Politics Paul Allen gives $500K to Washington gun initiative

[BlazerCaravan]

The background check is fine. I just think they need to clarify it more for a gun owner to allow friends to use the firearm at a range. My gun dealer actually let's me to fire some of his guns to try them out. That way I can try out different manufacturers that best feel right for me.

Background check is fine. Just give people the right to let friends or customers fire them.

A way around that would be a background check on entry into the range; then it's tacitly approved.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm afraid you are absolutely not correct (but thank you for linking the text so that I can prove you wrong!).

Check Section 3, paragraph 4(f)(ii). It specifically exempts loaning your gun out at a firing range from the law.

barfo

(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located;

Only applies on "government authorized" shooting ranges. This "allowance" would only apply to a tiny fraction of gun transfers, far less than a single percent of them. It would be a felony for me to hand off a gun to my wife in the midst of a home invasion. It would be a felony for my hunting partner to carry my rifle back to camp for me if I broke my ankle. It would be a felony for me to transport my gun in my friend's car trunk.

These exemptions are for people who only have guns as "shooting toys". People who like to shoot targets, like it's a video game, and have disposable income to blow on the "privilige".

privilege n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.

First off, few gun owners ever go to a "government authorized" shooting range because there's no such thing in most areas and there's no reason to go there if there was one in their area.

Secondly, governments may "unauthorize" anything at the drop of a hat and without a vote of the people, so this is an empty carrot on a stick for you toy-shooters in order to buy your vote.

Third, The Second Amendment was written and ratified to prevent infringements like this from ever being considered, suggested, or imagined.

There is no such thing as a valid gun control law, regulation, or rule, in America. They are all Un-Constitutional attempts at overthrowing America by gradually disarming the populace and will be treated as such by all Real Americans.

 

[MARIS61]

I must read the entire bill to make judgement, but it seems no different than what I'm used to in California. I had no idea that people in Oregon and Washington can sell a gun without registration. That's pretty crazy actually! Haha

Not crazy. Your Constitutional Right, unless you refuse to defend it.

Sorry you live in a nanny state.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm afraid you are absolutely not correct (but thank you for linking the text so that I can prove you wrong!).

Check Section 3, paragraph 4(f)(ii). It specifically exempts loaning your gun out at a firing range from the law.



barfo

Awesome so I couldn't go shooting with buddies in the woods because the woods aren't an established gun range. That's ludicrous. Gun sales are one thing, but loaning a gun to a friend? So I couldn't loan one of my rifles to my dad to go hunting? Glad I don't live in Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Minstrel]

It would be a felony for me to hand off a gun to my wife in the midst of a home invasion.

It makes a specific exception for spouses and domestic partners.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Awesome so I couldn't go shooting with buddies in the woods because the woods aren't an established gun range. That's ludicrous. Gun sales are one thing, but loaning a gun to a friend? So I couldn't loan one of my rifles to my dad to go hunting? Glad I don't live in Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. If your dad wants to use a gun, he needs to buy his own.

Therefore, this measure is actually intended to increase gun ownership.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It makes a specific exception for spouses and domestic partners.

Maybe his wife is an illegal alien. Or an extraterrestrial alien. I could seen that being illegal. We don't want E.T. being armed.

 

[riverman]

Good for Paul! That's Allen Crabbe money right there

 

[MARIS61]

It makes a specific exception for spouses and domestic partners.

ONLY AT GOVERNMENT APPROVED SHOOTING RANGES.

Handing a gun to a family member in your own home would be a felony.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

ONLY AT GOVERNMENT APPROVED SHOOTING RANGES.

Handing a gun to a family member in your own home would be a felony.

I don't think you are reading that right. I haven't studied it (and really don't want to) but look at page 8:

(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;

 

[barfo]

Awesome so I couldn't go shooting with buddies in the woods because the woods aren't an established gun range. That's ludicrous. Gun sales are one thing, but loaning a gun to a friend? So I couldn't loan one of my rifles to my dad to go hunting? Glad I don't live in Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm noticing a common thread here of not reading the proposal before complaining about it.

Section 3, paragraph 4(f)(v):

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

barfo

 

[barfo]

It would be a felony for me to hand off a gun to my wife in the midst of a home invasion.

Section 3, paragraph 4(c):

(c) A temporary tran
sfer 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 if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately
necessary to prevent such immine
nt death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

and also excluded under section 4(f)(i):

between spouses or
domestic partners;

It would be a felony for my hunting partner to carry my rifle back to camp for me if I broke my ankle.

See previous post.

It would be a felony for me to transport my gun in my friend's car trunk.

If you weren't in the car, perhaps so. But then that would be your friend transporting your gun, not you.

There is no such thing as a valid gun control law, regulation, or rule, in America. They are all Un-Constitutional attempts at overthrowing America by gradually disarming the populace and will be treated as such by all Real Americans.

Seems kind of extreme to me.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

I don't think you are reading that right. I haven't studied it (and really don't want to) but look at page 8:

(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;

I see a little differently. I see it as a list of infringements on the right to bear arms that supporters think they can get the public to go for.
Next they will expand the list. They do this because actually changing the 2nd amendment of the constitution is deemed to be too difficult.

 

[maxiep]

Yes. What this country needs is more rules and regulations.

The death of common sense, indeed.

 

[MarAzul]

I don't see that the government has any business what so ever having any say or care who is a member of my family. None!

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yes. What this country needs is more rules and regulations.

The death of common sense, indeed.

Leaving it to common sense when it comes to firearms. . . I wish it were that simple.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I see a little differently. I see it as a list of infringements on the right to bear arms that supporters think they can get the public to go for.
Next they will expand the list. They do this because actually changing the 2nd amendment of the constitution is deemed to be too difficult.

I agree that changing the 2nd amendment would be extremely difficult, so those in favor of gun control should try to do it through measures like this.

 

[Minstrel]

ONLY AT GOVERNMENT APPROVED SHOOTING RANGES.

Handing a gun to a family member in your own home would be a felony.

No. As PtldPlatypus already pointed out, that's a list of independent exceptions. Each lowercase Roman numeral is a separate exception.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm noticing a common thread here of not reading the proposal before complaining about it.

Section 3, paragraph 4(f)(v):



barfo

Hunting consisted of about 10% of my post. What about the other 90% of my post?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Natebishop3]

Leaving it to common sense when it comes to firearms. . . I wish it were that simple.

How many people are shot with legally obtained firearms? Because from what I can tell, these legislators are ignoring common sense by regulating guns in a way that won't do jack shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[barfo]

Hunting consisted of about 10% of my post. What about the other 90% of my post?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see anything in the proposal that prevents you from going shooting in the woods with your buddies. Hope you clean up after yourselves after you do.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

How many people are shot with legally obtained firearms? Because from what I can tell, these legislators are ignoring common sense by regulating guns in a way that won't do jack shit.

I don't have the stats, do you? Intuitively, I'd expect that quite a few people are shot by legal guns. We're not talking about stealthy assassins with black market sniper rifles in most of these cases. People who go shoot up public places and/or get into shoot-outs with cops aren't aiming for escaping detection. They don't need illegal guns.

 

[Further]

This seems like a pretty common sense series of laws. I own guns, but I want to keep guns in the possession of responsible gun owners and out of the hands of criminals and people unwilling to take gun ownership seriously enough to learn a bit and pass a basics test.

There are laws on the books that make no sense, like having 10 inch barrel be legal on a gun with a pistol grip but illegal on the same gun with a rifle stock. I say let's pass some common sense laws to keep guns in the hands of only those who legally should have them, and repeal stupid laws that only exist to provide roadblocks to legal and responsible owners

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't have the stats, do you? Intuitively, I'd expect that quite a few people are shot by legal guns. We're not talking about stealthy assassins with black market sniper rifles in most of these cases. People who go shoot up public places and/or get into shoot-outs with cops aren't aiming for escaping detection. They don't need illegal guns.

Really? The Clackamas town shooting was with a stolen rifle.

Newtown? Stolen weapons.

Reynolds? Stolen.

Most gang shootings are with stolen or unregistered weapons, so unless we're talking about a domestic killing where a wife or husband shoots their spouse, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you mentioned people who go out and shoot public places or get into shoot-outs with the cops.

How would this kind of legislation accomplish anything? People like to think they're making a difference. They want to feel like they're doing something. According to the FBI, 42 people died from firearms in 2012. By comparison, 21,370 people died from lung cancer in 2012. Why are we spending so much time focusing on something that accounts for such a tiny sliver of our state population?

The 2013 population for Oregon was put at around 3,930,065. So cigarettes legally kill 21,000 Oregonians every year, but we're worried about 42 people killed by a specific weapon?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Section 3, paragraph 4(c):



and also excluded under section 4(f)(i):





See previous post.



If you weren't in the car, perhaps so. But then that would be your friend transporting your gun, not you.



Seems kind of extreme to me.

barfo

Sooooooo, if you are at my house and someone breaks in...I give you my gun. You kill the intruder...cops show up and you still have the gun, I'm in trouble? You are? Both of us?

I give you my gun, you kill the intruder. Then you tell me you are a registered sex offender because you nailed your 15 year old girlfriend when you were 17 and are a convicted felon. ..whoops, now I broke the law?????

I didn't read a word of it by the way, other than what was posted here.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Sooooooo, if you are at my house and someone breaks in...I give you my gun. You kill the intruder...cops show up and you still have the gun, I'm in trouble? You are? Both of us?

I give you my gun, you kill the intruder. Then you tell me you are a registered sex offender because you nailed your 15 year old girlfriend when you were 17 and are a convicted felon. ..whoops, now I broke the law?????

I didn't read a word of it by the way, other than what was posted here.

Those are some crazy fact senarios:

Why would you give your gun to your friend?

I say protect your friend . . . unless he is a sex offender, then shoot him yourself.



What if I'm out in the woods with a friend and we are hunting but he didn't bring a gun and a bear cub charges him and I'm too busy taking a dump so I throw him my gun while the bear is nibbling his toe and he shots at the bear and shoots himself in the foot. Do I get in trouble?

 

[Natebishop3]

Those are some crazy fact senarios:

Why would you give your gun to your friend?

I say protect your friend . . . unless he is a sex offender, then shoot him yourself.



What if I'm out in the woods with a friend and we are hunting but he didn't bring a gun and a bear cub charges him and I'm too busy taking a dump so I throw him my gun while the bear is nibbling his toe and he shots at the bear and shoots himself in the foot. Do I get in trouble?

There are 18 year olds who are sex offenders for sleeping with their 17 year old girl friends. Would you shoot them?

 

[barfo]

How would this kind of legislation accomplish anything? People like to think they're making a difference. They want to feel like they're doing something. According to the FBI, 42 people died from firearms in 2012. By comparison, 21,370 people died from lung cancer in 2012. Why are we spending so much time focusing on something that accounts for such a tiny sliver of our state population?

The 2013 population for Oregon was put at around 3,930,065. So cigarettes legally kill 21,000 Oregonians every year, but we're worried about 42 people killed by a specific weapon?

I'm not sure your numbers are right.

Preliminary numbers for 2012 show 437 firearm-related deaths in Oregon, compared with 336 motor vehicle fatalities.

The state figures are from the Oregon Public Health Division and Oregon Department of Transportation.

maybe the FBI isn't good at counting.

According to the American Cancer Society, the number of deaths in Oregon due to lung & bronchial cancer was 2,120 in 2012.

THe 21,370 number is the number of new cancer (all types) cases (not deaths) for the year.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

There are 18 year olds who are sex offenders for sleeping with their 17 year old girl friends. Would you shoot them?

I certainly wouldn't give them my gun . . . might shoot them if it was my 17 yr old daughter, but not if it was my 17 yr old son.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not sure your numbers are right.



maybe the FBI isn't good at counting.

According to the American Cancer Society, the number of deaths in Oregon due to lung & bronchial cancer was 2,120 in 2012.

THe 21,370 number is the number of new cancer (all types) cases (not deaths) for the year.

barfo

The FBI isn't counting firearm related deaths. They're counting homicides. That's the whole point, right? We're not talking about suicides or accidents. The whole point of this kind of legislation is to prevent people from killing others?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

So even at 2,120, we're talking about significantly more people than 42. Hell, there were 37 murders related to knifes and other objects.