Page 1 of 1

I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:26 am
by Jered
So, the Seattle infesting moonbat gun banners passed a law that bans "semi-automatic assault rifles" from sale to anyone under 21.

But, the portion of the law that defines a "semi-automatic assault rifle" doesn't go into effect until July of this year.

Cue autistic shrieking from the moonbats.
On the other side, Kristen Ellingboe, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s communication manager, said the gun store owners are trying to find a loophole, and aren’t really concerned about a lawsuit.
In this one, the gun banners sound more autistic.

I think the article misquotes the FFL.

“It is no mystery which gun sales are affected by the change in purchase age included in the initiative, regardless of the effective date of the definition of semi-automatic assault rifle. Defying the law is a disingenuous attempt to thwart the will of the people and undermine the rule of law in our state.”
So, gun banners are butthurt that people are following their law as it's written. These people are blaming the FFLs for complying with their shitty law. If you write a shitty law and people follow it the way that it was written, you have absolutely no reason to get butthurt about it, especially if you pulled all sorts of fucking fraudulent bullshit in order to even get it on the ballot.

IIRC, the gun banners in these articles are backed by a group partially funded by Paul Allen. Paul Allen (piss be upon him) owned a company called "Vulcan Warbirds, LLC or something like that. Vulcan Warbirds, LLC has a federal firearms license. Not just an 01, either. It's the type that allows them to be dealers in destructive devices. So, once again, gun banners are hypocrites because the guy who funded them is "required" to be a seller of guns.

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 am
by Catbird
From I-1639:
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
Prior to I-1639's passage, there were no laws, legislation, regulations, or definition of "assault rifles" in Washington State. The only part of I-1639 which went into effect on Jan 1 was the restriction of sales to those under 21. The rest of the initiative becomes law on July 1, 2019, (unless it's suspended or thrown out). Since there's no official definition of an "assault rifle" in Washington until July first, you can't restrict their sale.

Sergey Solyanik, the owner of Precise Shooter in Lynnwood, Wa, has thoughts on I-1639:
The advantage of AR platform is that it is effectively a "lego set": different components of the rifle snap together easily even when they come from different manufacturers.

In particular, AR-15 consists of two main components that simply snap together, and upper receiver...

The upper receiver is an unserialized part and can be sold without a background check. The lower receiver is not a rifle and thus is not subject to the requirements of the initiative.

Therefore, if the initiative in fact passes the court scrutiny, you would still be able to buy America's most popular rifle just as you did before, it will just be coming in two separate pieces. And of course we will be carrying a full assortment!

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:13 am
by Jered
The shrieking of the triggered gun banners is even funnier because of their skullduggery to get this initiative on the ballot. They pulled all sorts of shady crap in order to get it and only got it because of the partisan hackery of the state supreme court. Now they got it and they're mad because gun sellers found a way or ways to keep selling guns.

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:20 am
by Aaron
In any event, the passage of 1639 convinced the wifey and I, we need to get the fuck out of this state.

To many political shenanigans, it's obvious Washington has become a testbed for voting fraud and they haven't been stopped yet.

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:07 pm
by Langenator
Jered wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:26 am
IIRC, the gun banners in these articles are backed by a group partially funded by Paul Allen. Paul Allen (piss be upon him) owned a company called "Vulcan Warbirds, LLC or something like that. Vulcan Warbirds, LLC has a federal firearms license. Not just an 01, either. It's the type that allows them to be dealers in destructive devices. So, once again, gun banners are hypocrites because the guy who funded them is "required" to be a seller of guns.
Paul Allen, IIRC, also owns the Seahawks. I wonder what would happen in WA gun owners started a boycott of the team...

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:50 pm
by Catbird
Langenator wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:07 pm
Paul Allen, IIRC, also owns the Seahawks. I wonder what would happen in WA gun owners started a boycott of the team...
Owned the Seahawks.

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm
by 308Mike
Catbird wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:50 pm
Langenator wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:07 pm
Paul Allen, IIRC, also owns the Seahawks. I wonder what would happen in WA gun owners started a boycott of the team...
Owned the Seahawks.
Makes me wonder what his will & instructions/directions/disbursements contained.

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:01 am
by Jericho941
This was a weird election cycle for WA. Ban guns, allow carbon. Can't even leftist right.
Langenator wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:07 pm
Jered wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:26 am
IIRC, the gun banners in these articles are backed by a group partially funded by Paul Allen. Paul Allen (piss be upon him) owned a company called "Vulcan Warbirds, LLC or something like that. Vulcan Warbirds, LLC has a federal firearms license. Not just an 01, either. It's the type that allows them to be dealers in destructive devices. So, once again, gun banners are hypocrites because the guy who funded them is "required" to be a seller of guns.
Paul Allen, IIRC, also owns the Seahawks. I wonder what would happen in WA gun owners started a boycott of the team...
It'd probably noticed about as readily as buying Starbucks drinks with $2 bills.

That is, not at all.

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:03 pm
by Langenator
Jericho941 wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:01 am
This was a weird election cycle for WA. Ban guns, allow carbon. Can't even leftist right.
Langenator wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:07 pm
Jered wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:26 am
IIRC, the gun banners in these articles are backed by a group partially funded by Paul Allen. Paul Allen (piss be upon him) owned a company called "Vulcan Warbirds, LLC or something like that. Vulcan Warbirds, LLC has a federal firearms license. Not just an 01, either. It's the type that allows them to be dealers in destructive devices. So, once again, gun banners are hypocrites because the guy who funded them is "required" to be a seller of guns.
Paul Allen, IIRC, also owns the Seahawks. I wonder what would happen in WA gun owners started a boycott of the team...
It'd probably noticed about as readily as buying Starbucks drinks with $2 bills.

That is, not at all.
I dunno...if their TV ratings suddenly dropped by 1/3 to 1/2 outside the King-Pierce-Snohomish-Thurston county corridor they might actually notice something going on.