May 5 Tawnos commented on Florida Couple Faces Jail Time, Lifetime on Sex-Offender Registry, for Having Sex on a Beach.
@17, why was she offered a deal for no time, while the guy was told "2.5 years"?

@23, nothing in the constitution of the US nor of Florida mentions nor implies peers. The only thing stated in the US constitution is "an impartial jury" and in the FL one, that "qualifications...shall be fixed by law."
Apr 16 Tawnos commented on Drastic Changes Are Coming to Washington State's Medical Marijuana Industry.
What the shitfuck? I voted for 502 because I wanted recreational marijuana to be legal (even if it put another substance under the bumbling control of our LCB and had a ludicrously inflrated price due to taxes when purchased legally). I doubt any of the voters for 502 approved it because they wanted to see this harm come to medical users. To add insult to injury, the new regulations don't even help those patients who may not be able to afford the tax-induced markup and don't want to risk their freedom by registering with the state. Nor does it give a boon to recreational users who might want to try their hand at homegrown.

Fuck the legislators who thought this was a good idea, those who pushed for the changes, and the WSLCB for being heel-dragging idiots when it comes to setting up a regulated system.
Apr 8 Tawnos commented on Guest Editorial: Allow Non-Citizens to Vote in Seattle Elections.
@16, that says "shall be entitled", but it does not say those who are not entitled are restricted. That is, it's a right for those people to vote, but that affirmative right doesn't create a limitation for the extension of the privilege to others. The only expressed limitation is to those restricted by Article VI Section 3: "All persons convicted of infamous crime unless restored to their civil rights and all persons while they are judicially declared mentally incompetent are excluded from the elective franchise."
Oct 16, 2014 Tawnos commented on Why We're Voting "YES" on Gun Control Initiative 594, and Why You Should Too.
@68, 69

Still that noise? Supreme court decisions and all.

Of course, you're being willfully obtuse. Why not take a look here:…

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Oct 15, 2014 Tawnos commented on Why We're Voting "YES" on Gun Control Initiative 594, and Why You Should Too.
@50: why do you claim that others are unable to read, when the law clearly makes all transfers illegal, regardless of length of time, outside of _very_ narrow exceptions?

At a range, until a state supreme court judge interprets "and the firearm is kept at all times" to mean "the transferee's possession is exclusively at" or "while under the direct supervision of the owner" or similar, people shooting each other's guns at the range are in danger of criminal prosecution. Yet the fact that the other parts of section 3(4)(f) refer to how long the transferee possesses the firearm rather than the place the gun is kept at all times makes me think that kind of court decision is highly unlikely. You should really read what you're claiming others haven't.

Even if a judge ruled that way, the initiative still makes it a severe criminal penalty to go to my friend's house in Duvall and try their shotguns while clay shooting on their private land. Nor when a group of us go out to one of the many public outdoor areas where it is legal to shoot and want to try out another's gun. Nor does it exempt situations like the four years I lived with my girlfriend who wasn't yet my spouse; there were many times she was at home with the firearm and I wasn't. Nor would the hunting exemption have allowed me to do a high country buck hunt that required a few miles of hiking before being in the area where hunting was legal. If the owner had to carry both guns up that trail, there's no way I would have been invited. Finally, when I go out of town for a few weeks or have taken someone in my house who has expressed suicide ideation, the initiative makes it prohibitively expensive to store my firearms at another friend's house for responsible safekeeping.

As for any claim that those things aren't transfers? The exception of some specific types of temporary transfers proves the rule that temporary transfers including "letting someone use your gun for a few minutes" is made illegal.

@52: "[California] requires trigger locks[, background checks,] and a 10 day waiting period. How come the courts haven't struck that down?"

CA allows infrequent transfers, prior to their new law wording in 2010, it was infrequent loans up to 30 days. Now it is worded as follows: "Section 26500 [making it a misdemeanor to sell, lease, or transfer firearms without a license] does not apply to the infrequent sale, lease, or transfer of firearms." (….)

As for the waiting period: "the Court concludes that Penal Code §26815(a) and §27540(a)‟s 10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment as applied to those persons who already lawfully possess a firearm as confirmed by the AFS, to those who possess a valid CCW license, and to those who possess both a valid COE and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system, if the background check on these individuals is completed and approved prior to the expiration of 10 days. " (…)

there's nothing requiring you keep a trigger lock on a gun; the only requirement on trigger locks is that any firearm sold must include a "firearm safety device".
Oct 8, 2014 Tawnos commented on I-594 Campaign Says Background Check Loophole Failed Woman Killed by Domestic Abuser.
@52, I think I can agree with that. CPL becomes license to carry in public, private use and transport is A-Okay. Selling, buying, possessing, using, etc are not a matter of the state unless said item is to be used on the road/in public.
Oct 8, 2014 Tawnos commented on Guest Editorial: I Lost My Son to Gun Violence. Please Vote Yes on Initiative 594..
@71: My friends like to shoot out in zip code 98942, about an hour and a half round trip from the nearest FFL. Our state is much bigger than the area west of the mountains.

You dropped the cost argument. Did you decide to look at the costs and realize it wasn't something spurious? As for more time, that's hours, per transfer, for each gun used in a class. That's beyond reasonable, and supporting it shows that you aren't attempting to find a safe, solid ground, but to make gun ownership anathema.

Look, I get that you dislike guns. So make an initiative that requires background checks on sales or permanent transfers. Sure, many will oppose it, but it won't be the piece of shit that gets the huge opposition this one does because of 594's terrible statutory significance.

They were my words, speculating how you might justify language in the initiative that could be so broadly abused. How do you think such things should be handled, or should people just be made to fear teaching firearms safety?
Oct 8, 2014 Tawnos commented on Guest Editorial: I Lost My Son to Gun Violence. Please Vote Yes on Initiative 594..

That price is in line with what FFLs here charge for a transfer. I've seen as low as $20 and as high as $100. Average seems to be in the $40 range.

People taking training are unlikely to be CPL holders, so they can't complete the transfer, by law, for 5 days for any handguns where both parties aren't CPL holders. Additionally, you missed that he was shooting in a place that was remote from FFLs.

You might say he shouldn't worry about it then if he's off on private property, but the fact is, doing so is breaking a law with serious consequences, that those of us who wish to remain law abiding would prefer not to break. Or, you might say, no police or prosecutor would ever go after such a case. Then you're suggesting laws should be selectively enforced. It's a terrible initiative.
Oct 8, 2014 Tawnos commented on I-594 Campaign Says Background Check Loophole Failed Woman Killed by Domestic Abuser.
@42: Was Article 1 Section 24 of the state constitution written in such a way that it confuses you as much as the second amendment to the federal constitution does?
Oct 7, 2014 Tawnos commented on Guest Editorial: I Lost My Son to Gun Violence. Please Vote Yes on Initiative 594..
@43, those other states have different laws that are not as poorly worded. E.g. OR's law only applies to private sales that occur at gun shows, CO's law allows loans to family members as well as any temporary transfer where the owner is present as well as letting someone else borrow your firearm for up to 72 hours, etc. Further, your claims sound like others I've seen - either you think it's okay for a law to be so poorly written that people break it all the time or you think it's okay for the law to be selectively enforced.

@20, if you read any of the other exemptions under that section, you can see that the range provision is worded differently than the others involving the length of time of the transfer. The rest specify that the transfer can only take place at or during some event, but the range one specifies the firearm itself must always be kept at the range.