Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II: Crossing the Duwamish

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II: Crossing the Duwamish

«‹›241 »

What regions belong in the Pacific Northwest?
	Alaska, US
	British Columbia, CA
	Washington, US
	Oregon, US
	Idaho, US
	Montana, US
	Wyoming, US
	California, US (MODS PLEASE BAN ANYONE VOTING FOR THIS OPTION TIA)

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 05:32

SeXTcube: Jan 1, 2009

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

seiferguy: Jun 9, 2005; FLAWED
INTUITION; Toilet Rascal

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

Thaddius the Large: Jul 5, 2006; It's in the five-hole!

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

im on the net me boys: Feb 19, 2017; Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjhhhhhhjhhhhhhhhhjjjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh cannabis

Wow y'all are really keen on the state having a monopoly on violence

# ? Oct 19, 2018 07:45

GodFish: Oct 10, 2012; We're your first, last, and only line of defense. We live in secret. We exist in shadow.

And we dress in black.

To be fair it already does

# ? Oct 19, 2018 08:18

Peachfart: Jan 21, 2017

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

porkface: Dec 29, 2000

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

Helter Skelter: Feb 10, 2004; BEARD OF HAVOC

From Ballotpedia:

quote:

Under the measure, no dealer could deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to a purchaser until:

The purchaser provides proof that they have completed a recognized firearm safety training program in the last five years including instruction on basic firearm safety, secure gun storage, the safety of children and firearms, suicide prevention, safe handling, and state and federal firearm law;

The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or sheriff in the jurisdiction of the purchaser's residence that the purchaser is eligible to own a firearm and that the application to purchase is approved. Under the measure, the chief of police or sheriff must use the national instant criminal background check system established under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other databases and information centers to determine whether a person is eligible to possess a firearm.

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

porkface: Dec 29, 2000

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

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Helter Skelter posted:

From Ballotpedia:

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.

This summary is incorrect, it's notified in writing by chief of police OR a waiting period has expired. Almost all of the rules the initiative is applying to semiautomatic rifles are existing rules that are applied to pistols. (Which itself is weird and dumb because pistols have more rules than semiautomatic rifles precisely because pistols are vastly more dangerous than semiautomatic rifles, but it's nothing without precedent)

# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:02

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

Helter Skelter posted:

From Ballotpedia:

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.

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

No, federal laws will still require NICS, and like I said the police can just not respond and the dealer will release the gun after 10 days:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.092

# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:07

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

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

Dungeon Ecology: Feb 9, 2011

arms dealer: hmmm sell this rifle or not sell this rifle?

i think i'll sell this rifle

# ? Oct 19, 2018 18:18

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

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

Spergin Morlock: Aug 8, 2009

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

inkblot: Feb 22, 2003; by Nyc_Tattoo

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

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

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

Helter Skelter: Feb 10, 2004; BEARD OF HAVOC

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2-A5v-dzA

# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:03

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

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

inkblot: Feb 22, 2003; by Nyc_Tattoo

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

Helter Skelter: Feb 10, 2004; BEARD OF HAVOC

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.

Like, I am 100% fine with waiting periods. You can absolutely do that while leaving cops the gently caress out of it.

# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:08

Spergin Morlock: Aug 8, 2009

I only voted for it so chuds would get upset and leave the state after it passes.

# ? Oct 19, 2018 19:09

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

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

super nailgun: Jan 1, 2014

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

Dungeon Ecology: Feb 9, 2011

the measure does specify local voter approval, but yeah. it smells fishy.

# ? Oct 19, 2018 21:11

Thaddius the Large: Jul 5, 2006; It's in the five-hole!

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.

I'm willing to be wrong but I don't like the smell of it...

https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...nt_Owned_(2018)

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

ElCondemn: Aug 7, 2005

Javid posted:

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"

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

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

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.

I'm willing to be wrong but I don't like the smell of it...

https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Meas...nt_Owned_(2018)

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

Dungeon Ecology: Feb 9, 2011

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

Shifty Nipples: Apr 8, 2007

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

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Initiative Measure No. 1639

https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVot...tion%20#ososTop

quote:

Initiative Measure No. 1639 concerns firearms.

This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions.

Should this measure be enacted into law?

quote:

The Law as It Presently Exists

Washington law requires background checks for the sale or transfer of firearms, with exceptions. This background check requirement applies to sales and transfers of firearms through firearms dealers, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed private individuals. This requirement applies to most sales of firearms, as well as gifts or loans of firearms. The background check includes checking with federal and state agencies for criminal convictions, pending criminal charges or warrants, and certain mental health records.

A sale or transfer of a firearm cannot take place if the background check shows that the buyer or recipient is legally ineligible to possess it. The sale or transfer of a firearm may be completed if the result of a background check is not received within 10 business days. That 10 day period is extended to 60 days if the buyer or recipient does not have a valid permanent Washington driver�s license or state identification card, or has not lived in Washington for at least 90 days. It is a felony to deliver a firearm to any person reasonably believed to be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

The delivery of a pistol may be restricted based on an outstanding warrant for a buyer�s arrest or certain other charges or proceedings that might be pending against the buyer. Certain recordkeeping requirements apply to the sale of a pistol that do not apply to other types of firearms. A licensed firearm dealer must report to the state the buyer�s name, address, and other information. The state maintains records of the sales of pistols. The state does not maintain records of other transfers or a registry of firearms. State law requires that an application for the purchase of a pistol contain a warning about the possibility of criminal prosecution for the illegal possession of firearms, and that state and federal laws regarding possession of firearms differ.

State law makes it illegal to possess some kinds of firearms. These include machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and short-barreled rifles. Machine guns include firearms that do not require a separate trigger pull for each shot, and can store ammunition in a separable device such as a clip that can fire at the rate of five or more shots per second. There are exceptions to this prohibition.

State law prohibits certain people from possessing firearms. A person convicted of certain crimes or found not guilty by reason of insanity is ineligible to possess a firearm. The entry of a civil commitment order based on mental health also makes a person ineligible to possess a firearm. The entry of restraining orders for harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child may make a person ineligible to possess a firearm under some circumstances. Firearm rights can be restored under some circumstances.

People between the ages of 18 and 21 are generally allowed to possess a pistol only in their residence, their place of business, or property under their control. A person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a firearm. State law allows a person under age 18 to possess a firearm only under limited circumstances. These exceptions include, among others: while attending a firearms safety course, while practicing or target shooting at an approved range, while competing in an organized competition, while hunting with a valid hunting license, or in certain instances with parental permission.

Residents of other states may purchase rifles and shotguns in Washington if they are eligible to possess such weapons under federal law and the laws of both Washington and the state in which they reside. Nonresidents are subject to the same background check requirements that apply to Washington residents.

State law does not currently require firearms safety training to possess a firearm. Hunter safety training may be required to obtain a hunting license. State law does not specifically regulate firearms storage.

The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved

This measure would change state laws regarding firearms. Some of these changes would relate only to semiautomatic assault rifles, as defined. Other changes would apply to other types of firearms as well.

The initiative defines a �semiautomatic assault rifle� to mean:

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.

The initiative defines semiautomatic assault rifles not to include antique firearms, permanently inoperable firearms, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.

This initiative would add new requirements for the purchase of a semiautomatic assault rifle. Buyers would be required to provide proof that they have completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the past five years. That training program must include instruction on:

� Basic firearms safety rules;

� Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;

� Firearms and suicide prevention;

� Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;

� Safe handling of firearms; and

� State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers.

This initiative would make it illegal for a person under 21 years of age to buy a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle. It would make it illegal for any person to sell or transfer a semiautomatic assault rifle to a person under age 21. The initiative would prohibit a person between the ages of 18 and 21 from possessing a semiautomatic assault rifle except in the person�s residence, fixed place of business, on real property under his or her control, or for other specified purposes.

The initiative would require a dealer to wait at least 10 days before delivering a semiautomatic assault rifle to a buyer. It would also prohibit anyone who is not a resident of Washington from buying a semiautomatic assault rifle in Washington.

The initiative would change some laws that currently apply only to pistols and apply them to both pistols and semiautomatic assault rifles. These include restrictions on delivery when a buyer has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest. This would also be true for situations in which certain charges or proceedings are pending. Background check and record keeping requirements that currently apply only to the purchase of pistols would also apply to the purchase of semiautomatic assault rifles. The same requirements for collecting and maintaining information on purchases of pistols would apply to purchases of semiautomatic assault rifles.

The initiative would require a new warning on application forms for the purchase of a pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle. This new warning would read:

CAUTION: The presence of a firearm in the home has been associated with an increased risk of suicide, death during domestic violence incidents, and unintentional deaths to children and others.

The initiative would allow the state to impose a fee of up to $25 on each purchaser of a semiautomatic assault rifle. This fee would be used to offset certain costs of implementing the initiative. The fee would be adjusted for inflation.

The initiative would create new criminal offenses for the unsafe storage of a firearm if a person who cannot legally possess a firearm gets it and uses it in specified ways. These crimes would apply to a person who stores or leaves a firearm in a place where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm. Failure to securely store a firearm would only be a crime if certain other events happen. A person who fails to securely store a firearm would be guilty of a felony if a person who is legally ineligible to possess a firearm uses it to cause personal injury or death. A person who fails to securely store a firearm would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor if a person who is legally ineligible to possess a firearm discharges it, uses it in a way that shows intent to intimidate someone or that warrants alarm for the safety of others, or uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.

The initiative would not mandate how or where a firearm must be stored. But it would provide that the crimes regarding unsecure storage would sometimes not apply. Those crimes would not apply if the firearm was in secure gun storage, meaning a locked box, gun safe, or other locked storage space that is designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm. The crimes also would not apply if the firearm was secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm. The crimes would not apply if the person who gets the firearm is ineligible to possess it because of age but the access is with parental permission and under adult supervision. The crimes would not apply in cases of self-defense. Finally, the crimes would not apply if the person who is ineligible to possess a firearm obtains it through unlawful entry, if the unauthorized access or theft is reported to law enforcement within five days of the time the victim knew or should have known that the firearm had been taken.

The initiative would require every firearm dealer to offer to sell or give the purchaser or transferee of any firearm a secure gun storage device or trigger lock. It would also require every store, shop, or sales outlet where firearms are sold to post a warning sign advising buyers that they may face criminal prosecution if they store or leave an unsecured firearm where a person prohibited from possessing the firearm can get it. A similar written warning must be delivered to firearm buyers and transferees. Violation of these requirements would be a civil infraction.

Finally, the initiative would require the development of a cost-effective and efficient process to verify that people who have acquired pistols or semiautomatic assault rifles remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law. This process would provide for notice to local chiefs of police and sheriffs to take steps to ensure that persons legally ineligible to possess firearms are not illegally in possession of firearms.

quote:

Written by the Office of Financial Management For more information visit http://www.ofm.wa.gov/ballot

FISCAL IMPACT SUMARY

Initiative 1639 changes state laws regarding firearms. It allows the state to collect a fee up to $25 for certain rifle sales and transfers; however, the number of these rifle sales and transfers isn�t available. The initiative creates new criminal offenses for unsafe storage of a firearm. The state and local costs related to these criminal offenses cannot be determined as there is no data to estimate the number of cases filed or persons convicted each year. The cost for the annual verification cannot be determined as the process has not been developed. Therefore, the fiscal impacts cannot be determined.

General Assumptions

� The effective date of the initiative is July 1, 2019, except Section 13, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2019.

� The provisions of the initiative apply prospectively, not retroactively.

� No data is available on the number of semiautomatic rifles bought or transferred each year in Washington. Federal law prohibits the tracking of gun purchases (U.S.C. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Sec. 926).

� Fiscal estimates use the state�s fiscal year of July 1 through June 30. Fiscal year 2019 is July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019.

REVENUE

State Revenue

The Department of Licensing (DOL) would be authorized to charge a fee of up to $25 for each semiautomatic assault rifle (SAR) sale or transfer. (The initiative includes a new definition for SAR.) The fee would be adjusted for inflation. The initiative specifies the distribution of this revenue to state agencies and local law enforcement agencies for record keeping and other related costs they incur. Because data is not available to provide an estimate on the number of SARs purchased, no estimate of state revenue is available. However, the state does have data on the number of background checks conducted for concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) and sales of handguns and long guns (which would include SARs and other long guns). An average of 560,000 such background checks were conducted each year between 2013 and 2017.

Washington state law also requires mental health background checks for all CPLs and handgun sales, but not long gun sales. An average of 300,000 mental health background checks were conducted each year between 2013 and 2017.

Subtracting the number of mental health background checks for CPLs and handguns from the number of criminal checks for CPLs, hand guns and long guns yields an average estimate of 260,000 long gun criminal checks per year. The state does not have data to determine what percentage of the total long gun checks would meet the definition of SAR under the initiative.

EXPENDITURES

State Government Expenditures

Annual verification of eligibility to possess a firearm

The initiative would allow, but would not require, DOL, Washington State Patrol and other state and local law enforcement agencies to form a temporary group to advise on how to set up an efficient, cost-effective process for annual verification of eligibility to possess a firearm. Whether such a group is formed, and what expenses it may incur, are unknown and indeterminate. However, DOL has conducted similar work group activities that cost $15,000.

The initiative does not define the verification process, and DOL has not yet identified a likely option or set of options for annual verifications. Therefore potential costs to state and local governments are indeterminate.

Mental health background checks

The initiative would require mental health background checks for someone to purchase a SAR. Although data is not available to estimate the number of additional mental health background checks that would need to be performed, more work is likely for the Health Care Authority. One or more additional background check specialists could be hired at an annual cost of $83,000 each.

Unsafe storage of a firearm crime

The initiative would create a new class C felony of Community Endangerment Due to Unsafe Storage of a Firearm in the First Degree. It would be punishable by 0�12 months in county jail (see local expenditure impacts). The number of potential prosecutions and convictions of this new crime is unknown.

If an aggravated exceptional sentence were imposed, a sentence exceeding 12 months would result and be served at a state prison. The average cost of a state prison bed is $101 per day.

There would be an indeterminate fiscal impact due to additional filings or trial court proceedings to the Administrative Office of the Courts as a result of any new misdemeanor and/or felony charges.

Dealers registered with DOL would be required to post warning signs and provide a written warning to a purchaser about secure gun storage. DOL would incur minimal costs to print and mail the warning signs to dealers.

Record keeping

The initiative would require the Department of Licensing to keep records of CPL and SAR applications and transfers. The department already tracks CPL applications and transfers. The addition of SARs to record keeping, as required by the initiative, would increase the data input workload to its firearms database. (While online submission is available, DOL receives 60 percent of applications by mail, in paper form, from dealers and private gun sales.) The department would also incur costs to update forms and upgrade computer systems to add SAR records to its firearms database. DOL would experience rule-making, information services and administrative costs to implement this initiative. One-time costs would be at least $1.1 million and $500,000 annually thereafter. Additional staffing costs could be incurred, depending on the number of SAR records the agency processes.

Local Government Expenditures

Annual verification of eligibility to possess a firearm

If a person is found ineligible to possess a pistol or SAR, the Department of Licensing is required to notify a chief of police or sheriff, who then takes steps to ensure that the person does not illegally possess one. Associated costs are indeterminate.

Unsafe storage of a firearm crime

The initiative would create a new class C felony (Community Endangerment Due to Unsafe Storage of a Firearm in the First Degree). As an unranked Class C felony offense, it is punishable by a standard range term of confinement of 0�12 months in jail.

It also would create a new gross misdemeanor (Community Endangerment Due to Unsafe Storage of a Firearm in the Second Degree). As a gross misdemeanor offense, it is punishable by a standard range term of confinement of 0�364 days in jail.

Average costs to prosecute and defend a comparable felony are $2,260 and, for a comparable misdemeanor, approximately $1,700.

Sentences of less than one year in length are typically served in county jails. The average cost of a county jail bed is $106 per day.

According to local governments, it is unknown how many people may be charged, tried or convicted. Costs are indeterminate for city and county law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, indigent defense attorneys and county jails.

quote:

Argument For
Yes on I-1639: For Safer Schools and Communities

Five of the last six school shooters used an assault weapon; 80% of school shooters obtained guns from their own home or that of a relative or friend. Over 187,000 students have experienced school gun violence since 1999. Deadly shootings, including Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, and even Mukilteo, involved assault weapons. Enough is enough. We need to get serious about keeping firearms, especially assault weapons, out of the wrong hands.

Assault Weapons are Made to Kill

Assault weapons are not designed for hunting or protecting families from danger; they are military-grade weapons designed to kill large numbers of people. These weapons belong in the hands of trained experts, not people who might harm others.

Commonsense Reforms

In the U.S. military, soldiers are not allowed to handle firearms without training. Yet, anyone in Washington can buy militarygrade weapons without training or additional screening. This measure prevents anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a semi-automatic assault rifle. It requires additional background checks and mandatory training so people who buy these weapons use them safely. I-1639 requires securing these and other deadly weapons, reducing how easily kids and prohibited users can access them.

We Must Act to Reduce Gun Violence

No law will stop every person intent on committing violence, but we must do something. Reducing access to assault weapons and ensuring those who do own assault weapons have safety training is a commonsense reform we urgently need.

Argument Against
I-1639 Removes Rights from Law-Abiding Adults

Washington�s law-abiding adults aged 18-20 are responsible enough to vote, purchase a home, and serve in our military. Yet I-1639�s proponents want you to believe these same adults cannot be trusted to defend themselves or their families and are attempting to use the crimes of a few as a justification to curtail the rights of hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians.

I-1639 Makes Firearms Unavailable for Self-Defense

I-1639 would require gun owners to lock up their firearms or face criminal charges. This strict mandate renders firearms useless in self-defense situations by requiring them to be locked up. The United States Supreme Court invalidated a similar law as a violation of the Second Amendment, but I-1639�s proponents are nonetheless seeking to create this unconstitutional requirement in Washington.

I-1639�s Misguided Approach Will Not Impact Crime

Handguns- not rifles- are used in the majority of crimes committed with a firearm in Washington. Targeting rifle ownership will only restrict law-abiding adults from accessing them for self-defense, home protection, and hunting.

I-1639 is Another Extreme Seattle Agenda that Fails to Improve Safety

I-1639 is bankrolled by a handful of Seattle billionaires that are more concerned with pushing failed California-style gun control than finding real solutions to make our schools and communities safe. This 33-page initiative requires firearm registration, waiting periods, mandatory government training, firearm storage requirements, purchase tax, and more- none of which will stop criminals or protect our Washington schools.

quote:

Rebuttal of Argument Against
The gun lobby has a long track record of trying to convince Washingtonians there's nothing we can do to stop the plague of gun violence. They are wrong. This common sense measure requires the same standards for purchasing semi-automatic assault rifles that are already required for handguns. It will not affect law-abiding, responsible gun owners, rather, it will establish common sense safeguards to help prevent dangerous, unlawful access to firearms.

quote:

Rebuttal of Argument For
I-1639 is not about �assault weapons�. I-1639 targets all semiautomatic rifles, including hunting rifles and target shooting rifles. These are not fully automatic military grade weaponsthese are commonly owned rifles used for self-defense, home protection and hunting. I-1639 places Washingtonians at risk by restricting access to firearms for lawful self-defense, while doing nothing to increase security in schools or target violent criminals. Don�t let I-1639 leave Washingtonians defenseless. Vote No.

Get on our voter pamphlet's level NERDS.

# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:01

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

RuanGacho posted:

Initiative Measure No. 1639

https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVot...tion%20#ososTop

Get on our voter pamphlet's level NERDS.

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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?

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.

twodot fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 19, 2018

# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:21

Teabag Dome Scandal: Mar 19, 2002

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

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

One could have a receipt for a trigger lock.

# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:36

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

BrandorKP posted:

One could have a receipt for a trigger lock.

This seems silly from both sides. If I'm a prosecutor, why in the world would I be letting people get off a felony charge because they managed to produce a 7 year old receipt that they bought a trigger lock once.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 05:32

Thaddius the Large: Jul 5, 2006; It's in the five-hole!

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.

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.

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. :shrug:

# ? Oct 19, 2018 22:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread Mk. II: Crossing the Duwamish

«‹›241 »