass shootings…Not to mention what difference will this new initiative do?

    What difference has initiatives 594 (universal background checks) and 1491(red flag law) actually made?

    1. avatar What about...? says:

      How can he be a campaign manager at 22 years old? He’s barely old enough to buy a modern rifle, much less afford to purchase a rifle under the new 1639 law. It must have been impressive watching a 22 year old tell 18 to 20 year olds that their too young to buy a modern rifle. I wonder how he broke the news to the underprivileged and minorities that the law would increase the cost for them to buy a modern rifle.

    2. avatar Icabod says:

      I-594 tells us much about this new law. In 2014 I-594 mandated universal background checks for all gun “transfers.” Supposedly it targeted the fictional “gun show loophole.”
      In truth, a “transfer “ was vague enough that you couldn’t hand your rifle to someone as you crossed a fence.
      In the four years since passage, ONE (1) person has been charged. To be charged, the person had to confess to police that he sold a pistol and the police had to search the laws to find one to charge him under. The issue is moot as the gun had disappeared and so has the person.
      Supporter of I-594 have bleated that “50 background checks have been denied” under this law. A reasonable question: “Then have many have been brought to trial?” Shows that nobody has.

    3. avatar Frank says:

      22 year old campaign manager?
      And last I checked that generation was not defined by mass shootings…Not to mention what difference will this new initiative do?

      That generation is safer than any generation in history with less murder, less gun murder, less chance of malnutrition, less chance of disease, less chance of dying in a war, less risk in EVERYTHING.

      In fact that generation is living in a USA with HALF the gun murder rate of 25 years ago.

      so it is a paranoid and coddled idiot generation that is dependent and likes its dependence on being forced fed their worldview from the press; instead of general, history logic and actual statistics.

      That generation feels it is nothing unless it is a “victim” so that 22 years old proclaims he is a “victim” even though the data show he is NOT.

  9. avatar Don says:

    Washington is gone and Oregon is going. Sixty years in Oregon, I can’t do it any more, shopping for land in Idaho. The Californians are moving there in droves too, but maybe, just maybe, we can make stand there and keep one or two of our rights.

    1. avatar John says:

      In Douglas County the 2A Preservation ballot measure passed with 73% and six other counties passed similar measures. Our Sheriff has stated that he won’t enforce laws passed by the state that are unconstitutional. There’s still hope for Oregon.

  10. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    All the areas controlled by the socialist democratic party is where the violence is and you just elected more of the same. Another example of the definition of insanity. Can’t see the forest for the trees etc. More useful idiots for the socialists.

  11. avatar Mr Lizard says:

    As soon as RBG kicks it, there’s gonna be a reckoning

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      That’s a terrible idea. We’d end up with a full gun ban in western Washington the next day.
      But I’d be up for that idea if we take everything east of Lake Washington with us…oh and the Olympic peninsula.
      Really, we just need Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia to become their own state, and everything will be awesome.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        All we really need is for the Cascadian subduction zone “Full Rip” 9.0 earthquake to occur, and most of the state’s political issues will drown.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          But some of us live in that area. There are lots of gun owners in eastern King County. And we’ve got some nice gun ranges, too.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “That’s a terrible idea. We’d end up with a full gun ban in western Washington the next day.”

        Congress must approve statehood. A new state might be possible (not), but a change in boundaries to include part of an existing state would be quite entertaining to watch.

  12. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The subtext of gun control laws is to transform gun ownership—constitutionally protected behavior—into social deviance. By doing so, the act of buying and/or owning a gun instantly transforms everyday American citizens into immoral, untrustworthy, and dangerous deviants who must be increasingly regulated lest they inadvertently “go off”.

    1. avatar Zippy says:

      Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

      It is unfortunate they are demonizing an inanimate object and all of us by association by the simple act of owning a firearm.

      We don’t demonize the written word or the pen or keyboard in such a way nor by association. Guns and words are not inherently evil.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Absolutely – keep heaping onerous laws upon us formerly law-abiding citizens, until we start to push back. Then by pushing back you’ve crossed an arbitrary “mental health” line and presto, you’re a whack-job, no guns for you!

    3. avatar Frank says:

      indeed. This is why we also why you have child services breaking down the door accompanied by swat team of a home where a guy who posted a pic of his son with a completely legal 10/22 in a completely legal circumstance.

      It is why public school teachers can hand out “Everytown” brochures and material but if a kid brings in NRA material they will be suspended or expelled.

      This strategy of making it seem deviant has lots of ancillary benefits to gun ban lobby, such as that we now know lots of people, about half of gun owners, will tell a GSS, Gallup or pew pollster ther is no gun in the household, when in fact there is, allowing those polling firms, and the media to say that gun ownership rates are going down, when they are likely going up.

      In 2016 and 2018 elections the GOP did BETTER than average polling, and even supposed super accurate exit polling indicated. Hmmm. Let’s see, Reporter/surveyor/lefty friend:

      “Donald Trump is a satanic racist, the GOP is comprised of satanic violent racists; did you vote for any GOP candidate?”

      “Any expression of anything other than open boarder is racist xenophobia; are you for any control of immigration?”

      “Anyone who owns a gun is responsible for every shooting; do you own a gun?”

      Thank god the actual voting is still somewhat private

  13. avatar Jim B says:

    “Raise the age to buy semi-automatic long guns to 21 years old”

    The law says rifles not long guns. Shotguns are not included. I expect ignorance about guns from the general press but not a gun site. Don’t make the law worse than it is with your false reporting.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      It also says “Establish a 10-day waiting period for semi-auto firearm purchases”, which is incorrect. The law only applies to the purchase of the newly defined “semi-automatic assault rifles”.

  14. avatar Zippy says:

    So 80% of gun deaths are by suicide in Washington State. The other largest chunk is people knowing one another and after that it’s gang/youth violence. With the smallest percentage of gun deaths by mass shootings.

    How will this new initiative solve any of that…what real honest to God difference will it make? Maybe a few less folks won’t kill themselves, but will they really be any better off without additional help and support? And now the person in an abusive relationship or with a crazy ex won’t have the means to defend themselves. (Sh*t, how long was the police response time with that recent stabbing at the Seattle Center in the middle of the day)

    594 passed, 1491 passed and now 1639 passed. They’ve gotten everything they wanted on a silver platter. Are we going to see if these actually made a difference or just pass more knee jerk laws, nevermind…I know the answer to that.

    In the mean time our mental health care in this country is far worse than other industrialized countries. We’ve yet to figure out how to deal with domestic violence issues. We do very little over our gang violence, homelessness and poverty in this country. Instead of teaching kids things we just make school easier on them. And so on and so on. Let’s make guns the root cause and not the true root causes…

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @Zippy

      Well written. I have a few thoughts and perhaps a more nuanced perspective on what you had to say.

      Fact: the United States has always had, and practiced, gun control, and that includes at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. Never at any time in US history has this country been a “anyone can have whatever they want anytime they want” situation regarding firearms. Not then and not now. Even just a little research into the historical context of the Second Amendment shows that gun control was in effect and practiced at that time, as it pretty much is in every country in the world that isn’t in total societal collapse or a war zone.

      So countries take different stances. Regulate the arms ie No Arms For You. Even in these countries, people still have arms, but generally the approach is to regulate the arms. Or it’s regulate the people – you can have guns while your neighbor can’t, or all kinds of restrictions. But in any country that regulates firearms, and all of them do, it’s the arms or the people, or a combo. The US has always done a combo approach.

      I do think that some of the proposed new laws are knee jerk reactions to a public that is upset and wants something to be done about what they perceive as an epidemic of gun violence. But it’s also true that laws, in general, are all a beta test until you’ve had them around for a while. You don’t know how any new law is going to play out practically until you’ve tried it, and when the law is bad, you get lots of stupid shitty expensive results of that law. In that case, the responsibility of the citizens is to vote someone into office to repeal or change that shitty law.

      Of course, many proposed “new” laws are actually not new but only revised versions of old shitty laws that didn’t work either. History repeats itself.

      It is also not true that if you lose certain rights that they are gone forever. Look at what’s happened with abortion. Back and forth over the years. Same with guns in other countries. I believe they’re working on repealing disarmament clauses in Brazil right now, need to double check that but I think that’s true.

      You can always go get your rights back. People do it all of the time. One loss is not a permanent loss.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Even just a little research into the historical context of the Second Amendment shows that gun control was in effect and practiced at that time”

        There is, and was, a difference between state and federal laws. At the founding, the states retained the power to control firearms, but the central government was forbidden. The difference is significant, and a warning. The States retain the power to legislate gun control, the same as the federal government. Both are supposed to be forbidden (14th Amendment) to control guns, but the Second Amendment (and others) are warped in the name of public safety, general welfare, or “compelling government interest”.

        Originally, the Second Amendment applied only as a control on/against the central government, then the 14th made the Second Amendment applicable to the states. That left no governmental strata that was permitted to regulate firearms. Of course, “common sense” dictated that vacuum not persist because…guns.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          If that was the case then there would be no point of a federation to begin with. It would not benefit the sovereign states to sign a contract with a central authority if that authority was non existent after signing. Supreme law of the land meant something…

          I hear this revision/interpretation of history from Libertarians of the Lew Rockwell variety. Not really a fan of them as they seem like gate keepers.

          The problem the founders created was not being super specific to make sure future generations don’t interpret the whole point of the U.S. That’s how they got themselves a civil war.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          When you study the documents of the founders, you will have something informative to comment about. The nation was constructed with the States being the master(s) of the central government. The States only agreed to allow the central government to do those things the States could not do successfully (see Articles of Confederation, where there was no real central government beyond the Continental Conventions. It was then the intention of the States only to create essentially a coordinating committee. That experiment failed, and the States agreed a tangible central government was needed.

          The constitution was a hard fought instrument of control of that central government. Nowhere can anyone find where the States imagined or intended to surrender their sovereignty entirely to a central government. If the States intended to put the central government superior to the states, Amendments 9 and 10 were/are nonsensical. (BTW, only a superior entity can delegate authority).

          What I am explaining to you is not “revisionist”. Go to the original sources, or admit that your concept of America is post-1960, which IS revisionist.

          Some words from the preamble to the constitution: “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The States, in concert, established the government. Note that they did not subjugate themselves into precincts of a superior political entity. Only a superior entity can ordain and establish; inferior entities cannot ordain and establish.

          To make it more simple, have a look at the law of agency. When one appoints an agent, that agent must operate within the constraints of the appointment (the rules and obligations applying to the principal also apply to the agent). The agent cannot legally accomplish anything not authorized by the principal. The founders (the States) were principals, the federal government the agent.

          The constitution was submitted to the States individually, not to the Continental Congress. As with the constitutional amendment process, the initiating body (Congress in both cases) determined how the ratification process would be conducted. Under no circumstance is the existing Congress (US House and Senate) permitted to ratify, or reject proposed amendments. Congress may pass or reject the proposed amendments that will be sent to the states, but once the amendments are released to the states, Congress has no role.

          I really recommend you enroll in the free “History of the Constitution” offered by Hillsdale College. Barring that, research the contemporary writings of the founding leaders. Barring either, withdraw from discussions of the constitution because you continue to embarrass yourself, and tarnish your credibility on other matters.

          FYI – if you would rather read The Federalist Papers in a more modern form of language, Glenn Beck produced a decent version, still in print and on sale.

      2. avatar doesky2 says:

        You can always go get your rights back. People do it all of the time. One loss is not a permanent loss.

        Boy you’re stupid.

        1. avatar Broke_It says:

          This idea of it simply being a matter of “getting our rights” back is pure nonsense. I don’t have to douse myself in gasoline around open flames to know how that’s gonna turn out. Same with these ass backwards laws the majority get to proclaim as the new rules. Not sure what the actual argument is with such absurd logic, but it sounds like Elaine here thinks the new WA rules are the dogs tits. How very… “liberal” of you.

      3. avatar Frank says:

        Elaine you make some of the least factual, counter factual posts I have ever seen. I suggest a refunded on your education since you clearly would not pass college civics or US history 101, never mind failing even high school level.

        Fact: the United States has always had, and practiced, gun control, and that includes at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. Never at any time in US history has this country been a “anyone can have whatever they want anytime they want” situation regarding firearms

        That is a red herring and a strawman in one two sentence paragraph. You are completely ignoring the 14th amendment.

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Get used to it, gang. This is the wave of the future – state action. The federal legislature cannot create a national system of these restrictions, so we have an instance where exercise of state power is welcomed by the national legislators. Serves several purposes: states are going full-progressive so the pressure is off the national level; multiple state actions must be challenged one-at-a-time (national legislation could be challenged as a whole); federal legislators dodge the ballot question; incremental denial of civil rights will be happening everywhere, at once; with, say twenty, states enacting limits on gun ownership, the SC will not get involved – SC will not issue a nation-wide ruling if it can dodge the question due to legal minutia.

    Anxiously awaiting the curriculum of semi-auto firearm training. What a hoot.

    1. avatar Zippy says:

      It’s been citizens initiatives (and frankly abuse of the initiative process. Supposed to be one issue/change; not 30 freaking pages. If Tim Eyman wrote 1639, you know the courts would strike it down in a heartbeat.) that’s resulted in what we have here in Washington State. Not the narrative your pushing. But yeah…

      Actually our state legislators here in Washington State have been on our side for quite a while. That’s how 594, 1491 and 1639 ended up as citizens initiatives, the legislators had nothing to do with it. The anti gunners being pissed the legislators weren’t banning guns.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The initiative process may not be a classic legislative process, but it is a state action, not federal (which maintains my point). Every state with an initiative process can replicate your situation (initiatives bypass representative government, falling to pure democracy – mob rule).

        Once considered moving the Wash. state, but a co-worker from there said the voting never ended, always something on some ballot.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Watch how they do it in California. It’s gross. Always some corporate funded initiative to get rid of liberty every way possible.

          You can essentially buy yourself some laws using feel good propaganda. People don’t want to spend the time reading every damn bill, they simply listen to the commercials like they only read the title of a news story and TLDR the rest.

          People fail to realize that there are more dumb people than smart people and there are more followers than leaders. Stupidity reigns supreme throughout the world, including the “west.”

          American schools have made sure to dumb down the American populace, which they have been highly successful at doing. You are probably better off home schooling yourself. Going to government school rots the brain before it can fully develop.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      I’m looking to see what sort of training is mandated as well. As an NRA instructor, I’ve helped quite a few people get their CCW in Oregon (training not a requirement in Washington, the last anti-gun initiative to fail, many years ago…).

      Once I see what the requirements are, I hope to see if the training requirement could be fulfilled online, with no records kept, and for the absolute minimum price required to keep a server running. Us POTG need to help each other where we can.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        If gun ownership requires training, then why not all guns? Why just semi-auto? There is not way the rulers of Wash. state are concerned that gun owners do no know how to operate their firearms. Probably, we will see only “sensitivity” training targeted at making people feel bad about owning weapons of war.

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      I wonder if they are going to teach the bump fire technique.

    4. avatar GS650G says:

      The Heller decision did have a loophole backed up by an extreme 10 A interpretation. Moving is your only option if your outnumbered.

  16. avatar Squiggy81 says:

    You can’t make this sh!t up. The same group of libtards that decided it’s a good idea to hand out bags of needles to crackheads now decided that I need a training class and a cooling off period before I can purchase a 10/22. We need to split this state in half ASAP.

  17. avatar jros says:

    Oregon here, the writings on the wall. This is an entire west coast thing. I need to start thinking about leaving. Not only firearm issues, where I’m at theres straight hostility towards moderates. What parts of the country should I consider?

    1. avatar Rand says:

      Unlike Guatemala, there is no where else to run. Time to fight the good fight to get it to a federal court and on to SCOTUS. If you have any bucks better start budgeting to stop this as soon as possible.

      Taking it to the Washington state supreme court would be a great waste of time because it is liberal packed much like the 9th. The state AG prayed (as much as a godless POS could) for the law so it is biased at the top levels to begin with and that will be a wasted effort.

  18. avatar RA-15 says:

    What Zippy said !!

  19. avatar Jim B says:

    Reading the rest of this article it is really misinforming people.

    “Just be sure you’re complying with 1639’s provisions because once the police finally show up, you could be charged with a gross misdemeanor or felony community endangerment if your guns aren’t properly secured.”

    How are they going to charge you and for what? The safe storage provision is for guns when not in your control. The law doesn’t even state how they must be stored but only says safely. I would think most gun owners keep their guns locked up when not in use. I do. That doesn’t mean I want the government telling me I have to. That is why I no longer live in Washington.

    Really your reporting sounds like the anti-gun crowd’s with half truths and misinformation. Really bad reporting.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The safe storage provision is for guns when not in your control.”

      How much more simple can this be? When you are asleep, you are not in control of your guns. When you leave your residence (maybe even to just go cut the grass), the guns in your house are not in your control (someone could break-in, unknown to you). When you have guests over, you are not in control of your guns (a visitor just might walk into wherever you have a gun resting, and take if from you).

      Laws like these are not likely to generate unannounced inspections, but are add-on crimes if you have a problem requiring police response.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Probably not a good idea to be in control of your gun when Washington police arrive.

        1. avatar Kyle says:

          Or just dont ever contact the police, for anything. That is the philosophy of CA gun owners. We pretty much dont report anything or call them for any reason.

          Being a “good citizen” is not really an option down here anymore. The police are mostly on their own.

      2. avatar Icabod says:

        The storage provision is vague. It reads that if someone can get your gun and use it in a crime, then you can be charged. I’ve not found the details about this. As example, you have that cable lock that many pistols come with. Your gun is stolen and a pair of bolt cutters are used to cut the cable. The gun is then used in a crime.
        Question: Can you be charged? Do you have to prove the cable lock was used? Should your gun change hands, or years pass after the theft, can you still be charged?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Good questions all. And lawyers will provide the answers, one event at a time, in court.

    2. avatar A Salty Flavor says:

      I don’t relish going to court to wait to see if how I store my weapons is considered OK. Especially if the criminals that stole the guns committed a crime that would somehow make ME a felon.

      The supporters locally say this will prevent another Freeman High School shooting, but the guns the kid used were locked in his dad’s safe. The kid spent months figuring out how to get into the safe.

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      Ask the Brits and Aussie slaves how storage laws work and are abused.

  20. avatar WaDave says:

    This really sickens me. Deep down I knew it would pass, but I was really hoping that the people in Seattle would realize that this was too much. Cant wait to see the next one come down the corridor.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      There’s no such thing as too much gun control for people in Seattle.

  21. avatar D says:

    Sadly, many if not most, gun loving states have major cities that control the votes. As the city dwellers breed, there will be more voters for dems and the will control the state. Just look at NY, CA, OR as examples.

    We are witnessing the beginning of the end of our once-great country

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      I suspect the culling is coming. We can’t support this level of spending. I know that has been said for years, but it is nontheless true.

      When the “freebie spigot” runs dry, the urban center will collapse very very quickly.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Pa is another good example. 10 counties around Philly decided who governor and senator is. And they bounced most of the republicans from those areas.
      Pa will become another new york in a generation. Large swaths of rural areas loaded over by the city and suburbs.

  22. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    So how does that work, you need training to purchase a semi auto assault weapon, is that per weapon or per year or what? I haven’t read the whole thing, so wasn’t sure if any time you grab a stripped lower you have to go to the “why you shouldn’t become a mass shooter” class. Or is it a shooting skills class? Take that stripped lower shooting!

    1. avatar Defens says:

      The training requirements were really poorly defined in the initiative. No mention of skills vs. “safety awareness” vs. “don’t shoot mass groups of children or gay people.” Just training within the last 5 years before you can buy an “assault Ruger”. Classically vague, and probably not Constitutional as a result.

    2. avatar A Salty Flavor says:

      You have to re-take classes every 5 years to keep your rifle.

      1. avatar Squiggy81 says:

        I don’t think that is correct. Just to buy another one, you’d have to have taken a class within the last 5 years. Reading the text of the law, it looks like there would be no proof required of that. It would, however, be perjury to lie about something like that.

  23. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    One of the most disturbing trends in American politics of late is that a handful of billionaires, thanks to Citizens United, is exercising such vast influence over how I live my life. I feel like I’m a serf in this country.

    We are far closer to the Russian Oligarchy model of government now than ever before.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “One of the most disturbing trends in American politics of late is that a handful of billionaires, thanks to Citizens United, is exercising such vast influence over how I live my life.”

      Do you really believe all that big money influence wasn’t there before CU? Lawyers made zillions avoiding finance limits. The difference is that now, thanks to CU, you know who is doing what.

      1. avatar ANG Pilot says:

        I’m sure big money has operated behind the scenes for years. We’ve always had unions and business groups throwing money at politicians to influence legislation. To my mind what’s new is a handful of billionaires using their personal money to finance “citizen’s” initiatives to end run the legislative process in order to force policy change. They have the means to force me, at the point of a government gun, to follow their ideas of morality. I don’t like it and I think it will eventually destabilize our Country.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” To my mind what’s new is a handful of billionaires using their personal money to finance “citizen’s” initiatives to end run the legislative process in order to force policy change.”

          They didn’t sit on their hands waiting for CU. They just hid the donations through so many hoops and loops, no one could really track it.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      We are serfs.

      Bannon, A-hole or not, had that one pegged dead on.

    3. avatar CantHappenHere says:

      We are becoming Mexico. Run by rich oligarchs that live in opulence at the expense of the average person. Looks like the death of the middle class in the USA. We are going to end up with the rich elites and the rest are all slag. Ready for your Soylent Green?

  24. avatar MLee says:

    Being a resident of Washington State and owner of multiple “assault rifles” cough cough, I watched the election results closely. It passed as I thought it would because of how the population saturated King county votes.
    The initiative failed in the majority of counties, badly in the some counties, but their population is small.
    Spokane county was about 58% yes and 48% no. But King county that had 655,000 votes dunked it.
    That county voted 76.51% Yes or 501,492 for and 23.9% against or 153,968 no.
    I just despise that billionaire blow-hards like Bloomberg can throw money around King county and in other states with this method and buy elections. The election system was never designed or intended to be used and manipulated this way. Our founding fathers didn’t intend elections to be manipulated by billionaires with access to mass-media advertising.
    1639 wasn’t a resounding success, it was manipulation by big money in selective areas.
    Here’s the link to the map and county by county breakdown in voting from the State Elections.
    ***********************************************************************************
    https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-Initiative-Measure-No-1639-concerns-firearms_ByCounty.html

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Republicans don’t realize they are greatly outnumbered and it’s getting much worse quickly. There is no way they win in the long run. It’s over. The system was designed to make sure that didn’t happen, but the system was overthrown in many places and the Constitution is only a remnant.

      Republicans live in delusion. They think the generations after the millennials is much more “conservative” than ever, but that is only relative to a bunch of communists and the numbers don’t appear to be there like they claim. They actually thought there was going to be some mythical red wave to save them. You are not getting a wall, you are not getting pro gun laws, you are not getting Trump in 2020 and so on.

      The Democrats in Republican clothing are a bunch of losers. They wasted two years, now they will lose another 2 years and they will likely lose another 8 starting in 2020. How can you not think these guys do it on purpose similar to the NRA? They are simply there to give the Democrats the boogie man they need to get the people on the side of destroying America from within.

      Everyone is getting played. Americans don’t even know what the actual game is. So, how are they ever going to win when they have no clue how to play? You guys need to learn what the actual game that being played is so you can finally score some points. Trump was a fluke, a hail mary, even that wasn’t a good move.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      wont much matter, As usual, the urban centers will lord over the rural and the rural will largely ignore the law. Been that way in CA for years.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I just despise that billionaire blow-hards like Bloomberg can throw money around King county and in other states with this method and buy elections. ”

      The mega money people have always been there. Most of the 20th century, they were hidden, but active and successful. After CU, they were free to walk into the light, and let us see the truth.

      But if you think only Soros, Bloomy and Gates can buy elections, spend an entire senatorial election cycle (6yrs) in Louisiana. Nobody is “rich” there (compared to the billionaires listed above), but the buying and selling is just as effective.

      BTW, the establishment of the constitution did not account for political parties, but was anchored on the concept of honorable people agreeing to a civilized method of resolving differences. Parties screwed things up pretty quickly.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I would like to ban political parties, but it could be argued as an abridgment of free association. However, the two party scam makes sure to keep out others that don’t fit the party line. Look at what they and the corporate media did to Ron Paul during his election run for president.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The problem with minor parties running candidates for office is that the minor parties offer something “better” than the two traditional parties. People look at better as a big bet on long odds, whereas voting for one of the major parties is good enough, and more likely to produce most of the desired results.

          Given the fear of making excellent the enemy of good (and losing), people just don’t have the combined nerve to try to build the political influence of minor parties. People are generally risk averse, and will avoid an 80% probability of success, if they believe they can somehow achieve 90% probability by waiting for future developments. This is why the vast majority of people are not successful as independent agents (entrepreneurs, business owners, etc).

          Ross Perot was the most successful third-party national candidate in modern history (18+% of the national vote for President), and he did not try to run again (likely because he was not a politician, and had no further time for that nonsense).

  25. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Sad. They will win by appealing to the sheeple state by state.

  26. avatar CZJay says:

    Now you guys can wait many years for a few judges to render their half baked opinions if ever.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      On an initiative, after two years, legislature can tweak it or do whatever. But if Democrats control…well, you can see the issue.

  27. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Ballot box, jury box or cartridge box…….just another day closer to either refreshing the tree of liberty or burning it to the ground.

    1. avatar ANG Pilot says:

      All the talk of “refreshing the tree of liberty” is so much hot air right now. The Revolution of ’76 had organized, popular backing. Look at last election’s results. There are at least as many people who want this leftist crap as those who oppose it. From the late 1750’s on, there was widespread, popular dissatisfaction with British policy even to the point of establishing shadow governments throughout the Colonies. These were led by people who had standing in their communities. Who is there now who has widespread popularity and following who can lead the opposition?

      There is nothing even close to organized opposition to liberal fascism right now, let alone any leaders of any stature to lead it. If any of us tried to do what the colonists did – force the courts to stop working, establish armed bands and electing officers to command them, harass government officials and keep them from performing their duties, ransack the homes of government officials – we’d be squished like bugs by the overwhelming force of the present government. We live in an age where nothing we do is private or secret. If the Brits had the same resources back then, there would have been no American Revolution – the founders would have all been rounded up and hung before anything ever got started.

      So all we can do is huff and puff and pound out missives like this on our keyboards.

      The Revolution may yet come, just not anytime soon.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Back then it was a physical revolution. As you said, that is not really the best option today. These days we need a mental revolution.

        The culture has changed for the worse. It will take many more decades for the people to get fed up with it. By then Americans won’t have guns to fight the government. We will likely be dead by the time people are finally willing to physically stand up. A physical revolution is likely not going to happen in our life times — too many pussies and stupid people.

  28. avatar Kyle says:

    …and not one life will be saved, nor one crime prevented.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      And it’s very possible it will leads to unnecessary deaths.

      I’ve read of ‘locked gun’ situations where the homeowner could not access his / her guns in time to stop a criminal who had broken into their homes. I remember reading — this is probably 20 years ago I read the story — about a family in CA, kids trained with guns, parents are gone, oldest daughter and two siblings home.

      A mental nut job breaks in. Oldest daughter runs to get the gun on a shelf in parents’ bedroom, locked in accordance with the law. Can’t get the gun down and unlocked in time, even though she was trained to use it. The resulting murders of I believe her, and one of her siblings, was the only story I needed to read that made me know that I would never put locks on my guns. I will keep them up if kids are around (rarely now, as I’m 63) or company is around. Up, and not locked. And my carry gun is on me in all situations.

      You very likely will not have 10 to 30 to 60 seconds to go to where the gun is kept, unlock it, and then defend yourself and your family. You may have no time at all, and your only chance is if you’re carrying, or your gun is within, or damned near within, arms’ length. Someone breaking in is counting on the element of surprise, obviously — i.e., no time to react, and certainly not intending to give a homeowner time to go to, and unlock, a gun.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…and not one life will be saved, nor one crime prevented.”

      Results are not what you expect. Success is when everyone but criminals are disarmed because it is law-abiding gun owners who snap and kill dozens. Trust me, there will be one life saved somehow, somewhere, someday.

      Remember, these are the people who fought back with signs a gang of thugs in Africa who abducted 100 young girls.

  29. avatar Gun Girl says:

    I’m debating purchasing property in NC and with the influx of northerners I do fear NC becoming like Washington and the north east. I’m beginning to think it’s not worth the purchase if the state is headed down a rabbit hole I’d rather not be a part of. And I certainly watched the judicial contests here with trepidation yesterday.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Maybe move to a state where they don’t have powerful direct democracy initiatives and get involved with making sure that state’s constitution replicates the Bill of Rights? If you go some place where there is direct democracy, you will be very lonely while you futilely defend liberty.

      It sucks we have to run away from our homeland to save ourselves.

  30. avatar Yarbles says:

    There is no such thing as ‘Gun Violence’. There is only CRIMINAL violence. Firearms are tools, nothing more.

    We cannot continue to allow these Socialist Elites and MSM to use these FALSE, derogatory, and misleading terms without challenge.

    “After a shooting spree they always try to take the guns away from those who didn’t do it…”
    William S. Burroughs

  31. avatar former water walker says:

    If it saves just one life…oh wait this will kill more than one. For those missed by abortion.

  32. avatar RuralJuror says:

    “My generation has been defined by gun violence.” Respectfully disagree. The generations most defined by gun violence are the generations affected by WWII, Korea, or Vietnam (whether by experiencing gun violence firsthand in service, losing a loved one to war-related gun violence, or just living with the very real possibility that any day you could be drafted and ordered to participate in gun violence).

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      No fucking kidding. A 22-year old has zero clue of ‘defined by violence.’ Does this particular 22-year old have any clue about anything, other than what he’s been spoon-fed by his handlers? Not likely. What an arrogant statement he made … and the left will bow their heads in sacred awe of this poor generation defined by violence. ‘For the children’ …. Please, yes, make the children’s homes all gun-free! Please! it works so well in schools, why not at home?

      Which is not at all impossible for the left to consider doing.

      One law at a time, toward total disarmament. It may be awhile. But it’s obviously where it’s headed. And ‘the law’ and the Constitution mean nothing to communists. Obviously. Their intent is to eliminate the Constitution.

  33. avatar GS650G says:

    I guess moving isnt an option. Bummer.

  34. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    A very large part of the population in Washington State has other priorities. Legalizing drugs is more important than gun civil rights. Those billionaire computer guys who hate guns, also love making drugs legal. They were major supporters of this in Colorado as well. The Libertarians at Reason Magazine were very grateful to those billionaires for supporting legalization with their bags of money.
    It seems to many it was an even trade. Drugs for guns.

  35. avatar Wally1 says:

    I live in central Washington, it’s time to start looking for property in Idaho or Wyoming. The uninformed and rabid crazy liberals have taken over Washington. In what universe do Facts not matter. I do think I=1639 will be challenged in the courts but I am not holding my breath. Northern Idaho is really nice.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “it’s time to start looking for property in Idaho”

      Been reading that a goodly number of California escapees settling in Idaho: low taxes, clean air, less stress, lower cost of living.

      The escapees bring all the same politics that made Californication a crap-hole. They will corrupt Idaho until it, like Califonrication, even these mentally ill people want to escape to the next better place to corrupt.

  36. avatar m. says:

    criminals/d-rat voters are more important to washington state government-fags

  37. avatar Jon says:

    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    Great job. Now criminals have easier targets. Fucking brilliant.
    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

  38. avatar Mort says:

    In Washington, arrest the victim! They will figure out what to charge them with later!
    There really isn’t any reason to call the cops anymore!
    The suspect will be in the next state before the cops show up!

  39. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    If only there were a name for inflicting your policy preferences on people far away who don’t live like you, and want something different, by sending tooled-up burly guys to force them.

  40. avatar Mike says:

    I will anxiously wait to see how this affects the violent crime rate in those areas that control semi-automatic firearms. It should plummet, right? Right? I’ll wait until you’re done laughing.

  41. avatar Michael says:

    The only thing the government fears is the thing they cannot control. -30-

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