“ gun control “

[wanderingrichard]

Ok back to OP. Check out the Washington Gun Law channel on YouTube. He's got multiple episodes focusing on what Roper posted originally.

The scariest proposal , initiative, bill, whatever, is the one that would ammend the state constitution by removing the states preemption law.

It would kill the homogenaity of state law regarding firearms. That would give the City of Seattle (that's actually how its written) and any other city council the authority to write their own blanket bans on just about anything, creating a minefield of patchwork laws that pretty much creates felons out of anyone who owns firearms.

If the removal of the preemption law is adopted it would also remove tax restrictions to allow regressive income taxes to be imposed by said city councils and the current legislature.

Dont take my word for it, Mr Kirk actually shared video from the committee chambers in a recent episode. The guy sponsoring the bill actually says that preemption enforces one size fits all and that isnt fair to the theory of city exceptionalism.

Well,duh. The law was written to make sure the laws are applied equally across the whole state, and to keep city councils from over stepping their authority. Removing it would be a disaster.

Remember, once the camel gets its nose under the tent, its all over.

 

[wanderingrichard]

I am at the age that I have already acquired all of the guns I will ever need. I bought most of them from dealers and filled out the paperwork. Reading through what they are saying, I actually agree with most of it. When Obama was President the NRA went full on scare tactics, and the gun and ammo sales went through the roof. My neighbor kept calling me to notify me that they had whatever ammo at the local sporting goods, and could I pick up a box for him (they had limited sales). I did a couple of times until I began to see how ridiculous the whole situation was. He is kind of a prepper, and in my judgement already has enough ammo to let him fight whatever civil war scenario he has dreamed up until his expiration date, so there is no need to cause further shortages for the grandfather that just wants to teach his granddaughter how to safely handle a firearm.
Then I encountered the NEW type of gun owners at ranges and in campgrounds. People who were so clueless, I felt the need to butt in to what they were doing to allow myself and the innocent people around me to be relatively safe.
I am a life member of the NRA. I joined because of the education resource. This was their primary mission then, to teach people how to enjoy firearms safely and effectively. Seeing all these folks walking around in public carrying, and wondering if they are just as clueless as the folks I talked to, makes me wish that there were some minimal requirement that you actually know some basic safety and handling before you purchase a firearm.

Yeah, on the minimal requirements, there's actually state law requiring that you get training. From what I've heard and experienced, its pretty minimal in and of itself, with wild variations of "instructor" and course quality.

If you're on the west side of the cascade curtain, between Tacoma and Everret, look up www.armeddefense.org . The group exists to give a higher standard of education related to ownership and use. It's open to anyone who can legally own a firearm.

What happened to after school hunter and shooter education programs like we had in the 60's through the 80's ?

 

[Dustin Chromers]

.

Ok back to OP. Check out the Washington Gun Law channel on YouTube. He's got multiple episodes focusing on what Roper posted originally.

The scariest proposal , initiative, bill, whatever, is the one that would ammend the state constitution by removing the states preemption law.

It would kill the homogenaity of state law regarding firearms. That would give the City of Seattle (that's actually how its written) and any other city council the authority to write their own blanket bans on just about anything, creating a minefield of patchwork laws that pretty much creates felons out of anyone who owns firearms.

If the removal of the preemption law is adopted it would also remove tax restrictions to allow regressive income taxes to be imposed by said city councils and the current legislature.

Dont take my word for it, Mr Kirk actually shared video from the committee chambers in a recent episode. The guy sponsoring the bill actually says that preemption enforces one size fits all and that isnt fair to the theory of city exceptionalism.

Well,duh. The law was written to make sure the laws are applied equally across the whole state, and to keep city councils from over stepping their authority. Removing it would be a disaster.

Remember, once the camel gets its nose under the tent, its all over.

There are many voters and politicians who view the Constitution and the state constitution as an archaic troublesome document to circumvent. Wait till Washington state gets an income tax. Don't worry though you'll still have the other taxes as well.

Having said this it seems most gun issues are in urban areas. Barring the school shootings in rural zones it seems the urban population has the majority of problems with gun violence. Therefore if the state wants to roll back on 1639 and make these restrictions in the urban areas I could be convinced. Especially if I could obtain a special licence by expertise and residency to be exempt while traversing said areas. I mean if this makes the politicians feel good why not? Then we would have the peace and lack of violence Chicago gets to experience with their strict gun laws and everyone is happy.

 

[wanderingrichard]

Dustin
I've got inlaws who live in the Chicago area. Total goat rope trying to just legally purchase a shotgun to go bird hunting. Two of them got so fed up with the infringements of personal privacy created by the application process just for the FOID card, they moved to other states.

 

[cdnred]

I am at the age that I have already acquired all of the guns I will ever need. I bought most of them from dealers and filled out the paperwork. Reading through what they are saying, I actually agree with most of it. When Obama was President the NRA went full on scare tactics, and the gun and ammo sales went through the roof. My neighbor kept calling me to notify me that they had whatever ammo at the local sporting goods, and could I pick up a box for him (they had limited sales). I did a couple of times until I began to see how ridiculous the whole situation was. He is kind of a prepper, and in my judgement already has enough ammo to let him fight whatever civil war scenario he has dreamed up until his expiration date, so there is no need to cause further shortages for the grandfather that just wants to teach his granddaughter how to safely handle a firearm.
Then I encountered the NEW type of gun owners at ranges and in campgrounds. People who were so clueless, I felt the need to butt in to what they were doing to allow myself and the innocent people around me to be relatively safe.
I am a life member of the NRA. I joined because of the education resource. This was their primary mission then, to teach people how to enjoy firearms safely and effectively. Seeing all these folks walking around in public carrying, and wondering if they are just as clueless as the folks I talked to, makes me wish that there were some minimal requirement that you actually know some basic safety and handling before you purchase a firearm.

I'm a Canadian not American so the rules in Canada maybe different then in the US. You make valid points and I think the ease with obtaining firearms could be the biggest issue. There are a lot of people that have no clue on how to safely handle or store firearms and as such shouldn't be allowed to have one. There should be a mandatory safe handling course to first qualify to get a firearm rather then just fall on the slogan "right to bear arms" to get one. I just read about this 6 year old in Virginia who shot his teacher. His parents are at fault for making it so easy for the boy to get it. A 4 year old boy in Indiana is caught playing outside with a loaded pistol. Neither child was at fault here but their parents are for what happened..

Guns are not so much the issue as the people that are allowed to own them and that's the biggest cause of violence. Children getting a hold of firearms and then following whatever they see on TV. Parents are mostly at fault for not showing proper guidance and gun safety. There are some parents that believe it's up to the school system to raise their children and take no responsibility in it themselves..

I remember when I was 15 years old, legal age to qualify for getting a hunting license in Ontario, Canada. I had to take a 2 day hunter safety course to be qualified in order to get my license. Today in Canada the course is much more in depth but still a requirement. Obtaining a pistol is even more restrictive whereas in the US I believe it's just a matter of filling out the proper paperwork. I'm not really sure how the process works in the US but I'm fairly sure a safety course is not required..

Just my two cents for what it's worth..

 

[Gary Knowels]

.

There are many voters and politicians who view the Constitution and the state constitution as an archaic troublesome document to circumvent. Wait till Washington state gets an income tax. Don't worry though you'll still have the other taxes as well.

Having said this it seems most gun issues are in urban areas. Barring the school shootings in rural zones it seems the urban population has the majority of problems with gun violence. Therefore if the state wants to roll back on 1639 and make these restrictions in the urban areas I could be convinced. Especially if I could obtain a special licence by expertise and residency to be exempt while traversing said areas. I mean if this makes the politicians feel good why not? Then we would have the peace and lack of violence Chicago gets to experience with their strict gun laws and everyone is happy.

If you include self-inflicted gun violence, the results are quite the opposite.

Rural gun deaths exceed urban rates by 28% because of increased suicide rates • Missouri Independent

In 2020, the rural gun death rate was 28% higher than the urban rate, according to CDC reports. Suicide was the main reason.

missouriindependent.com

 

[Rob Allen]

If you include self-inflicted gun violence, the results are quite the opposite.

Rural gun deaths exceed urban rates by 28% because of increased suicide rates • Missouri Independent

In 2020, the rural gun death rate was 28% higher than the urban rate, according to CDC reports. Suicide was the main reason.

missouriindependent.com

Self inflicted is not violence..
0ver 60% of gun deaths are suicides and of the remainder ( based on the last stats I read) somewhere around 80% is gang/ drug related. I think those stats came from maybe the FBI. Or the CDC. in 2015 or something like that.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

If you include self-inflicted gun violence, the results are quite the opposite.

Rural gun deaths exceed urban rates by 28% because of increased suicide rates • Missouri Independent

In 2020, the rural gun death rate was 28% higher than the urban rate, according to CDC reports. Suicide was the main reason.

missouriindependent.com

Well as a staunch believer in ultimate freedom I support the right to bear arms upon oneself.

My body my choice...........

 

[Gary Knowels]

Self inflicted is not violence..
0ver 60% of gun deaths are suicides and of the remainder ( based on the last stats I read) somewhere around 80% is gang/ drug related. I think those stats came from maybe the FBI. Or the CDC. in 2015 or something like that.

I am acutely aware of how many gun deaths are suicides, which is spoken about at far less than person-person deaths. And I'd argue even more reason for further enhancing requirements and barriers to ownership. I'm not for abolishment and own handguns and long guns. It's another complex societal issue that needs a multitude of solutions.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

I am acutely aware of how many gun deaths are suicides, which is spoken about at far less than person-person deaths. And I'd argue even more reason for further enhancing requirements and barriers to ownership. I'm not for abolishment and own handguns and long guns. It's another complex societal issue that needs a multitude of solutions.

In a world with an impending population issue I'm reluctant to discourage volunteers actively working on a solution with real commitment. Protecting people from themselves is their job nobody elses. Especially given the myriad ways to end ones own life.

 

[SurfnFish]

suicide is in many ways the ultimate violence to family survivors.
Conversely, there are times when it is fully understandable.
One of my go to surf spots is in front of a motel on the OR coast. Owner and co-owner wife great folks, him a Viet Nam vet soaked in Agent Orange, had been fighting cancer for over a decade.
Cancer was winning, so while still able to drove to a beach a few miles from the motel, got out and sat down against the front bumper, according to witnesses stared at the ocean for a long while, then called 911 to tell them where to find his body, and shot himself.
Wife knew it was coming any day, he had been clear he would never spend his last moments in a hospital bed. Imagine many us would choose the same route.

 

[Rob Allen]

I am acutely aware of how many gun deaths are suicides, which is spoken about at far less than person-person deaths. And I'd argue even more reason for further enhancing requirements and barriers to ownership. I'm not for abolishment and own handguns and long guns. It's another complex societal issue that needs a multitude of solutions.

It's only complex if you ignore the constitution. Sorry but that's the truth.
If the numbers were quadrupled that wouldn't change a thing. Either we stand on the founding principles of America or we don't. If we choose the latter then we are in fact no longer America..

All gun deaths are incredibly sad but if we want to live in a free society we have to endure the acts of evil people.

 

[flybill]

It's only complex if you ignore the constitution. Sorry but that's the truth.
If the numbers were quadrupled that wouldn't change a thing. Either we stand on the founding principles of America or we don't. If we choose the latter then we are in fact no longer America..

All gun deaths are incredibly sad but if we want to live in a free society we have to endure the acts of evil people.

You need to reread the 2nd Ammendment.. why don't other countries have the number of shootings / mass shootings? It's not just the media. People forget the first part...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This type of argument is why nothing will ever get done! The all or nothing argument. There are plenty of things we could do to safeguard legal gun owners and still protect the public at large or people from themselves. The 2nd ammendment was written long before many of the issues we have now with specific guns were imagined and produced.

You have the right to bear arms, but not every gun or weapons system ever created! We require driver's licenses, we have to register to vote, we have to wait until 21 to legally drink.. so we can put restrictions on gun ownership without affecting the right to bear arms. Or we adapt the 2nd ammendment to reflect things as they are today.

But we can't even agree, as a society, on common sense gun reform, so changing an ammendment in the current political climate isn't going to happen.. we're well on pace to set a new record for mass shooting with January almost at an end! Very sad.

And as far as suicide, that affects the family members more than the poor person who does it to themselves. It's a sad and selfish way to go.. it may be understood in a few cases where someone is very sick, but it's something friends and families would have to deal with.. imo!

 

[TicTokCroc]

When the constitution was written private citizens actually had quite equal arms to the British, on land at least. You could easily buy a musket, sword, horse. Cannon or ship, if you had the money.

 

[Rob Allen]

You need to reread the 2nd Ammendment.. why don't other countries have the number of shootings / mass shootings? It's not just the media. People forget the first part...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This type of argument is why nothing will ever get done! The all or nothing argument. There are plenty of things we could do to safeguard legal gun owners and still protect the public at large or people from themselves. The 2nd ammendment was written long before many of the issues we have now with specific guns were imagined and produced.

You have the right to bear arms, but not every gun or weapons system ever created! We require driver's licenses, we have to register to vote, we have to wait until 21 to legally drink.. so we can put restrictions on gun ownership without affecting the right to bear arms. Or we adapt the 2nd ammendment to reflect things as they are today.

But we can't even agree, as a society, on common sense gun reform, so changing an ammendment in the current political climate isn't going to happen.. we're well on pace to set a new record for mass shooting with January almost at an end! Very sad.

And as far as suicide, that affects the family members more than the poor person who does it to themselves. It's a sad and selfish way to go.. it may be understood in a few cases where someone is very sick, but it's something friends and families would have to deal with.. imo!

Comparing America to other countries is wrong. We need to compare ourselves to the best of what we hope to be.

We have massive amounts of gun regulations, they do not help.

What would actually help? Have a real war on drugs and gangs. Drug traffickers should fear F-16 strikes not losing a mule and a few million dollars worth of poison at the border. Their poison which kills more people than guns. Caught selling Fentynal? Get charges with attempted murder, one count for each dose you try to sell.

 

[Salmo_g]

Roper,

Thanks for the heads up. I've known since before the legislative session began that Gov. Inslee was proposing some kind of firearms purchase and possession permit, but no details were provided. Now I know about the details.

HB 1240 is pretty basic about prohibited the sale of assault rifles. For purposes of such a law, the definition of an assault rifle is pretty good. Most hunting rifles won't be affected, but a pretty fair group of varmint rifles look like they fit and would be banned. Members here may want to talk with their representative(s) about this, especially if they are a co-sponsor.

HB 1143 is the bill that has very broad implications. Anyone who wants to buy any firearm must first obtain a permit to do so. The initial cost for this permit is $25 (but may and likely would be increased in subsequent bienniums). And in order to apply for a purchase permit, we have to submit certification of completing a firearms safety course within the last 5 years from a certified trainer. Who knows how much this training course might cost.

I think HB 1143 is well intended, but aside from being unconstitutional, I think it's fraught with problems. We already pay for a background check under the federal NCICS. So now we'll pay an additional $25 for the state permit that includes an expanded background check, among other things. Is this reasonable? And with the allowance for future permit price increases, how much is reasonable to charge to buy a firearm under the 2A?

I think firearm safety training is not only a good idea, it doesn't seem inherently inconsistent with the 2A (second amendment). However, I took basic firearm safety training when I was 12 years old from the old WDG wildlife agent in order to get a hunting license. OK, so that was a long time ago. But Mrs. Salmo and I both took the NRA firearm safety training course a few years ago as a refresher for me and first time for her. But it was more than 5 years ago. So if I want to buy another firearm, I have to take the class again in order to be timely AND buy a permit to purchase. This could get old and be an ongoing nagging cost.

The most interesting feature in the bill, IMO, is that the act of applying for a firearm purchase permit serves as a waiver of mental health confidentiality. The good thing is that it could finally be possible to flag a mentally impaired person and prevent them from acquiring a gun. Of course it's also likely illegal as hell and unconstitutional as well. The ACLU will have a field day over this.

The upshot, again IMO, is 1143 however well intentioned is more likely than not unconstitutional, and I will contact my Representative urging his opposition to it. If the price of criticism is to offer an alternative, my alternative is that Federal universal background checks coupled with a 3 - 10 day waiting period will achieve as much reduction in firearm violence with far less imposition on individual 2A rights, if any, and at less cost, so should be supported instead.

 

[Salmo_g]

We have massive amounts of gun regulations, they do not help.

What would actually help?

This is a very important and generally overlooked point. Prior to the 1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy there were practically no firearms restrictions in the U.S. JFK was shot with a military surplus 6.5 mm Carcano carbine purchased via mail order from Klien's Outdoors in Chicago for $13. The first major mass shooting in the US that I recall was in the 60s by Whitman in the University of Texas bell tower. Mass shootings were so uncommon as to be rare. Now we have a ton of gun control regulations (that don't achieve the desired outcome) and more than one mass shooting per day.

What's the difference? A cultural shift most likely. The individual willingness and intent to try to "fix" problems that are real or imagined by using a firearm. Shooting strangers no less. OK, technology plays a part as well in that semi auto pistols and 30 round mag ARs were somewhere between unknown and uncommon to the point of being less available. But my money is on cultural shift as being the game changer and not so much the technology. If I'm right, no amount of firearm laws are likely to change things significantly. Actual change is possible only by addressing the root cause, not the symptoms. Note the similarity between this and the homelessness thread.

 

[flybill]

Comparing America to other countries is wrong. We need to compare ourselves to the best of what we hope to be.

We have massive amounts of gun regulations, they do not help.

What would actually help? Have a real war on drugs and gangs. Drug traffickers should fear F-16 strikes not losing a mule and a few million dollars worth of poison at the border. Their poison which kills more people than guns. Caught selling Fentynal? Get charges with attempted murder, one count for each dose you try to sell.

I don't disagree with the war on drugs and other issues you bring up, but gun ownership and regulations aren't meant to fix those. It should be to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous to themselves or others. Gun regulations don't stop the bad guys from getting guns.. laws and regulations don't stop bad guys from selling or bringing in drugs.. the laws are for when the assholes are caught and prosecuted!

Using your argument we'll never pass anything substantial or even incremental to help ebb the violence. As is in the news, the violence can be on either side, law enforcement, the criminals or just someone having a bad day and reacting with violence.

We need to make changes to how we acquire a gun(s) and responsibly own them.. it might cost us a little more time and money, but we can still own pretty much whatever we want.. I'm sure all on this site keep there guns safely stored and have what they need for home defense or hunting.. just my two cents!!

 

[Rob Allen]

I don't disagree with the war on drugs and other issues you bring up, but gun ownership and regulations aren't meant to fix those. It should be to keep guns out of the hands of people who are dangerous to themselves or others. Gun regulations don't stop the bad guys from getting guns.. laws and regulations don't stop bad guys from selling or bringing in drugs.. the laws are for when the assholes are caught and prosecuted!

Using your argument we'll never pass anything substantial or even incremental to help ebb the violence. As is in the news, the violence can be on either side, law enforcement, the criminals or just someone having a bad day and reacting with violence.
We need to make changes to how we acquire a gun(s) and responsibly own them.. it might cost us a little more time and money, but we can still own pretty much whatever we want.. I'm sure all on this site keep there guns safely stored and have what they need for home defense or hunting.. just my two cents!!

I disagree. We already have powerful gun laws and they do absolutely nothing..
The ATF just came out with new laws, which is a problem all by itself, about making stabilizing braces for hand guns illegal after decades of saying they are perfectly legal.

There is no data whatsoever that I can find where stabilizing braces are used in crime.
These illegal laws are created by a political organization to punish people who they see as political adversaries. There is literally no other reason for this law than to create felons out of law abiding citizens. In my mind that makes the government the criminal.
If this were any other ammendment this debate would not exist. Some people just think that the 2nd is a second class ammendment. If we can protect damaging trash like hustler magazine with the first ammendment we can protect much less damaging AR-15s with standard 30 round magazines with the 2nd.


As Daniel Ocean pointed out arguing about this will not change a thing..

What I really want is a high powered bb gun so I can sit up on the canyon walls of the Deschutes and plink indicators all day..

 

[nwbobber]

The gun laws we have are ineffective at checking the backgrounds of those seeking to own firearms. The system is underfunded, and the ACLU has been successful in keeping mentally ill peoples rights protected at the expense of public safety. The argument that they are powerful seems off to me. A powerful law would be effective.
Those who make the second amendment argument as if the words were written in stone and the USA could not possibly continue to exist without a literal translation, are equating a human created document, which was intentionally created with a means to change it, to a decree from the creator of the universe. It is not. The founders of this country were awesome individuals, and also human, and therefore fallible. They could not have foreseen the country as it is today let alone the highly sophisticated arms that the military uses today.
It would be folly for me to try to arm myself to take on the US government. And the US government does not want or need me to arm myself to give them a hand if we happen to be invaded. So the situation has changed since the constitution was written, and laws need to change with the population, to make us a stronger nation. The kind of violence we are seeing does not make us strong, it weakens us.
I will agree that many of the laws that have been passed in the last decades have been ineffective. I believe that there could be better laws passed IF we could have a rational discussion/negotiation between groups that stand up for gun rights, and those who seek a more reasonable level of public safety. A fundamentalist view of the constitution precludes that from happening, whether you are looking at the second amendment or the fourth amendment. We have to be willing to change.