Bloomberg Front Group Pushing Initiative That Effect Lawful Gun Owners In Washington

Once again, we see that the object of gun control from the gun grabbers is not to go after those who use firearms in an unlawful manner, but to make it more difficult for lawful gun owners

Washington: NRA Files Legal Challenge Against Misleading Ballot Title for Gun Control Initiative

Yesterday, NRA filed a legal challenge in the Thurston County Superior Court objecting to the misleading and inadequate ballot title for Initiative 1639, which seeks to further restrict the Second Amendment rights of Washington’s law-abiding citizens.  The Thurston County Superior Court will review all legal challenges before the ballot title and summary can be finalized for the initiative.

Initiative 1639, filed by Michael Bloomberg’s front group, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, is an egregious attack on Second Amendment freedoms and comes just months after failing to enact their gun ban agenda in Olympia.  Proponents of this 22-page initiative will have until July 6th to get 259,622 valid signatures to place the initiative on the November ballot.

The article rather forgets to mention what that title is, but, that’s not my focus. The details of the ballot initiative are (all bold theirs)

Require a 10 Day Waiting Period for Commonly Owned Rifles.  All semi-automatic rifle purchases and transfers would be subjected to a waiting period of 10 business days. (all. Not just the scary assault rifles. Moving the goal posts)

Establish a Government Registry of Firearms.  Current law states the Washington Department of Licensing (DOL) “may” keep copies of pistol purchase applications.  The proposed initiative would instead require the DOL to keep copies of these purchase applications, and would expand this government registry to include semi-automatic rifle purchases.

Require Completion of a Training Course to Purchase Rifles.  This initiative would also require all purchasers of semi-automatic rifles to show they have completed a firearm safety training course within the last five years in order to proceed with the sale. (actually, I would be OK with this one, but, you can certainly see how the gun grabbers would start making this course really, really expensive and/or really difficult to pass to further restrict lawful rifle ownership)

Impose up to a $25 Purchase Fee (GUN TAX) for Semi-Automatic Rifles.  The Washington Department of Licensing would be allowed to charge up to a $25 fee for each semi-automatic rifle purchase. (yet another tax grab)

Require Gun Owners to Lock Up their Firearms or Face Criminal Charges.  Individuals would be required to lock up their firearms or potentially face a criminal charge of “Community Endangerment Due to Unsafe Storage of a Firearm” if the firearm is accessed by a prohibited person or minor.  This intrusive proposal invades people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.

Restricts Adults Aged 18-20 from Acquiring Modern Rifles.  Adults aged 18-20 would be prohibited from purchasing semi-automatic rifles and would not be allowed to receive them through a transfer or loan.  The proposed initiative would deny a segment of law-abiding adults from access to the most modern and effective firearms for self-defense, thus depriving them of their constitutional rights.

Require “Warnings” for Firearm Purchases.  All firearm purchases would come with a notification about the “inherent risks” of firearm ownership as an attempt to further stigmatize firearms.

This is typical of what we see from the gun grabbers: putting the burden on lawful gun owners, while doing zero about criminals.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

26 Responses to “Bloomberg Front Group Pushing Initiative That Effect Lawful Gun Owners In Washington”

  1. I thin firearms manufactures already include lots of warnings and labels on their products. I am guessing this would also apply to purchases of used weapons where the warning labels will have to be printed from the internet (for nearly free).

    But it is really just about making gun ownership harder, especially for the poor. Democrats hate poor people. And there is never any reason to give in on any point to them because they will never be satisfied. They will always use it as a next starting point for the next “reasonable steps”.

    “Locked up” will get redefined as “locked in a vault” that costs $1000. Making compliance out of reach of most people.

    Approved classes will get restricted and only offered once a year and no seats are available this year. Bring your own gun, and we will arrest you if you aren’t already registered.

    I don’t need to make this up. We have seen it all before. We don’t have to guess what will happen. It has all happened before. The only real question is, why would you ever believe a progressive/democrat/communist about what their real goals are?

  2. If democrats think that firearms training is a public good, then they should put that training into the venue they already control: the Public school system. Teach gun safety to everyone. Or isn’t it important enough for everyone to learn? Only AIDs prevention is important enough for everyone? Only anti-bullying is important enough for everyone? Only Black history months is important enough for everyone? But not gun safety.

    Truth: You kid is more likely to be killed as a result of a car accident going to public school than being shot while at school. Your kid is more likely to be killed by a criminal student at school than a “mass shooter”. If your kid plays football, they have a much higher chance of early death than being killed by a mass shooter at school.

    • Dana says:

      We need to protect public school students from knowing anything about firearms, but we also need to send males into girls’ locker rooms, because tolerance!

      Over the past two weeks, I have had the pleasure (?) of seeing to ‘male-to-female’ transexuals, one working as a waiter in the Applebee’s on Bypass Road in Richmond, Virginia, and the other a customer at Corto Lima, a Latin American restaurant on Short Street in Lexington. There is no way anyone could look at these men males and not realize what they were; does anyone seriously believe that normal girls in public school bathrooms and locker rooms wouldn’t know that the ‘transgendered’ student using their facilities wasn’t male?

  3. Jeffery says:

    TEACH “rather forgot” to note that the propaganda was from the NRA.

    Here’s the actual text of the document.

    Here’s the section on gun storage that TEACH and NRA will prevent one from self-defense:

    NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. SECURE GUN STORAGE. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows: (1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
    (a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
    (b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
    (i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
    (ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
    (iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
    (2)(a) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
    (b) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:

    (a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
    (b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person’s age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person’s parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
    (c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
    (d) The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
    (4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged violation of subsection
    (1)(a) of this section, the prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose or would defeat the purpose of the law in question.
    (5) For the purposes of this section, “prohibited person” means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
    (6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored.

    • drowningpuppies says:


      You’re a criminal if someone steals your gun.

      The nignorance is overwhelming from the angry little black fella.

      But what else is new?

      • Jeffery says:

        Your peckerwood bignorance is overwhelming.

        Do they teach reading in your schools?

        (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:

        (d) The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          So nignorant dumbass if a gun is stolen and you’re perhaps on vacation and/or didn’t know it was stolen until sometime after the five day mandated reporting period who gets to determine/define how one “reasonably should have known”?

          Some nignorant angry little libtard like you who would pass such a stupid ordinance?!!! I don’t think so.

          Please keep bringing your special kind of stupid.

    • formwiz says:

      Note Jeffery is down with all those 4th Amendment violations

      • Jeffery says:


        We didn’t endorse the proposals, only relayed them to TEACHs hapless minions, so you would be informed by the actual document and not just NRA propaganda.

        Amendment IV
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        Of course, we trust our courts will prevent violations of the Constitution. It’s what they do.

  4. formwiz says:

    Require “Warnings” for Firearm Purchases.

    What? This thing goes, “bang”?

  5. Jeffery says:

    And another school shooting in Texas today. At least 10 dead kids…

    • david7134 says:

      Yes, that is right and being a stupid liberal you should take credit due to the liberals doing away with mental health care.

      • Jeffery says:

        Dumb dave,

        What ever are you talking about? Liberals did away with mental health care? Would you have imprisoned the 17 yr old murderer based on his neo-Nazi views?

        Should the father have had tighter control over his firearms?

        • david7134 says:

          For someone on the periphery of the medical world, it is amazing how little you know. Liberals in the 60s and early 70s shut down mental health care. I know as I had to try and take care of these poor people. This has resulted in avoidable violence and more homeless. I can understand how as a liberal you would be ashamed of what has occurred as a consequence of this policy change. What makes you stupid is not accepting the problem and refusing to try and rectify. Keep making drugs and sponsoring parties and charging all of us excessively.

          • Jeffery says:


            HOW did liberals shut down mental health care? Did they ban psychiatrists and psychologists?

            We surmise you actually mean the deinstitutionalization movement of the 70s that shut down many mental institutions. This was for humane, medical and especially budgetary reasons.

            You have nada, zero, zip, no evidence to support that modern mass shooters are schizophrenic and would have been locked up in mental institutions in the 70s.

            Would you have locked up the 17 year old murderer in Santa Fe TX for his neo-Nazi beliefs? That standard would decimate the tRump nation.

          • david7134 says:

            You are as dumb as a rock. Good you stole the intellectual property from your original work at a legit drug company. Now you look up the material requested, I don’t die your home work.

          • Jeffery says:


            Wrong as always. Still the same smelly old liar. You claimed the rash of mass shooting in the US was caused by liberals getting rid of mental health care.

            It seems you cannot support your claim.

          • david7134 says:

            I just understood why you need references. You can’t figure out things by yourself. Liberals have to be told what to think and do. That explains your lack of knowledge, logic and basic inability to think. Such as the statement you made about hospitals not offering humane care for the mentally ill and that they are better off sleeping on the street. You are really great.

          • Jeffery says:


            And we understand why you have no use for facts or evidence as they may conflict with your specious tales.

            You refuse to make even a logical argument.

  6. Jl says:

    All the more reason to have armed guards at schools

    • gitarcarver says:

      and to allow armed school personnel.

      • Shut down the schools. No security needed. No administrators needed. No janitors needed. No grief counselors needed. No textbooks needed. No school boards needed. No teachers unions needed. No football programs needed. No bond issues needed to build new schools every ten years. No school busses needed. The teachers will still be in demand as private tutors (the good ones anyway). No more school shootings. Not a single one, EVER again. If you really care about this issue, this is the only solution that will definitely work.

        • Oh. But you* probably don’t really care about this issue. You* just care about pushing the communist agenda and disarming the population is a part of that agenda.

          * “You” being the hypothetical reader who claims to care about fixing school shootings, but would NEVER consider anything that would cut into teachers’ Union power, because labor unions are another Communist party agenda item.

        • Jeffery says:

          No education! The Wet Dream of all Nazi Con Men. An undeducated, unaware populace is easier to control.

    • Jeffery says:

      The Texas school had two armed officers.

      Do you think any of the proposals from the “Bloomberg front group”, e.g., making it illegal to let others have easy access to your firearms, would have helped. The murderer evidently took two of his father’s guns (pistol and shotgun) to commit his murders. Does the father have any responsibility?

  7. All the more reason to disband public schools. If it saves just one life….

    Public schools are a magnet for the students in those schools to make all the cool kids feel their pain. IT just takes one and there are ten times that many in every school.

Pirate's Cove