Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Washington State, Enforce New Gun Law Fully and Mercilessly…No Really

My regular readers my see the title to this article and think I’ve lost it.  Let me assure you it isn’t so.  And if you are a gun control zealot thinking I am going support your ideology…well…have fun with that.

Washington State recently, through a ballot initiative bankrolled by Billionaire freedom hater Michael Bloomberg, bamboozled the voters who were ignorant about what they were voting on and making them believe that ballot initiative I-594 would do anything to stop crime.  It won’t.

What it will do is drive up costs, hassle gun owners and businesses and be an all around pain in the ass.

That is why it must be enforced to the FULL extent of its power.  I want this law to be hammered home as it is written.

Ah yes…as it is written.  You see, there’s the rub.

When gun controllers get together in their confabs to discuss stripping away rights they have no working knowledge of they tend to screw the pooch.  One need look no further than New York and the SAFE Act which, when initially past in the dead of night, hurried so the people couldn’t voice their oppostion, the law stripped police officers of their rifles.  Cuomo and his cronies went back to ensure that Two New Yorks would exist, one with the peons and one with the privileged ruling class.  Such is the Empire State.

So what does Washington’s I-594 actually say?

It’s a series of infringements on people who own, buy, sell, borrow or trade guns or devices I’ll get back to that “device” part in a minute.  Basically the state requires that background checks be done every time a firearm is handed from one person to another, regardless of the amount of time.

Go to a shooting range and want to let your buddy take a few shots?  Law requires a background check.  Gran pappy giving his grandson his old  .22 bolt action rifle?  Law requires a background check.  Run a gun range?  Every time someone enters you must run a background check.  A museum with military rifles from WWII?  Need to run a background check every time they are touched by workers. And so on.

Background checks cost time and money…so who is going to pay?  The people.

Now, if that were the end of it, perhaps hammering down on gun owners wouldn’t be enough to enact any change.  But the law doesn’t deal SOLEY with gun owners.

Here’s the juicy part:

 (9) “Firearm” means a weapon or device from which a projectile or
projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

Here are some things that constitute a “firearm” thanks to the law (remember the explosive force need not be gunpowder):

Flare Gun

Nail Gun

Firecrackers

Your car if it backfires (combustion engine)

A lawnmower if you don’t bag the grass

Lighters (flame is a projectile)

Anything that runs on combustible fuel and ejects something

IF taken as explosive force and not an explosion then T-Shirt cannons require background checks now.  Tough break Mariner Moose.

A straw used for spitballs.

And the list goes on.

All of these people sharing cars, passing T-shirt cannons about and moving lawns without a license need to be rounded up and arrested.  It’s the law.

If we actually FOLLOW the letter of the law, then maybe the voters of Washington will realize that they have been duped by a New York Billionaire and take steps to repair the damage their voting has done.

Even if they just enforced it on the first three, enough people may realize how much of a pointless joke that I-594 was.

That is why I am fully supportive of this gun control law being enforced as it is written.

Eventually the uninitiated public will learn that the gun controllers have been lying to them for years and hopefully that will be enough to wake the masses up.

Here’s to hoping.

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to friend