The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.â€
 These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.
Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.
The controversial 18-page ballot referendum, which voters approved by a 9-point margin earlier this month, greatly expands background check requirements to include most private gun sales and transfers. While supporters held that the measure’s intent was to close a dangerous loophole which provided criminals with guns, all the Lynden Pioneer Museum knows is that they now have to pull 11 vintage rifles currently on display and return them to donors to become compliant with the new law.
Did Washingtonians know that this is what they were voting for? Laws like this actually create criminals where none existed before. Many museums are stocked with items that are on loan because they don’t have very much money. Now the people of Washington are denied the ability to learn and experience history. Thank you Bloomberg for denying children an education.
Weapons retailers in California are suing the state over a ban on the display of images of handguns – even the word “handgun†– in what the business owners say is a violation of the First Amendment.
“I am one of the most heavily regulated and inspected businesses in existence, but it’s still illegal for me to show customers that I sell handguns until after they walk in the door,†said Baryla, who owns Tracy Rifle and Pistol.
“That’s about as silly a law as you could imagine, even here in California.â€
The case, Shew v. Malloy, was initiated on May 22, 2013, when lawyers on behalf of June Shew and several other plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged several violations of the plaintiffs’ rights.
The complaint first claimed that the state’s bans on magazines and certain semi-automatic firearms are in violation of the right to “keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.†Next, the complaint argued that the firearm and magazine prohibitions violate the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law, as several classes of government employees are exempt from the ban. Last, the complaint asserted that portions of the Act violate due process, as the ban is vague.
“She said she just heard some crashing, and got up and saw that this guy was climbing through her window,†said homeowner Linda Orist of her tenant.
Orist said her tenant was upset and shaken up but was relived she was OK.
“She was upset that she had to kill someone to protect herself,†said Orist.
Two Libyan soldiers who were being trained in the UK behaved like a ‘pack preying on women’ as they stalked them in the dark to sexually assault them, a court has heard.
The court heard how the soldiers – who all appeared in court wearing tracksuits – are based at Bassingbourn Barracks some 14 miles outside Cambridge.
Prosecutor Paul Brown told the court: ‘The most serious aspect of it it there are males targeting females under the cover of darkness.
The worst part about this is the entire thing, from A to Z, is the fault of the British government. The government brought those men in to the country and allowed for this possibility. That alone is bad enough, but the government also prevented those women from defending themselves by not allowing the possession of firearms. The entire situation is terrible but it is a good thing the women still have their lives, no thanks to the British government.
Ares CEO is suing the San Diego Sheriff’s Department because he was banned from their Facebook page.
Facebook and the 1st Amendment: When a government entity exerts dominion over a particular space
and then designates that particular space as a public forum they cannot arbitrarily violate people’s right
to free speech in that space.
Facebook is a private entity and therefore they can arbitrarily censor if they so choose.
An individual user of Facebook is a private person and can arbitrarily censor their own page if
they so choose.
A government entity that uses tax dollars to set up and maintain a Facebook page as a
designated public forum cannot use more tax dollars to then violate the 1st amendment rights of
speakers in that designated public forum through arbitrary censorship.
As Election Day nears, 594’s opponents are ramping up the use of scare tactics. But contrary to what they would like voters to believe, 594 doesn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights. 594 doesn’t change anything about our right to own a gun for self-defense, hunting, range shooting, or competitions—and it certainly doesn’t mean that handing your gun to your friend to try at the range makes you a criminal. But it will make it harder for criminals to obtain guns. That’s why a majority of Washington gun owners support Initiative 594.
The 10-employee company based in Capitola, California, said it was deploying the technology on a trial basis. The first takers have been the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department in California and the Carrollton Police Department in Texas.
“By connecting the firearm to the cloud, we give departments a technology that enhances officer safety, improves operational efficiency, and builds community trust,” Jim Schaff, a Yardarm vice president, said.
While backers of billionaire-funded Initiative 594 are planning one more rally this Saturday – using the Marysville-Pilchuck school shooting as something of a campaign prop – another county sheriff has joined 26 of his colleagues to oppose the measure, making the count more than two-thirds of the elected sheriffs against the measure.
A majority of Washington State’s 39 sheriffs have come out in opposition to anti-gun Washington State Ballot Initiative 594.  The sheriffs oppose I-594 because it will not make anyone safer, will strain scarce law enforcement resources, will criminalize the lawful behavior of millions of law-abiding gun owners in Washington and will be unenforceable. Instead, I-594 would vastly expand the state’s handgun registry and force law-abiding gun owners to pay fees and get the government’s permission to sell or even loan a firearm to a friend or family member.
To date, 27 of the 39 sheriffs have publicly opposed I-594.
Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.
Yet African-American activists typically refrain from involvement in the issue of gun rights. In October 2013, Shaneen Allen, 27, a black single mother of two, was arrested in New Jersey for carrying a firearm without a license (she was under the impression that her Pennsylvania concealed-carry permit was accepted across state lines), and threatened with a prison sentence of up to 11 years for her mistake.
But it was conservative publications, such as my own National Review, and the N.R.A. that came to her defense. The N.A.A.C.P. and the usual champions remained unusually quiet. (There was no news conference featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton.) They have been largely absent, too, from the case of Marissa Alexander, a black Florida woman given a 20-year sentence for firing a warning shot near her abusive husband.
Many sheriffs in states that recently passed gun-control laws have signed letters saying they are opposed to the laws, saying the gun bans won’t make America safer. Some even say they won’t enforce these new laws. This has gotten some press. What hasn’t been reported is the very governors in New York, Connecticut and Maryland who signed those gun and magazine bans are also reluctant to enforce these laws. It seems they don’t want a political backlash. They don’t want journalists making martyrs out of otherwise law-abiding citizens who might be charged with felonies for doing what they’ve done all their lives. This is where politics runs into reality. It’s a collision voters need to hear more about.
With a majority of law enforcement and millions of gun owners opposed to the gun and magazine bans recently passed in New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado it’s not surprising that governors who voted to heavily restrict the citizenries right to bear arms are reluctant to enforce their own laws.