- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 30, 2014 at 5:09 am #816229
FreeRangeAuthorParticipantNovember 30, 2014 at 5:39 am #819821
FreeRangeAuthorParticipantNow they will buy the FULL AUTO powder nail gun …
… word!!!! Endorsed by mass killers everywhere.
November 30, 2014 at 6:14 am #819822
JanSParticipantoh, ferfuxache…give it a rest…next it’ll be staple guns that people are harping about… 594 is a start…something needs to be done so 3 year olds aren’t shot by 4 year olds. Adults obviously don’t take guns seriously in some places. If they can’t do it on their own, then it has to be done for them. But nail guns? SERIOUSLY? Give me a break…we’re hopefully all smarter than that…
November 30, 2014 at 6:16 am #819823
JanSParticipantNovember 30, 2014 at 4:36 pm #819824
metrognomeParticipantwhen nail guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have nail guns … stock up now before the Apocalypse!!!
methinks FRA has a ‘flare’ for the dramatic.
December 2, 2014 at 12:10 am #819825
Jd seattleParticipantJanS – While I agree they are grasping straws, there is no interpreting going on here. Just comprehension. The law says what it says.
December 2, 2014 at 2:55 am #819826
JanSParticipantwell, the, Jd, you be the first to walk into the gun shop with your nail gun to register, and see what the reaction is…K?
December 2, 2014 at 3:51 am #819827
Jd seattleParticipantI agree it would be ridiculous, but I didn’t write the law. Who were the idiots again?
December 2, 2014 at 4:27 am #819828
CMParticipantJan, I think you might be over-reacting.
The point is that the law was so poorly written that it will be tied up in litigation and probably either thrown out or just made un-useable.
Nothing in the law prevents “3 year olds aren’t shot by 4 year olds”. Nothing in the law needs me to walk into a gun shop and register my nail set. But legally, if I hand that to my friend, I need to pay $50 at a LLC gun shop.
Ain’t going to happen.
I fully support the intent of the law, but not the way it was worded.
I believe that may be the point.
December 2, 2014 at 4:56 am #819829
Jd seattleParticipantIt seems the story may have some validity to it. Below is copied from a firearms forum about this very subject. A member wrote Home Depot and got a response.
Name has been sensored for anonymity
“I sent Home Depot Corporate a similar email regarding policy to sales of their powder charged nail guns.
I don’t expect they will respond too quickly before researching the RCW I provided. I will report back the response.”
~Wxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hello Wxxxxx Sxxxxxx
This email is to follow up with my voicemail. I’m terribly sorry for the
new legislation. I have sent the Washington Legislation Department an
email inquiring if Ramset nail guns will be affected. As far as
replacements in the future, I will certainly forward your concerns to
our Government Relations Team.
For your records, the Customer Care reference number is # 536xxxx.
I will follow up with you on 11/17. If there is anything else I may
assist you with, please do not hesitate to reply to this email or
contact me directly. Have a great day and thank you for contacting The
Home Depot!
Best regards,
Karen Cortés
Resolution Expediter
2455 Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: 770-433-8211 or 1-800-654-0688 Ext: 77519
Fax: 678-556-7614
In my absence, please contact Shamar Jackson at ext 76070.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Wxxxxx Sxxxxxxx
Thank you for your response. From the reply I got back from the
Legislative Information Center, it seems that these nail guns will be
affected if they are powder actuated tools. Thank you so much for
bringing this to our attention. As I mentioned previously, I have
already shared your concerns with our Government Relations Team. If
there is anything else I may help you with, please do not hesitate to
reply to this email or contact me directly. Have a great day and thank
you for contacting The Home Depot!
Sincerely,
Karen Cortés
Resolution Expediter
2455 Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: 770-433-8211 or 1-800-654-0688 Ext: 77519
Fax: 678-556-7614
In my absence, please contact Shamar Jackson at ext 76070.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
December 2, 2014 at 8:59 am #819830
HMC RichParticipantSoooo, if someone buys a nail gun from the internet from an out of state dealer, what happens? Will they get NAILED by the authorities?
Will it be the NAIL in the coffin for the internet dealers or the consumer? I think the original post headline NAILED it perfectly.
December 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm #819831
Jd seattleParticipantTime for background checks on most fireworks sales and transfers.
We all know 594 wouldn’t be enforced this way. But I have a feeling that retailers may not want to be the test subject to prove that. If the word spreads about this I think we may see some of these items being pulled from Wa. shelves. At least until this gets cleared up one way or another.
December 2, 2014 at 5:49 pm #819832
wakefloodParticipantSo, jd, Rich, you guys want to see NRA come into the state and file legal challenges to 594?
December 2, 2014 at 7:27 pm #819833
CMParticipantPersonally? No, I don’t, wakeflood. I hate all stupid wastes of our tax dollars. But I’m afraid that because there are issues with the way 594 is worded that somebody, be it the NRA or others, will challenge the law and we’ll foot the bill.
December 2, 2014 at 7:29 pm #819834
Jd seattleParticipantWake – I think the Second Amendment Foundation would be the ones to file legal challenges if any. At least that is who I would prefer.
December 2, 2014 at 7:35 pm #819835
wakefloodParticipantSo you want it to be challenged. OK. Thanks.
December 2, 2014 at 7:36 pm #819836
Jd seattleParticipantYes I do.
December 2, 2014 at 7:38 pm #819837
wakefloodParticipantCM, it’s entirely possible, I might suggest LIKELY, that regardless of the wording, it was going to be challenged.
It’s a foot in the door, an example, a crack in the dam and those always get fought with everything they can bring.
December 3, 2014 at 1:02 am #819838
CMParticipantPoint taken, wakeflood. I’m just sick and tired of the seemingly meaningless rhetoric from both sides and the endless waste of resources that IMHO would be better spent elsewhere.
Just hypothetical posturing here, but if similar legislation had been proposed after strenuous legal review and revision, we might have passed a bill that would stand up to the expected legal attacks.
Hey, now. I see that look on your face. A guy can still hope, can’t he? :) I may be curmudgeonly, but I still look for light when I can.
December 3, 2014 at 8:22 am #819839
HMC RichParticipantWake. I don’t really care. It’s barely on my radar. I personally am not in any position to challenge this law. But if others want to do it, so be it.
December 3, 2014 at 7:21 pm #819840
wakefloodParticipantCM, the process you describe for iterative and vetted language happens with any sea-changing legislation. Sometimes it happens within a legislature (hence the term “making sausage”) and sometimes it happens via the initiative process.
In that scenario, especially on volatile topics – and how many more volatile topics do we have than guns – you get varying degrees of clarity on the proposition language (the lowest being Eyeman’s based on history).
And inevitably, you have the courts weighing in to determine the enforceability and constitutionality of it all. And if you look back, most of the hot issue stuff that starts with a proposition, takes two or three tries to pass with wording that allows it to stand as is.
All of which is to say, this one is neither unique, nor particularly poorly worded in IMHO but we WERE going to end up here at LEAST once if not several more times. We shall see.
December 4, 2014 at 4:18 am #819841
CMParticipantWakeflood, my reply hasn’t shown up, but if it does I apologize for the double post.
My sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek style doesn’t come through in my typing.
Read my second paragraph as a wish list. I, and probably you, wouldn’t fare well if we had to take several tries to get our jobs done, especially repeatedly. I would like to see the same accountability placed on our legislature, but I know that is far too much of a dream to ever actually happen. I unfortunately expect people to actually do their homework and follow through, not just throw something out there and hope it’s good enough for now.
Sorry for the thread hijack.
December 4, 2014 at 3:03 pm #819842
wakefloodParticipantCM, I suggest that ALL my important work goes through multiple iterations and edits. As soon as you expose a fresh audience to anything that requires legalese you’re going to get issues with interpretation. Why do you think we need lawyers and courts?
December 4, 2014 at 5:11 pm #819843
CMParticipantI guess I wasn’t clear (which is somewhat ironic considering what point I’m trying to make ;) ). Yes, I iterate and edit all my important work until I am absolutely certain in will meet the requirements of the task at hand. I don’t just piece something together and throw it out hoping it will make the grade. I don’t think I’d be employed long if that was my approach to success.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.