I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
Post Reply
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7367
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Jered » Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:26 am

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.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

User avatar
Catbird
Posts: 1064
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Catbird » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 am

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!
"If at first you don't succeed, that's one data point." XKCD

User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7367
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Jered » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:13 am

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.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

User avatar
Aaron
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Aaron » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:20 am

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.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom,...Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you...; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-Samuel Adams

Irate Islander

Langenator
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Langenator » 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...
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

User avatar
Catbird
Posts: 1064
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Catbird » 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.
"If at first you don't succeed, that's one data point." XKCD

User avatar
308Mike
Posts: 16536
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:47 pm

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by 308Mike » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:30 pm

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.
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad

User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5147
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Jericho941 » 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.

Langenator
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: I-1639 Gun Banner Fail

Post by Langenator » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:03 pm

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.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

Post Reply