|
im on the net me boys posted:If you vote yes on 1639 you're a loving cop poo poo, acab, but I don't like guns either. what do I do!!!!!
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 16:51 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 11:50 |
|
It is my God given right to kill myself in any way I see fit. I-1639 imposes restrictions on this by giving me time to reconsider my actions.
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 17:48 |
|
Folks, it's a slippery slope. First it's simple background checks, then it's a waiting period for assault rifles. Next it's a full assault rifle ban, then eventually they'll be able to confiscate all guns so we can't kill each other! Come on, sheeple. Use your brains!
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 18:21 |
|
All I know is I’m not letting the gub’mint keep track of me and my guns! Now I’ll deal with you lot later, I’ve got to go post photos and a detailed breakdown of my entire firearm collection on Facebook
|
# ? Oct 18, 2018 20:30 |
Wow y'all are really keen on the state having a monopoly on violence
|
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 07:45 |
|
To be fair it already does
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 08:18 |
|
im on the net me boys posted:Wow y'all are really keen on the state having a monopoly on violence How does this initiative make that happen? I'm not trolling you, I really don't care about guns one way or another and I'm looking for what about this that is bad.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 08:33 |
|
GodFish posted:To be fair it already does How soon we forget that time those guys took over that wildlife refuge office.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 09:24 |
|
From Ballotpedia:quote:Under the measure, no dealer could deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to a purchaser until: Just for starters, the proposed definition of "assault rifle" is over broad and in fact just means "semiautomatic rifle". I'm also not a fan of giving cops veto power over gun ownership. Stronger background checks are fine in theory but I don't know who they plan on catching that the NICS isn't already going to. The storage requirements are a token measure that also seem open to creative interpretation by prosecutors. It doesn't feel malicious per se, just... sloppy.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 09:55 |
|
Generally police will approve firearms purchases, but if you make it that arbitrary and down to an individual's subjective opinion you will create enough inequality that it effectively becomes a racist policy.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 17:12 |
|
porkface posted:Generally police will approve firearms purchases, but if you make it that arbitrary and down to an individual's subjective opinion you will create enough inequality that it effectively becomes a racist policy. Good point, better to arm all races equally for the coming race wars.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 17:53 |
|
Helter Skelter posted:From Ballotpedia:
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:02 |
|
Helter Skelter posted:From Ballotpedia: quibbling over "assault rifle" is dumb nerd poo poo and it sounds like this takes the responsibility from the dealers to perform the background check and makes it the responsibility of the police. I can see this slowing down the process but I'm going to be honest I don't have much sympathy for complaints about not being able to buy a gun in a timely manner. Sounds like we might have some new allies in the push for criminal justice reform! Need to keep the system fair and free from misconduct against honest citizens so they don't get railroaded by creative prosecutors!
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:04 |
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:quibbling over "assault rifle" is dumb nerd poo poo and it sounds like this takes the responsibility from the dealers to perform the background check and makes it the responsibility of the police. http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.092
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:07 |
Literally what is accomplished by making the cops run nics rather than the dealer, other than intentionally bottlenecking the process? Dealers are already set up to do it; it's not like they're personally researching the person and making a judgement call, they plug in the info and it comes back yes or no, no room to gently caress it up.
|
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:12 |
|
arms dealer: hmmm sell this rifle or not sell this rifle? i think i'll sell this rifle
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:18 |
|
It's weird that the people complaining about a law that doesn't seem to do much to change the status quo are the pro gun people and not the people wanting stronger gun control.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:31 |
|
Javid posted:Literally what is accomplished by making the cops run nics rather than the dealer, other than intentionally bottlenecking the process? Dealers are already set up to do it; it's not like they're personally researching the person and making a judgement call, they plug in the info and it comes back yes or no, no room to gently caress it up. intentionally bottlenecking the process is a good thing, hth
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:34 |
|
porkface posted:How soon we forget that time those guys took over that wildlife refuge office. lol try that poo poo without being a right-wing nutjob and see how far it'll get you. If you start bringing guns to anti-ICE protests y'all are gonna get mowed down. Portland PD especially is already itching to shoot leftists, if they actually saw a loving rifle at a left-wing protest we'd be scraping protestors out of police APC treads.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:50 |
|
inkblot posted:lol try that poo poo without being a right-wing nutjob and see how far it'll get you. If you start bringing guns to anti-ICE protests y'all are gonna get mowed down. Portland PD especially is already itching to shoot leftists, if they actually saw a loving rifle at a left-wing protest we'd be scraping protestors out of police APC treads. Excuse me haven’t you heard an ANTIFA said a mean thing about 9-11 widows. Don’t they all deserve to be shot!
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:55 |
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:Sounds like we might have some new allies in the push for criminal justice reform! Need to keep the system fair and free from misconduct against honest citizens so they don't get railroaded by creative prosecutors!
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:03 |
This fuckin thread. "All cops are literal Nazis" Ok, so let's not gate people's rights through them, yeah? "Nah I'm cool with people I consider literal Nazis having that additional power over the public" Teabag Dome Scandal posted:It's weird that the people complaining about a law that doesn't seem to do much to change the status quo are the pro gun people and not the people wanting stronger gun control. I mean it's the ideal gun control measure in that it expends as much time and money as possible to reach the exact same results as the current system does.
|
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:03 |
|
xrunner posted:Excuse me haven’t you heard an ANTIFA said a mean thing about 9-11 widows. Don’t they all deserve to be shot! poo poo, I can't argue with that. Carry on, then!
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:03 |
|
Javid posted:I mean it's the ideal gun control measure in that it expends as much time and money as possible to reach the exact same results as the current system does.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:08 |
|
I only voted for it so chuds would get upset and leave the state after it passes.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:09 |
|
If I was a conspiracy minded sort of fellow I could almost be convinced this is a coordinated misinformation campaign on behalf of the NRA to pass garbage laws to give victories to control advocates that don't amount to anything but more than likely pro gun people are just dumb as gently caress and easily... triggered.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:14 |
So... Measure 102. Looks nice? But it appears to actually be a (slightly roundabout) Trojan horse for privatizing affordable housing builds funded by state/local funds? Like it's reason for existing is to go along with a federal program that specifically requires a private stake in new builds to take advantage of a tax incentive. I'm thinking if it passes the end result is no truly public housing ever gets built again because the lure of combining with private funds will be too strong. I'm willing to be wrong but I don't like the smell of it... https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...nt_Owned_(2018)
|
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:20 |
|
the measure does specify local voter approval, but yeah. it smells fishy.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:11 |
|
super nailgun posted:So... Measure 102. Looks nice? But it appears to actually be a (slightly roundabout) Trojan horse for privatizing affordable housing builds funded by state/local funds? Like it's reason for existing is to go along with a federal program that specifically requires a private stake in new builds to take advantage of a tax incentive. I'm thinking if it passes the end result is no truly public housing ever gets built again because the lure of combining with private funds will be too strong. How it was explained to me, it basically boils down to get about 12,500 low income housing units built by private developers and nonprofits, or get 7,500 low income housing units built, so pick your poison on that.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:18 |
|
Javid posted:This fuckin thread. I think the problem is that you people think having guns is a good thing. All you have to do to understand is to think "guns are bad". Let me explain it in list form so that it's really clear: 1. Guns are bad 2. Gun people who think guns are good is bad 3. Cops are bad 4. Limiting who has guns is good 5. Cops preventing people from getting guns doesn't mean cops get more guns ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 19, 2018 |
# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:18 |
|
super nailgun posted:So... Measure 102. Looks nice? But it appears to actually be a (slightly roundabout) Trojan horse for privatizing affordable housing builds funded by state/local funds? Like it's reason for existing is to go along with a federal program that specifically requires a private stake in new builds to take advantage of a tax incentive. I'm thinking if it passes the end result is no truly public housing ever gets built again because the lure of combining with private funds will be too strong. What does the value of the bond principal not exceeding .5 percent of the market value mean? The amount money being contributed cannot be more than half a percent of the total cost? So a 50 million dollar housing project could only use 250k? That can't be right because I can't see the value in accepting that little money. edit: nevermind, the actual text makes it more clear that this is the value of all property in the district. What would be the current hard limit given current property values? edit2: portland has 386 billion in assessed value so about 2 billion is the max any bond measures could be. sounds like a giveaway. I'd vote no. Teabag Dome Scandal fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Oct 19, 2018 |
# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:21 |
|
i say we flip the script: fund my 'government issue civilian handguns' measure. every american citizen is armed by the government,1 citizen, 1 handgun. taxpayer money. boom problem solved.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:23 |
|
Dungeon Ecology posted:i say we flip the script: fund my 'government issue civilian handguns' measure. every american citizen is armed by the government,1 citizen, 1 handgun. taxpayer money. boom problem solved.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:53 |
|
Initiative Measure No. 1639 https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVot...tion%20#ososTop quote:Initiative Measure No. 1639 concerns firearms. quote:The Law as It Presently Exists quote:Written by the Office of Financial Management For more information visit http://www.ofm.wa.gov/ballot quote:Argument For quote:Rebuttal of Argument Against quote:Rebuttal of Argument For Get on our voter pamphlet's level NERDS.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:01 |
|
RuanGacho posted:Initiative Measure No. 1639 hold up. isn't there some major hand-wringing over secure gun storage when the new law explicitly (according to the above) say trigger locks on their own are sufficient to store them safely?
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:14 |
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:hold up. isn't there some major hand-wringing over secure gun storage when the new law explicitly (according to the above) say trigger locks on their own are sufficient to store them safely? twodot fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 19, 2018 |
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:21 |
|
twodot posted:The rule is "If a prohibited person gets your gun and uses it, you are guilty of a crime, if your gun was in secure storage or had a trigger lock, you are no longer guilty of that crime", the problem here if your gun had a trigger lock and a prohibited person gets your gun and removes the trigger lock, they have just destroyed all available evidence there was a trigger lock on it at the time they got it. So either "I promise my gun had a trigger lock" is a perfect defense to charge of community endangerment and the crime is meaningless, or having a trigger lock is never sufficient to avoid prosecution. Are there any examples of similar laws being used in the way you describe? I'm no simple country lawyer but local prosecutors relying on "I don't believe you" without "and here is why" seems like a stretch but certainly not unbelievable. This one looks ripe for criminal justice reform allies too. Thaddius the Large posted:How it was explained to me, it basically boils down to get about 12,500 low income housing units built by private developers and nonprofits, or get 7,500 low income housing units built, so pick your poison on that. I asked a friend who does housing stuff what he thought and he believes this is a way to combine federal housing tax credits with additional public bond money that currently can't be combined.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:34 |
|
One could have a receipt for a trigger lock.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:36 |
|
BrandorKP posted:One could have a receipt for a trigger lock. If I'm a defendant, expecting me to produce 7 year old receipts that I bought a $4 lock one time (probably before this initiative when I had no idea I would need to retain trigger lock receipts) that in all likelihood can be trivially picked or otherwise defeated to avoid prosecution and prison time seems extremely onerous and arbitrary. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 19, 2018 |
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:45 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 11:50 |
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:Are there any examples of similar laws being used in the way you describe? I'm no simple country lawyer but local prosecutors relying on "I don't believe you" without "and here is why" seems like a stretch but certainly not unbelievable. This one looks ripe for criminal justice reform allies too. Fair, I know absolutely nothing about the funding, the big crux of the discussion I heard was that we can either offer funding specific for low-income housing to non-profits, which are private entities and what exactly “low-income” means is still undefined. Some were wanting to make the concession since such housing is so desperately needed, while others resent both that it’s going to private developers and that so much is left ambiguous.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:49 |