Home of the Whopper.


  • Tushy or Tuchus
  • If you could bring one dead person back to life, who would it be?: Einstein. I wonder what he'd make of the LHC.
  • Why are people so afraid to learn the truth about building 7?: Microsoft has no building 7, and conspiracy theorists use Windows
  • What song or movie makes you cry?: The Iron Giant - "superman" daawwww
  • What movie can you recite verbatim?: Fifth Element, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, among others

more »

Jun 12 Tawnos commented on Pat Robertson to Kids: Don't Call the Cops If Father Threatens Mom With a Gun.
Pat Robertson is full of shit. The cops should be called and the dad should be arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence/assault with a deadly weapon. After conviction, he should lose his rights to own firearms until such time as he is rehabilitated/served his time in a cage.
Jun 11 Tawnos commented on By Passing Initiative 594, We Have a Chance to Stand Up and Say: "Not One More.".
@104: Can you point me to any jurisprudence that exists in that area for WA? The closest I find are cases dealing with possession by proximity and ease of access, generally related to firearms enhancements to crimes and to felons in possession. The mere act of leaving an unsecured firearm in proximity to another person who has access to it is constituted as having armed that person (e.g. State v. O'Neal 2007, citing State v. Valdobinos 1993 - "A person is "armed" if a weapon is easily accessible and readily available for use, either for offensive or defensive purposes. ").

One could reasonably conclude that if a temporary transfer at an established shooting range must be specifically exempted, so too must all other transfers of even a temporary nature. Given that the home is not such an exempted place, nor are places where shooting may be legal but are outside of an established shooting range, it stands to reason that such transfers would be unlawful under I-594.

Please, if you have evidence to the contrary or case law I missed, share it. I'm willing to listen and even change my view.
Jun 9 Tawnos commented on By Passing Initiative 594, We Have a Chance to Stand Up and Say: "Not One More.".
@103: You could link me to the "debunking" and spare me the derision.

By the very wording of I-594, a transfer is any delivery to another person:

(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to
another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment
including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

It makes it illegal to transfer without specific exemptions that are called out in state law:

(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in
this state
including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the
purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington,
shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by
state or federal law. The background check
requirement applies to all
sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers
through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between
unlicensed persons.

The exemptions are being a licensed dealer, paying for a background check through a licensed dealer, for antique firearms, for imminent self-defense (when the person being given the firearm isn't prohibited from receiving it to defend you or someone else), to law enforcement, to a gunsmith for repair, or the following:

f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary tran
sfer occurs, and the
firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the
transferee's possession of the firearm i
s exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group
that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of
age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to
whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

Note that the wording of the temporary transfer exemption doesn't cover any of what I said. If you're not at a licensed shooting range and you transfer a firearm - crime, if you're at home and transfer a firearm - crime, if you're trying to temporarily transfer a firearm for safekeeping - crime.

So, again, where has "that" been debunked? Apparently the only thing I can see is that you don't have to pay use tax for transfers any longer, a section I missed in I-594.
Jun 9 Tawnos commented on By Passing Initiative 594, We Have a Chance to Stand Up and Say: "Not One More.".
@101: Debunked, by what? I read the initiative.
Jun 9 Tawnos commented on By Passing Initiative 594, We Have a Chance to Stand Up and Say: "Not One More.".
@44: "This legislation does not infringe on any law-abiding, stable gun owners rights to purchase guns."

However, it makes it illegal for you to so much as hand a firearm to a person in your own home (that would constitute a temporary transfer without a background check at a non-approved place). Same with being in the woods and using your friend's firearm.

It also imposes a significant cost for storing your firearms at a place where people are living if you are out of town or move out of state temporarily. Or if you decide that you shouldn't have firearms in your home for a period of time and wish to temporarily have someone else hold them, you find that the law disincentivizes such responsible behavior.

Transfers cost 40-50 dollars per firearm, and if the seller cannot prove that sales tax has been paid, a use tax must be paid. Many places who are capable of doing the transfers charge an additional fee for firearms transferred that they stock in inventory.

Finally, the initiative does nothing to stop any of the spotlight issues that have happened recently. So I disagree that it doesn't infringe on rights. Perhaps not the small subset you presented (purchasing guns), but on the broader rights of property ownership and stewardship.
Jun 6 Tawnos commented on Open Carry + Stand Your Ground = Perpetual Violence Machine.
@16, TX doesn't allow people to open carry pistols (much more reasonable self-defense firearms, and certainly not the "large, intimidating, fear for your life firearms" you mention). As far as I know, that's the basis of these protests, to get the TX legislature to overturn that limitation.

Not sure how effective that will be, and I think it's a bad way to go about it. But that's why people are open carrying rifles and shotguns there, as far as I know.
Jun 3 Tawnos commented on An Initiative to Require Background Checks in WA Just Raised $1 Million in 90 Minutes.
@31: this bill makes it harder for a responsible gun owner to do just that. Recently there was a reason I wanted to have friends store my firearms in their safes due to suicide ideation by someone in the home. I disabled the person's code to the home safe and put the firearms in there, but was thinking I should put them off-property. Under the new law, I'd have to spend a lot of money, meet up at an FFL, and transfer (effectively register) every firearm that I wanted to store safely. The same applies if I want to go out of town for a couple weeks and am worried someone may try to cut open my safe, if I have someone coming over who I don't want around firearms, etc. Each of these cases requires paying an FFL and inconveniencing someone who would be helping me act responsibly, in both directions of transfer.

Further, the law is so broadly worded and the exceptions so narrow that innocuous activities are criminalized. If a friend is over at my house and I want to give a firearms safety lesson before we go to the range, I have committed a crime if they handle my firearms (temporary transfer that is outside of the allowed locations). Same if I'm shooting outdoors and want to use a friend's firearm. Both of these acts criminalize behavior that shouldn't be so.

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, is that this initiative changes the burden of proof from presumed innocent to presumed guilty. Say I sold a firearm to somebody before the initiative passes (after they show me a CPL), and their firearm gets stolen and used in a crime. ATF pulls records and comes to my door. How do I prove that I didn't transfer the firearm after the deadline? Let's say I do have some paperwork indicating a background check was run, how long am I responsible to keep it? Am I legally liable for something that happens 10 years after I sell a firearm? 20?
Jan 3 Tawnos commented on The Balding, Bearded, Ultra-Liberal Jewish Guy Seat in My 37th Legislative District Just Came Open. Hmm..
Sure, go for it. That which was and that which might be would be as indistinct as the moment a season changes from fall to winter. You might bring difference in the long run, but in the short I think you'd simply reflect Kline. I'm sure the voters would love you for it as they see but do not understand their hopes for a liberal senator wither on the branch of the real world. Then again, they might not even notice.
Nov 16, 2013 Tawnos commented on Temple of Smoking.
Santa Maria tri-tip shouldn't have chimchurri 0.o
Oct 2, 2013 Tawnos commented on Child Gun Deaths Far Higher than Official Records Show.
@44, the "public at large" can't distinguish an "automatic weapon" from a "semi-automatic" one. Why is the fact the public is willing to attack something they clearly don't understand a good metric?

Shit, the public can't distinguish "Obamacare" from "holy shit, I can afford health insurance!" They're the same damn thing, unlike assault weapons/rifles. Why is the public's understanding of a matter indicative of its benefit or detriment to the US?

What you call "intricate technical attributes" are anything but. They're fundamental distinctions.

Maybe I'm crazy, being pro-healthcare, pro-gun, pro-gays, pro-choice, etc. Yet here I am, and I'm not willing to stand idly by while people lie or misrepresent things I know and support.

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy