Teasdale: 18, 20-Year-Olds Can Still Buy ARs in Washington State, For Now

washington I-1639 age limit gun control

Gun shop owner Tiffany Teasdale-Causer demonstrates a Ruger AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the same model, though in gray rather than black, used by the shooter in a Texas church massacre two days earlier, Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, in Lynnwood, Wash. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

In Washington State, I-1639 is going into effect in stages and some FFLs are following the letter of the law which is admittedly rather open to interpretation:

“To me, it’s clear as day that an 18, 20-year-old can technically buy, purchase a semi-auto rifle because those aren’t semi auto rifles until July 1st,” said [Tiffany Teasdale, who works at a firearm retailer called Lynnwood Gun just north of Seattle.]

She said she doesn’t want to be accused of age discrimination by not selling to someone under 21.

“We want to make sure we have all our ducks in a row,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility released the following statement:

“It is no mystery which gun sales are affected by the change in purchase age included in the initiative, regardless of the effective date of the definition of semi-automatic assault rifle. Defying the law is a disingenuous attempt to thwart the will of the people and undermine the rule of law in our state.”

– Cole Miller for KOIN, Gun Retailers Find ‘Loophole’ in New WA Gun Laws

comments

  1. avatar JMR says:

    Good for the gun sellers.

    1. avatar What about...? says:

      WA I-1639 does more than make it illegal for 18-20 years to buy an AR-15. This age group will not be able to by ANY semiautomatic rifle. The WA law redefined the term “assault rifle” to mean ANY semiautomatic rifle in any caliber, with any capacity and regardless of features. In WA on July 1, 2019, any semiautomatic in any caliber with any capacity will be an “assault rifle”, that will make .22 rimfire semiautomatics with wood straight stocks and fixed tubular magazines “assault rifles”. The Marlin Model 60 and Ruger 10/22 will be “assault rifles” under the law. The new requirements will impact all buyers of all ages including those over 20 years old, as costs of ownership go up. This discriminates against minorities, women and lower income citizens as costs of ownership go up. Citizens 18-20 years of age who are challenged with shooting a shotgun for self defense could previously buy a semiautomatic carbine for home defense. 18-20 year olds will only be able to buy pump action, lever action, bolt action and single shot rifles.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Some shops I’ve been to are going to start stocking more complete lowers next to complete uppers. Neither are affected by the new law.

        1. avatar same as the old boss says:

          Selling lowers seperately won’t help under 21 adults as they will be prohibited from buying both pistols and semi auto long guns.

      2. avatar supergun says:

        Notice what the communist liberals are up to. Now they are classifying all semi-autos as assault weapons. This is their agenda to eventually try and ban all semi-autos of every gun type. This is just the back door to get into the House. No pun intended.

        1. avatar paul bruno says:

          these assholes will not be happy until only the illegals have all the guns, well your gonna have to kill me to get mine.

  2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    They. The dealers in Washington should sell as many guns at a few dollars over cost to any 18 to 21 year olds up until this illegal BS is overturned.

    1. avatar Sgt Bill says:

      I say raise the age of adulthood throughout the US to age 19. Then all gun purchases, enlisting in military, buying alcohol, etc will all be at the same age. Oh, did I forget, this also means you can’t vote until age 19. That will help change some close elections.

  3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    UnConstitution regulation denying legal adults their natural rights.

  4. avatar Swarf says:

    It’s not a “loophole” you asshole. The law takes effect in July, until then, it’s not the law.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      Section 13 of the measure, which establishes age requirements, took effect on January 1, 2019. The rest of the measure’s provisions were set to take effect on July 1, 2019.

      https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1639,_Changes_to_Gun_Ownership_and_Purchase_Requirements_Measure_(2018)

      There’s enough ignorance on the left, we don’t need any more.

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        Mea culpa.

        I stand by my assertion that Cole Miller is an asshole.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Age requirement” doesn’t matter when the gun in question is not naughty until July.

      2. avatar Clark Kent says:

        Dev: If there is enough ignorance on the left, then why are you posting?

        1. avatar Dev says:

          I was pretending to be you.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Yes, giving 18 and 19-year-old young males 30 round magazines and AR15s is a great idea, I’m sure that they will advance the cause of private gun ownership in America. By the same logic we should also allow them unfettered access to heroin, LSD, and OxyContin, as is their natural right.

      And why should we restrict their intake of alcohol, isn’t that the pursuit of happiness, more Everclear grain alcohol for the 19-year-old sounds great!

      Anyone who thinks an 18-year-old is ready to operate an AR15 in a responsible manner just needs to spend some time on the basic training rifle range, very worrisome. Just ask your friendly DI.

      1. avatar Timothy says:

        Let’s trust them to vote and fight in our military, then claim that with a semi auto because they’re the same as heroin and THAT’S what’ll ruin our nation. Well, I’m convinced. Who could argue with such logic!!

      2. avatar Defens says:

        Funny, they’ve had the ability to buy and possess these for decades without issue. How is it that NOW it’s such an issue?

      3. avatar Owen says:

        You refuted your own point.

        I bet if you asked a real DI they would say:
        “We’ve been giving them all rifles. We’ve been doing it by the thousands for decades. Are you saying I can’t do my job? Ok private joker, Drop and give me 20!”

      4. avatar bob says:

        The argument that if an 18 year old is good enough to have a weapon in the military means they should be good enough to have one as a civilian is a poor base for an argument.
        Here is why.

        Just because 3% of the population can perform a task under strict supervision in a closed and controlled environment doesn’t mean the other 97% will magically do the same when the structured environment, responsibility, order, care, documentation, safety, etc are all removed.

        Like stated above, anyone who has been there and seen 18-20 year olds handle their first firearms knows this. They aren’t all marksmen out of the box.

        This is an extremely old argument, at what age is it ok to let someone do something.

        The problem is, it must be done statistically at best because no one answer fits all.

        Some kids can drive, drink shoot, have sex, smoke, whatever, responsibly at young ages, some cannot handle themselves well into their late 20’s- early 30’s, what you have to look at is the curve of the irresponsible to the responsible, thus gives us our drinking ages, and driving ages, etc..

        All youth think they know everything, and all older adults remember when they thought they knew everything, and much older adults see the naivety in both.

        But to say because we train youth to fight should mean all youth even untrained should be ok to do whatever they wish is illogical thinking.

        Also along that thinking, I can have full auto in the military, why can I not have it as an adult civilian?

        1. avatar Timothy says:

          The argument that an 18 year old isn’t capable of handling a semi auto is incredibly short sighted and stupid. They aren’t marksmen right out of the box? But a 22 year old IS a marksman right out of the box? Come on, surely you can do better than that incredibly flawed logic.

          No one is claiming that “untrained youth should be able to do whatever they want.” What we are claiming is that the right to defend themselves with the best tools shouldn’t be restricted from law abiding adults… Constitutional rights guaranteed by the 2nd and affirmed for all 18 year old adults by the 26th.

          The law in debate today is about semi autos for 18-20 year olds, not full auto. Your inability to articulate a reasonable response without conflating the two things shows your lack of capacity. But, since you brought it up, I think that full autos should be legal.

          Here’s the deal. Rights only disappear until revolution wipes clean the slate. If we say that adults don’t all get the same rights…. Today it’s 21. What’s to stop it from being 25 tomorrow? The male brain hasn’t fully developed until 25. You really want people who are mentally undeveloped holding these scary “military grade, high capacity and high powered weapons of war”? If it’s 25, what’s to stop it from being 30? The brain may on average reach full capacity by 25, but they don’t have much experience as fully developed adults at that point. We should give them more time before allowing to own these rifles that were only ever built to kill people…. right?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          The problem is exactly that “untrained youths“ will have unrestricted access to AR 15’s and 30 round magazine’s. The military spends weeks training in basic and AIT plus continuous training every week for infantry. Yes we can train an 18 or 19-year-old to be proficient in responsible with a firearm.

          But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Folks on this list are advocating no qualifications other than age for these weapons. This is a false equivalence.

          Go on YouTube and watch the training videos from the Army firing line, very enlightening as to which end of the magazine goes into the gun, etc.

        3. avatar Timothy says:

          People lacking experience with guns aren’t familiar with guns? How is that different for 18-20 year olds than it is for 21+? You think if someone who’s 21 and has no experience with firearms joins the military… that they’ll automatically be more proficient than an 18 year old?!?!

          How does the size of a magazine change familiarity? If I have a 30 round magazine, I’ll be less capable of understanding the platform than if I have a 5 rounder?!?

          And why do you keep saying AR-15? Is that because you believe the hype that it’s a high powered, military grade rifle? This bill doesn’t ban basically all semi auto rifles including the Ruger 10-22?

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Bob, you ask why, as an adult, you cannot own a full auto. I sincerely do not know, the 2A says you can, where did the authority come from allowing anyone, I mean *ANYONE*, including god himself, to prohibit it?

        5. avatar bob says:

          Timothy, I don’t think you’re grasping what I was meaning. Everyone else seems to.
          If its ok for them to do while in the military its ok outside the military is a poor argument.

          I… I can’t break it down Bareny style any more than that.

        6. avatar Toni says:

          sorry but i dont think it is a poor argument. The reason that the Second Amendment was written in the first place is for the people to be able to stand against govt tyranny. Right through history govt has used the military to put down any who disagree with the govt and part of the reason that the poms at the start of the war of independence were trying to take arms from the people was because many of them were in fact better armed than the british military due to the fact that they were taking up the kentucky long rifle which had a rifled barrel (more accurate and longer range) while the brits only had the brown bess which was a smooth bore. That in itself is a damn good argument for the people being better armed than the military not the other way around.

        7. avatar bob says:

          Larry gets is.

        8. avatar Larry says:

          You can for $200 made payable to the BATFE and pass their background check.

      5. avatar David Cho says:

        You generalize that 18 & 19 year olds are irresponsible. And claim that natural rights *NOT* protected by the Constitution as an enumerated right should be legal/allowed [compared to private firearm ownership as enumerated by the 2nd Amendment], is disingenuous.

        I know of adults (18+) that are irresponsible and those that *ARE* responsible. So, why legislate responsibility to the responsible just because of a perceived lack of responsibility of the irresponsible.

        Also, why leave out 20 year olds in your statement? Is that your magical unicorn age when responsibility suddenly starts appearing to ultimately manifest itself fully at age 21? If that were the case, I would suggest to you that in MY mythical universe, at the current point in time, the magical age of responsibility is 25. Or maybe not even based on age.

        But,since we are steeped in reality, in the US, adulthood is 18 and with it comes certain obligations. One of these obligations is to BE responsible. Ta being said, the government has set consequences for acting irresponsibly. However, politicians should *NOT* be legislating HOW to be responsible.

        The belief that legislation/politicians will suddenly turn an irresponsible individual responsible is in itself, irresponsible.

      6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Miner49er,

        And what magical force transforms such wildly irresponsible 18, 19, and 20 year-olds into totally responsible adults at the stroke of midnight on their 21st birthday?

        What happens in that one second of elapsed time (as they transition from being 20 years-old to being 21 years-old) that somehow makes them ready to own semi-automatic rifles and 30-round magazines?

        Rather than treating adults as toddlers, let’s teach them responsibility and DEMAND responsibility — beginning when they actually were toddlers and continuing into adulthood?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Exactly. We proscribe certain activities which might be performed with those evil 30-round magazines, like murdering your neighbors, and allow the18-20 year olds to do other things with them, as opposed to simply removing any freedom whatsoever, without any reference to whether the individual is responsible, or not.

      7. avatar D Y says:

        Why in the world do we allow them to vote, if they aren’t mentally capable of operating a tool such as a firearm? They can vote on topics that don’t even affect them due to their age!

        Make the age the same across the board (driving, voting, drinking, draft, firearms purchase, hunting) and then we’ll talk.

      8. avatar LarryinTX says:

        There was a year when I was positively surrounded by 18-19 year old American men carrying full auto M16s. I did not lose a moment’s sleep. WTF is the matter with you?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          False equivalence, you spent months training with those weapons, with professional instructors with years of experience. That’s completely different from what we’re talking about here and it is disingenuous of you to suggested it is the same.

      9. avatar Kirk says:

        Miner49r has to be some sort of bot or troll, because nobody can really be this stupid in real life…

        It’s absolutely priceless, when you compare things these assholes on the left say: On the one hand, we can’t trust an 18yo to be responsible with a gun, and yet… They’re saying we need to extend the right to vote down to grade-school kids, because that’s such an important civic responsibility.

        It’d be nice if they were honest enough to come out and say what they mean, which is that they want to take away rights so they can do whatever they like to the rest of us. Every single despotic government in the last 200 hundred years has begun by disarming the public, incrementally until they can get away with what they really want, which is taking total power over everyone else. The most recent case is Venezuela, where the protesters against Maduro are regularly massacred by the police and the left-wing motorcycle gangs that the regime provides with weapons–The public got disarmed back in the 1990s and early 2000s.

        Advocating for disarmament ought to be a capital crime, because when someone shills for that crap, you know what they really mean–They want to have total power over you. The fools and fellow-travelers who nod their heads sagely and say that “Oh, yeah… That’s a great idea!” aren’t much better.

      10. avatar GS650G says:

        They can vote, marry, enter into contracts, serve the country (at 17 actually) and face legal consequences for the actions including capital punishment.

        But they can’t drink or own a certain kind of gun for three more magic years. Got it.

      11. avatar FightFireJay says:

        Then I guess I probably shouldn’t have carried a real M-16 around a nuclear weapons storage facility when I was 18 years old.

        Not to mention the belt fed machine guns.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          To quote Bob’s on point statement:

          “But to say because we train youth to fight should mean all youth even untrained should be ok to do whatever they wish is illogical thinking.”

          Personally, I favor the Swiss model where civilians don’t own weapons until they’ve had at least two years training in the military. Then they can take them home with them because the society is assured they’ve had the proper training to act in a responsible manner with a full auto deadly weapon.

          This citizen soldier remodel is exactly what our constitutional right to keep and bear arms is based on, I believe Ben Franklin did research to learn more about the Swiss model.

      12. avatar Big E says:

        I don’t think you should have a right to say what you think. How you like that?

  5. avatar Baldwin says:

    “Defying the law is a disingenuous attempt to thwart the will of the people and undermine the rule of law in our state.”…and…”loophole”. Come on people. Words mean things (i.e. effective date)! Silly me. I thought facts mattered. I forgot they were talking about guns (insert scary emoji).

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    If there is ever a draft 18 year olds could claim they are exempt since they can’t buy these guns.

    1. avatar bob says:

      I can’t buy a new machine gun, can’t broadcast on military frequencies, lots of things I can’t do outside of the military that you can when in.

      1. avatar Jedi Wombat says:

        You couldnt buy a machine gun when you were in, your Uncle let you use one for a while. It didn’t belong to you. Something something dangerous liberty something someting safety of slavery.

        1. avatar bob says:

          Bingo

  7. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Any youth who wanted to get a semiauto probably already did. If nothing else, they could have bought a stripped lower receiver for $60 or whatever and finish it out when they have the money.

    This law won’t have any effect on violence. None. Violent perps will simply use whatever weapon is available. Man in my county just recently murdered three kids using a hammer and screwdriver. Ugly. Where there’s a will, there’s always a way.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That’s a pretty dumb statement. The “youths” who will be born today have not yet purchased ARs.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    I like this push to increase the age of child-like ignorance and irresponsibility up to and including 25 or older yet at the same time many of the same people behind said push are feverishly working to get 16 year olds to vote.

    Are they just stupid reckless kids or are they fresh voices that must be heard? Or, more likely, a certain political faction thinks we’re all stupid in our teens and twenties, wants to extend the period of dependent stupidity as long as possible and wants more stupid people voting before they have the chance to age out of that stupidity.

    Gotta lock’em in to the partisanship before they get jobs, pay taxes and start families of their own. Ideally stop them from getting jobs, paying taxes and starting families of their own altogether.

    1. avatar bob says:

      What about you can’t vote unless you pay taxes? At least have some vested interest.
      Same reason I don’t feel children should vote, it’s a decision being made by people who are for the most part unable to comprehend what they are doing.
      Not all, but the majority. Read my above post before blowing up my inbox telling me how smart your kid is, yes, lots are, but most have no idea and even as adults we’re lucky if 20% of the population has any clue how politics works.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        that was part of the idea of the restriction originally that you needed to be a land/business owner to vote. Having a vested interest in keeping the country running smoothly and in the black

        1. avatar Michael Buley says:

          At the very least, if you’re on the dole, you shouldn’t get to vote. All you vote for is more handouts, which destroy the country. You’re part of the problem, not the solution. You start paying taxes again? You can vote.

          And yes, originally, the vote was to be for property holders, those with, as you say, the vested interest in the success of the country, in prosperity, growth — and as a property owner, you understand the basics of what it takes for that to happen.

          Giving the vote to everyone of a certain age, without further qualification, is an utter disaster, and it becomes almost impossible for democracy, as it is here, to survive. Too many millions of takers, leeches, thieves who are draining this country, who only vote for more free stuff that is ‘free’ off the backs of those who actually work and pay loads of taxes. Forget the dead voters, the millions of illegals who vote — which votes are profoundly changing the political landscape. Those who promise the most to those with the least — all those handouts coming from the labor of those who work (whose number diminishes) — get the votes of the ever-growing number of handout-seekers.

          Another reason to shut down immigration for years, to get our own house in order. Too many communists now in power for that to happen.

  9. avatar Paul says:

    Dems would be in some trouble if 18 and 20 year olds couldn’t vote. Let’s get it on ballots in states that restrict gun sales to young adults.

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      Hear hear. As long as we’re abridging rights, we should do it consistently.

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      There’s a little thing called the 26th Ammendment.
      “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

      1. avatar Paul says:

        It was meant to be somewhat humorous, but since when do leftists care about amendments. Maybe, we should get ridiculous and what should be unnecessary propositions on ballots. Ones that are worded for masses of people to not think about and vote for not realizing they are just reaffirming their liberty that they don’t want.

        1. avatar bob says:

          Ohh, those are my favorite.

          “should proposition 4472.21 be processed that allows dangerous people to be documented for law enforcement?”

          Then don’t include any information about it, like that said (FAKE) 4472.21 all weapons purchases, firearms, handguns, ammo, bows, arrows, flintlocks, knives, traps, hunting gear, etc… must submit a form to the local authorities including information on all living persons within the household……. blah blah blah

          Then a bunch of empty skulls can vote on it so they “feel safer” and big daddy can keep tabs on everything you do, you know, for safety….

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        OK, but the 26th was not adopted in the 15th century, when I was 18 I did NOT have the vote, all that is required is to repeal it.

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      18 to 21 year olds are vastly outnumbered and their low turnout adds to the problem. Superior courts exist to prevent Democratic tyranny of minority groups but seldom leave emotion out of it. As long as childhood is defined as <26 years old expect even more laws. At least the kids don't face age discrimination like their elders do in the workplace.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We won’t actually know unless they enter the workforce.

      2. avatar bob says:

        Preach man.

        The only way to get respect or acknowledgment in some of the workplace environments is to have the guys older than you die or retire, otherwise even if you’re 48 years old, you’re just a wet behind the ears kid who doesn’t know anything, even if you have been working for the company 15 years before that guy was hired!

  10. avatar D Y says:

    So this flies in the face of the exception for outdoors carry of pistols codified in state law. Not only that, 20 and under cant technically possess a rifle they purchased legally, with zero exception for even hunting, which was an activity exempted under the previous anti-freedom law that was passed. Not that it matters, but this will hurt hunting too.

    Not going to follow these laws when I have the choice (I wont be able to purchase from a dealer without following the law for example), any leo that enforces this is a douche. You have a choice, uphold the Constitution as your oath most likely states, or you can enforce this patently unjust BS, while allowing the unlawful sale of weed. Which side are LEO’s on? You’ll see me and my pre-teen hunting with and carrying our ar’s regardless, I’m not hiding.

    I just wish retailers would be willing to put their livelihoods on the line as well, and sell in blatant violation of these laws. That is now our choke point.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      D Y

      Which side are LEO’s on?

      Answer: whichever side issues them a larger paycheck and pension.

  11. avatar K42inPO says:

    I’m kind of surprised that nobody is selling a pump or bolt action AR upper on a standard lower, then selling semi-auto uppers, as they are not guns, legally. This would surely cause a storm if the anti-gun folks figured it out, however.

    They didn’t make it a crime to own a semi auto rifle, just impossible for anyone to transfer it legally to them? Now that’s a loophole. I don’t see how they could even enforce this.

    1. avatar Timothy says:

      Similar to the assault weapon ban from the Clinton era. They won’t be required to destroy what they already own, but they cannot purchase anything new. Commonly known as a “grandfather” clause

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Shops have already figured out that they can sell separate uppers and lowers without violating the law. Unfortunately that doesn’t work for Ruger 10-22s or other non-AR rifles.

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      A modular platform such as the AR lends itself to all kinds of possibilities. They will be playing whacks mole for a few years if lowers were used with all kinds of uppers unaffected by bans.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      OOoo! I think a pump action upper would be fun! Why don’t we have one?

      1. avatar Look it up... says:

        There are ARs in pump action and bolt action. There are also pump action AK rifles. Also, look up the MARS rifle, which is not a semiautomatic. The MARS uses the trigger as a “lever” after you use the trigger to shoot the rifle you pull the trigger again to cycle another round.

  12. avatar Michael Buley says:

    I’ve bought most of my guns from Tiffany and her husband, Neal. Smart, very experienced. Great people to do business with, great staff, the real deal.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    When states defy federal laws on drugs and immigration it’s a huge laugh isn’t it?
    They can step off the pedestal and kiss my backside.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    While I agree with what I will call the “here and now” comments I think we’re missing the bigger picture here.

    A lot of habits and hobbies are formed in young adulthood. For example, its known that if you can convince a person to avoid drugs, alcohol and smoking until they are 20-23 they will probably never pick up any of those habits and if they do it wont be a serious habit. People who eat right and exercise in young adulthood tend to continue to do so throughout life while those who are lazy and have a poor diet tend to continue those habits through adulthood. These are not hard-and-fast rules but they are known trends.

    IMHO this is part of the long game. If the age for which certain things can be purchased is raised to 21 the overall stats for buying them drops for the life expectancy of the affected group. Ergo, if “kids” can be prevented from getting into guns and shooting sports it will have an effect on the percentage of the population that has such hobbies in 20 years. This is the anti-gun “brainwashing” spoken of by Rahm Emanuel.

    This is, IMO, an attempt to reduce the number of gun owners over time so that further encroachments on the 2A are easier in the future.

    1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

      “A lot of habits and hobbies are formed in young adulthood. For example, its known that if you can convince a person to avoid drugs, alcohol and smoking until they are 20-23 they will probably never pick up any of those habits and if they do it wont be a serious habit.”

      OK then, they will have to figure out a way to ban kids from playing the first-person shooter games like COD.

      Because that is currently the ‘gateway drug’ for kids with no exposure to real firearms to shoot…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’m sure that such a bill is in the works somewhere.

        If it’s not proposed by a Lefty some Righty will do it for them.

        The truth is that regardless of political affiliations or opinions most people just aren’t very bright or educated. I mean just yesterday Tucker Carlson was paying rapt attention to an NYT reporter who just released a book basically claiming that smoking pot causes schizophrenia and psychosis.

        The level is stupid was stunning on so many levels but Tucker, who’s usually pretty smart, was lapping it up as soon as the guy started talking about “kids”, “drugs”, “the link” and “mental illness”.

  15. avatar Alan says:

    The lady said that she dis not want to be accused of age discrimination. What she might or might not want is really beside the point. What she is doing is exactly the point, and what she is doing is plainly age based discrimination.

  16. avatar RCC says:

    Michael
    Unfortunately media and left wing want dumb, uninformed voters to keep them in power. So all attempts to reform voting to taxpayers are lost by their claiming voting is a right.

    Personally I like the Swiss idea that no national service, army or community work, no vote. Note not sure if they are still doing this since recent changes.

    On the subject of age maybe the Roman had it right. At 15 limited adulthood. Full adulthood was 25 usually including serving in the army before you could vote etc.

  17. avatar UpInArms says:

    “Defying the law is a disingenuous attempt to thwart the will of the people and undermine the rule of law in our state.”

    Does that include defying the US Constitution?

    The problem with I-1639 is not just that it enables unconstitutional laws. The bigger problem is that ballot initiatives are unconstitutional too. Refer to Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

    Well, folks, enacting legislation through direct democracy, i.e., a ballot initiative, is not a Republican Form of Government. The power to enact legislation is vested in the legislature, and if it doesn’t go through there and come up for a vote among the elected representatives, it is not legal. If we are going to make laws by putting everything up to popular referendums, then what the hell do we need a legislature for? Send them all home.

    I don’t know if the issue of ballot initiatives has ever gone through the federal courts– perhaps someone more knowledgeable on that subject can enlighten us. But if they haven’t been challenged on the basis of IV-4, now would be a good time.

  18. avatar UpInArms says:

    And here’s a tasty little tidbit picked up from Wikipedia. It’s about California, but it pretty much explains what happened in Washington:

    ” John Diaz wrote in an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008:[18]

    There is no big secret to the formula for manipulating California’s initiative process. Find a billionaire benefactor with the ideological motivation or crass self-interest to spend the $1-million plus to get something on the ballot with mercenary signature gatherers. Stretch as far as required to link it to the issue of the ages (this is for the children, Prop. 3) or the cause of the day (this is about energy independence and renewable resources, Props. 7 and 10). If it’s a tough sell on the facts, give it a sympathetic face and name such as “Marsy’s Law” (Prop. 9, victims’ rights and parole) or “Sarah’s Law” (Prop. 4, parental notification on abortion). Prepare to spend a bundle on soft-focus television advertising and hope voters don’t notice the fine print or the independent analyses of good-government groups or newspaper editorial boards … Today, the initiative process is no longer the antidote to special interests and the moneyed class; it is their vehicle of choice to attempt to get their way without having to endure the scrutiny and compromise of the legislative process. “

  19. avatar Sora says:

    When you didn’t Talk Up when they came for the Suppressors, Full-Auto, Bumpstocks, AR-s.

    Now they are after your Ruger 10/22 Rim-Fire bought for your son.
    Next will be your Glocks and 1911s.

    1. avatar What about...? says:

      In Washington State, I-1639 redefined ALL semiautomatic rifles regardless of features, caliber and capacity as “assault rifles” effective January 1, 2019. This law applies to ALL such rifles in possession and ALL rifles transferred in to the future. It even applies to .22 rimfire semiautomatics with fixed, tubular magazines of any capacity with wooden straight stocks and no features like the Marlin Model 60. The Washington State AG presented to the State Legislative session ending in March 2019 three anti-2A measures. One measure will BAN ALL “assault rifles” as newly defined by I-1639. If the banning of ALL semiautomatics, including .22 rimfire rifles, regardless of capacity and features, doesn’t pass in the 2019 legislature, it will go before a public vote as a direct to ballot measure like I-1639. The second initiative bans magazine capacity above 10 rounds and the third initiative bans home built receivers and possible the purchase of parts such as barreled upper receivers. They started with the under 21 year olds, now their coming after everyone and everything else. Simple put, the anti-2A group doesn’t trust ANY age group with the newly defined semi-automatic rifles. I-1639 will also make it illegal for WA residents of any age to purchase semiautomatic rifles in OR and ID. They came for the “doesn’t impact me” groups in WA.

  20. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    These guys are local to me, they are good people.

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