- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged washington state
Does I-594 Cover Nail and Flare Guns?
From Whidbey News Times:
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.
Washington I-594 Flowchart To Determine If You Are A Criminal Or Not
Weapon-blog.com has a very detailed flow chart to determine whether or not a firearm transfer is allowed. Who knew it was so easy?
WA Mayor on Why He Is Voting For I594
From Guns.com:
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.
Washington Sheriffs Overwhelmingly Oppose I594
From Examiner.com:
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.
From NRA:
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.
Chris Cheng on Washington’s I-594
From NRA’s youtube channel:
Washington Sheriff Says I-594 Is Unenforceable
From San Juan Islander:
As a law enforcement officer, I know this is completely un-enforceable. Unless a cop is hiding in your living room when you make the sale, gift or loan, no one will ever know it happened and it won’t help solve the problem. Sadly, both sides have wasted multi-millions of dollars on this un-workable Initiative.
Competing Gun Initiatives In Washington State
From ABC:
Two competing measures on the Washington state ballot this fall ask voters to take a stance on expanded background checks for gun sales. One is seeking universal checks for all sales and transfers, including private transactions. The other would prevent any such expansion.
Washington To Completely Ban “Assault Weapons”
Democrats in Washington state have proposed legislation that would outlaw so called “assault weapons” and require yearly inspections by the sheriff.
From Activist Post:
In order to continue to possess a so-called assault weapon that was owned before the assumed passing of the legislation, the person must “safely and securely” store the assault weapon and allow the sheriff of the county to, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to “ensure compliance,” despite some apparent civil liberties implications related to the Fourth Amendment.