Gun Ballot Measures – How're folks feeling?

[JoB]

Jd..

this morning i spent a moment choosing what i would wear today.. and i concluded that i would wear that which was most representative of myself…

i am clad from head to toe in modern interpretations of tie die.

I am wearing a representation of who i am..

not what i am..

yet i would venture to guess that anyone who sees me today will see tie die/old hippy/sex, drugs and rock and roll …

not the colors and freedom of expression i crafted in Laird Hill Park in the late 60s or the integrity with which i pursued well thought out positions in both personal and political arenas…

their understanding of aging flower child is tempered by their personal assumptions about something it is highly likely they didn’t participate in ..

even if they are old enough to have been there… for some people it really was just just sex, drugs and rock and roll.

but their assumptions don’t change my reality.

there is a huge difference between being assured of your position on an idea and being self righteous.

my experience with this forum leads me to believe that the difference lies not within anything i say

but within the internal filter of the person(s) reading.

Share This

[JoB]

Jd..

in response to your “last” post.

NaNaNaNaNaNa

did that work as an argument for you?

me neither ;->

Share This

[au]

i learned a lot on here too.

my statements are generalizations, except when they are pointed. i include myself when i generalize because i’ve learnt (yes, i make up tenses) that when i point my finger at someone three are pointing right back at me

one becomes quite self aware examining yourself three times the amount you examine someone else.

anyways enjoy the beautiful day, y’all

Share This

[seaopgal]

Although nothing said here changed my vote, I appreciate the effort made by all parties to discuss and illuminate different perspectives with honesty and sincerity. Jd seattle, you deserve an award of sorts, having successfully engaged in –and survived — an extended battle with the Two J’s (as they are lovingly known here). Many have failed such a trial, especially on their first attempt, but I think you have earned the right to be the “Third J” on the blog. (Although JTB also made a good showing …) I hope you will come back on other topics of interest to West Seattle and beyond.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Seapogal- thank you, I’ll stick my nose in from time to time on some broader issues since I don’t actually live in west Seattle. I’m sure we can agree on many things because I’m far from being a party line voter. I’m typically not this vocal on most subjects either but this one is important to me.

Share This

[JoB]

Jd..

i finally got the time to do a line by line perusal of the draft of i594 posted on the Wa.gov site..

did you realize that your hypothetical uncle was a close family member.. it’s not just spouses or family members living in your house

” A transfer between immediate family members, which for this

subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents,

children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,

first cousins, aunts, and uncles”

or that you can temporarily transfer a firearm to someone who is in imminent danger?

“A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm

to the person to whom the firearm is transferred … “

that is as long as they are legally allowed to own a gun…

and heck.. cops, people serving in the armed services and even federal officials are exempt

“Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official”

and that thing about not being able to service a gun without ponying up transfer fees.. not so

“A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely

for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to

its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith… “

of course the state does insist that the gunsmith actually be licensed to work on guns….

then there is a whole raft of exclusions..

like at firing ranges and in competitions and ..

but here is the meat…

“while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law”

and.. I was wrong. you don’t have to supervise your bud while you hunt with him .. at least not as long as they are hunting where it is legal to hunt, have a license and would pass a background check.

what was it you said… if this one issue was resolved that more people would vote for i594?

obviously more people should vote for i594 because it is not the draconian limitation on the rights of gun enthusiasts or hunters that has been alleged..

i hate to say i told you so..

but dude.. i told you so.

in a nutshell, this is what i594 says…

if it’s your gun and you want to give it away to anyone except a family member or sell it, you have to process the paperwork through a dealer and go through a valid background check.

if you don’t and you get caught there are serious consequences.

******

btw.. for those who require documentation

the quoted bits are from section 3

of the draft of i594

which can be found at http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

the little notations in parenthesis are a numbering function for subsections of that section…

Share This

[Jd seattle]

JoB – I wish you could see my eyes rolling right now. Again with the hunting? Self defence? Cops? You have to be messing with me now right? And now you are showing you will intentionally lie to make your point. Here is the full text…

(4) This section does not apply to:

(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;

Can anyone see what JoB conveniently left out here? Those last few words? Ahh, but those aren’t important.

JoB you are digging yourself a hole so deep you can’t see daylight anymore. I said I would leave it alone but you insist on continuing. The least I can do is hand you the shovel.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

I’m going to lay this out as clearly as possible so you can save yourself all the unnecessary “work” you are putting into this.

You said – “point two .. shooting together… which would mean that even if she wasn’t your wife you would be supervising the gun’s use”

I said – “I’m still waiting for the text saying it’s ok to let people shoot my gun if I am present.”

peo·ple

ˈpēpəl/

noun

1.

human beings in general or considered collectively

So we agreed to the terms “people” and “supervising the guns use”

Not supervising children

Or while

-hunting

-imminent danger

-police

-government approved shooting range

-licensed gunsmith

-gifting to immediate family

Your next deflection of the subject will be – well you don’t just get to give your gun to any ol person and say see ya later. You need to be accountable for your gun.

That is a loan, not letting someone handle my gun while I am present. Don’t tell me if I hand my gun to someone, stay with them, and they commit crime with it I won’t be held accountable.

The fact is, I wouldn’t even be able to hold a gun I wanted to buy until I pay for a background check and transfer it into my name. That’s right, a transfer it just to hold it and look at it. Then, if I don’t want it, pay for another background check and transfer to give it back to him.

That doesn’t sound like a minimal inconvenience to gun owners to me.

Share This

[JanS]

wow…you may not realize it, but you do come off as very condescending. Oh, and, tomorrow…if you hand your gun to someone, and you stay with them while they commit a crime, you will be arrested ,too. No need for I-594 with that one – lol…

your claims are beyond strange…where does it say you can’t even hold a gun that you’re looking to buy…where? Link, please..verbatim. I need to see that one, honestly. You said..”the fact is”..show me the fact. Be able to back up what you say. Please.

Share This

[JanS]

JD..please look up the legal definition of “transfer”..please..

it’s not like someone handing you their cup of coffee to hold for a minute…

Share This

[JanS]

I’ll make it easy for you:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

scroll down to section (j) where it says:

“(j) Transfer

The term “transfer” and the various derivatives of such word, shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of.”

it does not mean letting a friend touch it in your living room….it does not say you cannot hold a weapon you’re looking to buy. I will call that statement you made pure and simple BS. I have no idea where you came up with that !

from another source:

What Constitutes a Transfer under the National Firearms Act

February 7, 2009

Posted In: FAQ’s , National Firearms Act

By David M. Goldman on February 7, 2009 9:33 AM | Permalink

Section 479.11 of the National Firearms Act defines a Transfer as: This term and the various derivatives thereof shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or

otherwise disposing of.

There seems to be much confusion over the violations of the National Firearms Act over this term because the typical legal definition of transfer involves a change in the possession and / or legal title of; convey.

There is clearly a significant difference in how the NFA defines the term Transfer.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

JanS – straight from I594, it redefines the meaning.

(25) “Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

Tell me how handing a gun to someone doesn’t fall under that definition?

I could really care less how I come off to you at this point. JoB insists on doing this to herself. I am not the one in attack mode here. But by all means, I’ll let you help her out with this one.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

And JanS, I have read through past topics on this forum and seen how some of you interact with your opposition. Don’t get all high and mighty on me about how I come off.

Share This

[JoB]

Jd..

i stated in clear language earlier in this discussion that a transfer to a family member had to be a gift… so i didn’t see a need to do more than clarify family members..

you remember that discussion we had where i pointed out that if a close family member was caught with your gun all you would have to do is say it was a gift?

that that provisions was a hole wide enough to drive a truck through?

yes, you remember that. you just hope no-one else has.

you can also see that i have clearly quoted directly from the text of i594 portions of that text which blow most of the arguments that have been made against it.

and identified exactly where that language can be found and linked to it so anyone else can easily read it for themselves in it’s entirety.

i can see why that would irritate you…

but.. and here’s the big but..

i have said all along that everyone should actually read the text of this initiative

and you told me you had.

I didn’t want to go back and read through it once again… but you insisted i do so. it was your gauntlet. do i need to quote you throwing it down?

oh.. and for the record.. although other points could have been misunderstood due to not understanding context.. these are pretty clear.

the only way you could misunderstand them is if you didn’t realize those little notations in parentheses were a numbering system and assumed the entire paragraph related to gun transfers between spouses.

this is not a matter of misunderstanding context.. it is a clear case of not seeing the forest because you were so busy looking for the particular trees you had been told were there.

read the text. it is really really clear on every point i just made.

now you can quibble all you want to and accuse me of being confused or being misleading…

but it isn’t going to change the actual text of the initiative… and in the end.. that is what matters here.

politics is not a blood sport where you win by counting verbal coup.

The outcome of this election will determine whether or not we get Universal Background Checks … something you told us you support in theory… on all firearm sales and transfers in this state this year.

I believe the people of this forum deserve accurate information upon which to base that decision.

if you somehow think that is a personal attack on you..

that’s your problem.

Share This

[I Miss Jess]

The current laws do work, we don’t need more burdensome laws to achieve public safety. Enforce current laws and it appears you can’t buy a firearm online as reported under I-594.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/convict-buys-gun-online-lands-behind-bars-getting-/nhnq9/

Share This

[I Miss Jess]

I could support I 594 if it weren’t for the extended delay in background check. In a earlier post I explained my families disdain for the excessive wait times.

I 594 10 to 60 day wait is absurd. It takes the FBI, WSP just minutes to do a background check.

Someone told me these waits are a cooling off period. That gives a violent criminal 10 to 60 days to destroy a family, they have no cooling off period.

Share This

[JoB]

I miss jess..

this initiative provides a mechanism for the loan of a gun during the waiting period if there is a reason to suspect the person you loaned the gun to is in imminent danger…

Share This

[Jd seattle]

JoB – yes you copy and pasted text of the bill. But that pasted text does not state what you told me is in the bill. It’s as simple as that. Supervising a person handling my firearm does not exclude it from being a transfer. That’s about as clear as it can get. But you keep trying to twist this with talk about hunting and gifts and everything else you can find. It shouldn’t take more than one paragraph to prove or disprove that statement. I’ll say it again to elimanite any possibility of further confusion.

SUPERVISING A PERSON HANDELING MY FIREARM DOES NOT EXCLUDE IT FROM BEING A TRANSFER.

Share This

[JTB]

IMJ,

I read the new Section 4 to mean the waiting period will be the EARLIER of either—when the required information is produced or 10 days.

The sixty days provision applies to the purchase or transfer of pistols by individuals who do not have a valid WA state drivers license or ID or have not been a resident of the state for at least than 90 days.

None of that seems particularly onerous to me.

Share This

[JoB]

Jd..

i am sorry

you are going to beat this dead horse alone.

i594 does state say pretty much what i said it did..

and i freely admitted where i got it wrong. you don’t have to supervise an adult when you loan them your gun to legally hunt…

assuming of course that they could pass a background check if you ran one.

it’s right there in the exceptions to having to run a background check for a transfer..

no.. 1594 doesn’t say what you say i did. But i didn’t say what you say i did either.

in your zeal to prove your point you seem to have overlooked that loan is one of the words in the definition of transfer..

you know.. back on page 2 of the text of the initiative..

therefore… if you transfer your gun by loaning it to an adult person who does not have to be a member of your family and is in possession of that gun where it is legal to hunt and who has a valid license to hunt and who could pass a background check .. you don’t have to run a background check to process a legal transfer of the firearm.

i am not sure how the person you loaned your gun to is supposed to take possession of your firearm unless you show up where it is legal to hunt to hand it to them or how they are supposed to get it back to you without you showing up where they legally hunted to retrieve it… but..

i am guessing that’s where i got the idea that you would pretty much have to be hunting with them for that transfer to be legal…

but no.. the initiative doesn’t actually say you have to supervise them while they legally hunt with your weapon.

which by the way blows the “you can’t loan your gun to other hunters” objection to this initiative further out of the water than if you actually had to supervise them while they hunt.

an argument is made of whole cloth as this conversation has been made of whole cloth. you can pick and choose snippets of text, interpret them the way you want to and then shoot them down if you want to.. but in the end that tactic is little more than a distraction when seen as a whole.

i think Wake nailed it in his first post when he said that America has an anger problem

and that when you combine that with a national fetish about guns you get a gun problem.

i do have one more thing to add to this and then i am going to go take care of my dogs…

if responsible gun owners had acted like responsible gun owners from the beginning and insisted on responsible behavior from all people who own guns..

we wouldn’t be debating this issue today.

if you actually believe in Universal Background Checks.. step up to the plate and vote for i594

if you don’t, man up and state that position..

instead of hiding the dissonance in your position behind a bunch of misinterpretations of what is and isn’t in this initiative.

Share This

[JoB]

btw Jd

we could have had a very interesting conversation about where this initiative does put a burden on gun enthusiasts…

it’s too bad that didn’t happen.

my friend and i did have that discussion and as a result he still plans to vote against the initiative.

the details on how transfers would be accomplished are a big fat gift to gun dealers…

and as I Miss Jess pointed out.. will actually unnecessarily slow down the process of of obtaining a background check.

that would have been much better handled through our local licensing agencies…

if this passes, i would like to see that fixed.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Job – I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HUNTING. I could tattoo this on your forehead backwards and you still wouldn’t be able to read it in the morror. This is starting to get embarrassing.

I am flabergasted at how you refuse to quit trying to twist this conversation to suit your view point. I have quoted your own words as well as mine on the subject yet you refute the obviouse. It’s fine, I don’t need you to admit it, I think any reasonable person reading this can see you are avoiding the fact you can’t back up your statement. We wouldn’t be beating a dead horse if you would quit bringing unrelivent topics into this very simple and narrow exclusion you claim is here.

Share This

[JoB]

Jd..

you never said anything about hunting?

wasn’t that story that featured the spouse you couldn’t loan your gun to while hunting on your uncle’s land about hunting?

because i took that literally. I thought we were talking about hunting…

To be clear… You and your spouse and your uncle or your bud or.. can share your guns while hunting legally on your uncle’s land … assuming of course that it is hunting season and is legal to hunt there and you all have the proper hunting licenses and your uncle or whoever you loan your gun to could pass a background check.

If you loan your gun to your kid who has not yet turned 18 though.. you will have to directly supervise them… whether hunting or not.

that’s what the text of i594 says.

so are you now trying to tell me that you think that all gun owners should be able to sidestep Universal Background checks by being able to loan any firearm to anyone?

surely you aren’t saying that? are you?

because that would pretty much wipe owner accountability out of the equation …

i lent him/her my gun officer. honest. they just asked to borrow the gun and i didn’t even think to ask what they were going to do with it or if they could pass a background check…

isn’t that pretty much what we have going on now?

a whole lot of don’t ask don’t tell when it comes to informal private firearm sales/gifts/loans?

how does that square with Universal Background Checks?

or aren’t we talking about that any more either?

now i really do have to get to the vet to have stitches taken out of one pup’s leg. .. then after i go grocery shopping and am back home supervising.. i can take the cone of shame donuts off my dogs..

i can’t tell you how much better that will make all of us feel.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

JoB – if you took it literally you would see I said shooting. Then later clarified by saying handling ie; shooting, touching, holding, inspecting… No where did I ever state hunting. That was all you. I repeated this until I was blue in the face yet you keep coming with this loaning and hunting business. Can we agree that letting someone handle (see examples above) a firearm is not the same as loaning it to them if I remain present and supervise? Again we are not hunting.

Share This

[JanS]

this is ridiculous…Jd, you are interpreting something that isn’t there. That’s your prerogative. But it’s still not true. Of course, you will argue until you’re blue in the face. And…stick to the OP post and I-594. Let’s neither of us get personal. Yes, there are people on this OPEN forum that wish I and JoB would simply disappear into thin air. It’s a public open forum, and we have every right to express our opinions on here. We’ve even been accused of “influencing” the editor of this forum and main page, too. How insulting to them. After I posted that last night, the first thing I said to myself was “he’ll say it’s not true, and argue about it”. It certainly doesn’t fit your position, does it? So you just believe what you want to believe. No one will change your mind. But..all of this is just your opinion…,it is not fact, as being stated in I-594. It is what you *think* will happen. It’s a scare tactic, and, yes, it’s BS. The definition of transfer in I-594 is basically saying the same thing as the official Fed. definition. Enough, already..you will always be right, and those who disagree will always be wrong. Now tell me that isn’t true, because you were caught being wrong once.

I Miss Jess, I stated earlier, the wait period now is 5 days, the wait period under I-594 is UP TO 10 days (so it may not always be exactly 10 days). The “up to” 60 day wait is only if the person applying has lived in this state for less than 90 days, i.e., a new resident. It’s to keep out of state ne’er do well persons from quickly acquiring a firearm. Nowhere does it say that the new wait time for everyone is 10-60 days.

Share This

[Author]

Posts