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

[M14 Shooter]

The state may not presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

You;ll have to ask Clayton, as my statement is, literally,. his argument against voter ID.
He believes checks do not violate the constitution, and so will not respond to my post.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY. Do you agree with voter ID laws? Yes or no?

Of course I do.
Now you;re going to ask me why I oppose background checks.
Voter registration and voter ID laws are necessary so that the right to vote can be meaningfully exercised - as such, registration and ID are the least restrictive means for the state to act on its compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters.
No such parallel exists regarding background checks; background checks presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right

Same exact issue moron.

No. It's not, penis breath.
One is a restriction on a right to guarantee the meaningful exercise of that right.
The other is not.
And so, that the state can so restrict the right to vote in no way means the state can so restrict the right to arms.[/QUOTE]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh really? So if I were to check you would be against Voter ID laws?

You;ll have to ask Clayton, as my statement is, literally,. his argument against voter ID.
He believes checks do not violate the constitution, and so will not respond to my post.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY. Do you agree with voter ID laws? Yes or no?

Of course I do.
Now you;re going to ask me why I oppose background checks.
Voter registration and voter ID laws are necessary so that the right to vote can be meaningfully exercised - as such, registration and ID are the least restrictive means for the state to act on its compelling interest in protecting the rights of the voters.
No such parallel exists regarding background checks; background checks presume all who want to buy a gun are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right

Same exact issue moron.

No. It's not, penis breath.
One is a restriction on a right to guarantee the meaningful exercise of that right.
The other is not.
And so, that the state can so restrict the right to vote in no way means the state can so restrict the right to arms.

[/QUOTE]


LOL they are both the same god damned thing you fucking idiot LOL

In BOTH cases you have to prove that you are eligible to exercise a right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL they are both the same god damned thing you fucking idiot LOL

Note how I lay out sound argument, while you, rather substantively addressing that argument can only insult.
Says all that needs to be said.

 

[MXdad]

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

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

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

Common sense should be used on that I agree, however no common sense was used in the drafting of this bill. This bill deals more specifically with transfers more so than sales. It will have no impact on criminals obtaining guns.
The problem with this bill is that it makes most all transfers of weapons have to go through a dealer and be subject to background checks. I make it a habit of selling only to people I know very well so as not to take a chance with a felon obtaining a weapon from me. This law will make that illegal

You say you have 600 guns, how many times have you loaned one out? I can't count the times I have loaned a friend or family member a weapon to shoot or hunt with. Often it is because he/she is interest in the same gun and wants to shoot one first. Under this law if I let a cousin or neighbor borrow my weapon to shoot or hunt with It has to go through a dealer, background check and transfer fee.

That is the reason these folks in this protest will be exchanging weapons, under this new law the exchanges they are making would be made illegal

 

[Geaux4it]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

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

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

Colorado Gun Laws Upheld As Constitutional The Daily Caller

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

And be ready for the recalls that come after treason backed votes

-Geaux

 

[MXdad]

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

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

Loaning a gun does no such thing.

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

It's called being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

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

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

etc,etc,.

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

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

Buying a gun for someone that cannot legally purchase is already against the law. This bill does not address that. Are you suggesting that all guns not on your person should be locked up? What the hell good does that do you. Are you not familiar with how easy it is to break open a gun safe? Are you not familiar with the fact most small hand gun safes can be picked up and walked out with?


The majority of gun safes locks will keep kids and the common person out not the criminal intent on busting the lock. Most gun safes will protect your weapons from fire but not so much a robber with a little time on their hands

With 600 guns as you claim the majority of your home must be filled with gun vaults

 

[MXdad]

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

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

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

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

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

Not to mention the National Institute of Justice has already came out and stated that without addressing straw purchases and requiring a national registry of weapons that Universal background check laws will do nothing to reduce crime

Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration
and an easy gun transfer process

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

 

[Geaux4it]

Even smiling Joe knows that further gun laws go in the a black hole of effectiveness

-Geaux

 

[MXdad]

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

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

PS - The feds keep NO such database. The DEALERS must keep records in case a gun is used in a crime.

SOME states do keep a database.

This law requires all transfers loans, sales etc to be completed by filling out a pistol transfer application a copy of which will be sent to the State Dept of Licensing a copy of which will be kept for inclusion is the state database of law-abiding handgun owners.

In effect it is a backdoor way to establishing a registration. I suggest you read a familiarize yourself with this law

 

[MXdad]

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

I just sold a gun to my cousin. Why should I have to run a check on him?

Why would you be worried about doing so?

The time required, the cost of the transfer fee and the fact that it accomplishes nothing as far as reducing crime all come to mind

 

[Iceweasel]

This law requires all transfers loans, sales etc to be completed by filling out a pistol transfer application a copy of which will be sent to the State Dept of Licensing a copy of which will be kept for inclusion is the state database of law-abiding handgun owners.

In effect it is a backdoor way to establishing a registration. I suggest you read a familiarize yourself with this law

He has no clue, he's just running his yap. That's the problem with the initiative process, how many people actually read all 18 pages? None of the supporters I've talked to have any idea what it actually says. They go for the nifty sounding title and think they've done good.

 

[MXdad]

This law requires all transfers loans, sales etc to be completed by filling out a pistol transfer application a copy of which will be sent to the State Dept of Licensing a copy of which will be kept for inclusion is the state database of law-abiding handgun owners.

In effect it is a backdoor way to establishing a registration. I suggest you read a familiarize yourself with this law

He has no clue, he's just running his yap. That's the problem with the initiative process, how many people actually read all 18 pages? None of the supporters I've talked to have any idea what it actually says. They go for the nifty sounding title and think they've done good.

That was my suspicion as well but hey he claims to have over 600 weapons LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

That was my suspicion as well but hey he claims to have over 600 weapons LOL

All locked up in his safe too.

 

[MXdad]

That was my suspicion as well but hey he claims to have over 600 weapons LOL

All locked up in his safe too.

That was my suspicion as well but hey he claims to have over 600 weapons LOL

All locked up in his safe too.

LOL yep all 600+ guns all in a safe. One of the largest capacity safes I have run across is the Fat Boy from Liberty. It is stated to hold 64 long guns but I can assure you the count goes down based on how many you have with optics. Even at that your looking at 10 or so fat boys lined up in the home. Of course many of those 600 can be hand guns requiring fewer safes. Needless to say I am a bit skeptical of that count