Washington’s Newest Gun Control Initiative Is Just A Step Towards Getting Rid Of Privately Owned Firearms

Washington’s Initiative 1639 is all about strongarming citizens into giving up their 2nd Amendment Right

Using gun safes under Washington’s newest gun control regulation

When Initiative 1639 goes into effect, gun owners can be charged with a crime if their firearms end up in the wrong hands. That has a lot of gun owners asking about their options. What about gun safes?

The initiative was approved by about 60 percent of Washington voters this November. It is already facing legal challenges and one Washington police chief refuses to enforce it.

But other arguments have emerged around the issue of gun safes — one method of keeping firearms secure. I-1639 does address safe storage of firearms. It holds gun owners accountable if their deadly weapon gets into the wrong hands and is used in a crime.

The article goes on to describe the different types of safes one can use to store your firearm. A firearm locked in a safe is one that cannot be used to protect oneself nor one’s family. A quick explanation of I1639

Enter I-1639, a measure that represents the most sweeping, comprehensive gun control legislation in any state. It will enact waiting periods and background checks on the purchase of semiautomatic weapons, an increase to the minimum age for purchasing semiautomatic weapons from 18 to 21, storage requirements for firearms, and a class-C felony for any gun owner whose firearm is used by an unlicensed party.

So, if your gun is stolen and used in a crime, you’re going to jail. What this really does is force citizens with firearms to either store firearms used for self defense in a safe all the time, making them worthless for their purpose.  Or just get rid of them.

Now, if you’re an idiot and just leaving your gun in the glovebox, under the seat, etc, while you walk away from your vehicle, OK, fine, that is not a proper way to leave a firearm. It’s not a toy. You should lock it up. Keep a special safe in your vehicle. But, you leave it in your nightstand or on a top shelf in the closet for a reason. Regardless, this is stealth gun grabbing

Initiative I-1639 is an important step in the right direction

Initiative 1639 has passed in Washington State, which is a step in the right direction for gun control. However, with the current political climate, it is time to stop thinking of guns as a fundamental freedom and see them as they are: lethal, volatile weapons that need to be out of the hands of as many Americans as possible.

In other words, getting creative to force people to give up their firearms. And this is just the first step towards a total gun ban for private citizens, leaving Government with the guns. Be careful what you wish for, gun grabbers.

The same state also has no problem protecting illegal aliens, including those who commit crimes.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Washington’s Newest Gun Control Initiative Is Just A Step Towards Getting Rid Of Privately Owned Firearms”

  1. Jethro says:

    When the firearm is not under your direct control, it should be secured.

    If you keep an AR-15 next to your easy chair to protect against the marauding hoards from Central America, you’re OK. If you run to the 7-11 leaving your AR-15 unsecured, and your 13 yr old gets it and shoots someone, you could be in big trouble. That’s seems like common sense, right?

    If you keep a Glock under your pillow as you sleep, you’re OK. If you leave it there when you go to work and a crook finds it and shoots your neighbor, you could be in big trouble.

    What’s your beef?

    All conservatives have is disinformation.

    • gitarcarver says:

      What’s your beef?

      The “beef” is that it makes a criminal out of a victim.

      If someone steals from you, they are the criminal, not you.

      The left hates people being able to defend themselves so much that they want to criminalize the victim when a firearm is stolen.

      All the left has is hate.

      • Jethro says:

        If your neighbor’s son picked up you neighbor’s Glock that was just lying around, and fires it, accidently killing your beloved Bichon Frise, would you just chalk it up to bad luck?

        Would the father have any responsibility for your loss?

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          ^^^snigger^^^ https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          straw man
          /ˌstrô ˈman/

          noun
          1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.

          “her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach”

        • gitarcarver says:

          If your neighbor’s son picked up you neighbor’s Glock that was just lying around, and fires it……

          I don’t understand your question Jeffery.\

          If a kid possesses a gun without supervision in the State of Washington, that is a crime. People always obey the law which is why liberals think that more gun laws will curb whatever they think it will curb.

          If an adult, all cities in Washington don’t allow the discharge of a weapon except at ranges or in self defense. So the weapon would never be fired because criminals always obey the law.

          So I am sorry, but clearly the premise of you question is contrary to the very positions that the left has.

          I know you hate that people should be accountable for their own actions because you would rather have the government restrict freedoms and tell people what to do because all the left has is hate.

          • Jethro says:

            Ah, the Semanticist returns!! We assume you’re being silly because you have no answer. ***snigger***

            Aren’t freedoms restricted every day? Stop signs, speed limits, emissions controls, public urination, libel, slander, tax evasion,

          • gitarcarver says:

            We assume you’re being silly because you have no answer.

            Well, you know what happens when you assume.

            I just used the left’s argument and hatred against weapons to make the point. The left hates freedom and constantly wants to take enumerated rights of people away and make them criminal. It is all they can do based upon the hate they have.

        • Kye says:

          If your same neighbor’s son got in dad’s car that was just sitting in the driveway and ran over your Pomeranian would you chalk it up to bad luck? Would the father have any responsibility for your loss?

        • formwiz says:

          Only if you sued him for damages.

        • ruralcounsel says:

          That’s why there’s a difference between criminality and civil tort negligence.

  2. formwiz says:

    I just used the left’s argument and hatred against weapons to make the point.

    You have to understand in BizarroWorld, the Laws of Logic are just semantics to Jeffery.

    You made the point. Jeffery is trying to be Socratic. Too bad he was never told who Socratic was.

  3. Mangoldielocks says:

    This is a silly law which is probably already in effect in 50 states. If your child burns down a school the parent is held liable. Those are state laws. NOT national laws.

    Now when the federal government makes a law we then have a 3 million man government buracracy which then puts a thousand regulations in place that end up having nothing to do with the original law.

    A prime example of ludicrous regulations on top of existing law:
    Judge Daughtrey, author of the panel opinion, believes that EPA has the authority to second-guess DTE’s estimates if they are not adequately explained.

    U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is backing off plans by the agency to force thousands of localities to replace their perfectly good road signs.

    The reversal comes after ABC News reported on new regulations that would have forced all cities and towns to buy new street signs.

    I could go on and on. Once a federal law is on the books it then is distorted into a monstrosity. I do not want the Federal government getting anywhere near regulating any amendments.

    I believe a state has a right to do as it pleases as long as it does not infringe upon constitutional rights. The state of Washington can mandate Safes and the people must comply unless the issue is struck down by the supreme court. However once A federal law is on the books it will be no time and the USA will be a gun free zone thanks to lunatic liberals regulating guns out of existence using.

    YEP YOU GOT IT. LEGISLATE>>>>REGULATE>>>>>>LITIGATE.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    This is a silly law which is probably already in effect in 50 states. If your child burns down a school the parent is held liable.

    Just a clarification…..

    If a child WILLFULLY burns down a school, the parent may be held liable. The “willful” is part of the law.

    Even so, the parent may be held civilly liable, but they are never held criminally liable which is another important difference.

    Your overall point is dead on though.

Pirate's Cove