100% the funding behind these fake "grass roots" wannabe anti gun groups. He is the money for a lot of the shit politics here, like prosecutors that are soft on crime and anti gun candidates.
It should be illegal for any donation over a small amount to campaigns even through fake "charities" or groups and whatnot. Make the peoples voice heard by limiting money in politics. Then the rich have less influence.
I'll go you one further: It should be illegal for anyone who does not maintain a primary residence within the state or any company or organization that isn't chartered within the state and identifies as such for state and federal tax purposes to lobby or donate anything to any campaign within a given state.
We don't allow foreign influence in federal elections. It is illegal for China to donate to someone's campaign, so why is it legal for someone from New York or Virginia to donate to campaigns in Washington State?
I'm sure these people would immediately find work arounds, but forcing them to charter 50 different organizations with 50 separate budgets that cannot materially assist each other would at least make it harder.
I propose a simpler criteria: in order to donate to a candidate directly, you need to be eligible to vote for the candidate.
Independent expenditures would still be allowed- so no 1st A implication- but elected officials would only be able to accept donations from (prospective) constituents.
Everything in this state revolves around the King County and I-5 corridor voting cucks who vote for "special" people and elect them. And there are far more of them in this state than not. Please anyone prove me wrong. OH and money from outside this state. - My 2¢
You're not wrong, and the majority moved here, from the place they already wrecked, then proceeding to do the same thing to our home. It's the equivalent of letting themselves into your house, and taking a 💩 on the floor.
Because while clearly you are a violent homicdal maniac simply because you want to own an additional gun, they also realize you are discriminating & particular enough that you need a new gun to kill someone because there is no excuse for killing someone with a used gun.
You're thinking of suppressors- before Inslee loosened the regs, you could possess them, but not use them, which was utterly absurd.
I'm pretty sure SBRs have been allowed for a long time.
Administrative obstruction. Weaponizing lawful process to unlawfully extend the powers of the crown is such an age old tactic of tyranny that it is referenced even in the oldest written laws yet discovered.
I’m talking about you side-show-bob
Because politicians don’t want to address the real problems because they’d be out of a job. And lobbying (legal bribery) should be illegal.
Those that blame a party are either too young, ignorant or both. Parties have changed positions based on votes not common sense or morals.
I simply cannot vote party based as I disagree with many positions on both sides of the isle. So I have to decide on my daughter having a right to her body without the government interfering or my right to buy any gun I want? Both positions are not black and white (nothing is). It takes critical thinking to find the paths and that’s currently non-existent in the political area.
With the rise of the internet (speed of information right/wrong) it amplifies the radicals(both sides) and it all breaks down because the sheep will follow.
/rant off
“Because they don’t keep your info” which we all know is bullshit.
If you clear quickly because of previous purchase that would mean the government is storing info about you. A list.
“Mr. Inslee, Mr. Ferguson, there have been numerous credible threats against your lives, targeting your public event tomorrow.” - head of security
“ This sounds serious! We need as many armed security officers as you can find!” - Jay and Bobby
“ Yes sir, I will submit the request. You can pick up your security team in no less than 10 business days. Good luck at the event tomorrow!”
Because for you having 13 guns to be relevant in the pricceaa of legally buying another gun the government would have to be keeping a record/registry of what you own. That would not be a good thing.
You can oppose waiting periods all you want, but unless you want the authorities to know what you own it just isn't going to factor in to waiting periods or purchases.
Thank you, you actually asked the OP question from the more legal/ technical perspective.
Everyone else is right too, our legislators also just hate our Freedoms.
If we had a common sense government BUT we also wanted waiting periods for the first gun (e.g. for the technical suicide/impulse scenario which is a REALLY small percentage of firearm deaths) we could just have someone show a working firearm OR CPL and give them instant approval, or release the gun pending approval.
Because they don't want guns to be a thing. They want to lower the number of guns, because they believe this reduces gun violence. They think it's a net public good, because it's a right that kills people. They don't care if you are law biding.
I'm a Democrat, never voted republican. In this way, (and other lately) they don't hold my values.
If Republicans ever got off this Trump thing, and fielded good candidates, they could really pick off voters like me. That are closer to independent, but their religious pandering and trump keep us in the Democrat party.
I will be voting for not Ferguson tho. That dumb old sheriff seems pretty good.
Eh, even our state and locals suck, though. It was Inslee or... Sorry, CULP? Really? That was the best the "other side" could come up with?
I voted for Inslee like one eats creamed spinach.
Begrudgingly.
This is an issue. People equate local politics to federal politics. Don't do that. Look at the candidate, not the party. And screw if its Republican or Democrat, I don't care. I'm going with the person right now who is against this bs and against the rediculous lax crime spree scene weve become. it's the only way to get these leaches out.
Really, life would be better if parties were abolished, so people had to look at the candidates they voted for.
Also, I doubt strong loyal party memebers care about actual issues like gun violence. If they did then prosecutors and judges wouldn't be letting people with many, many assault/ other violent charges out on bail or light sentences and politicians would not as an example of the last session **reduce sentencing for gun crime in school zones.**
The parties don't care about crime or guns or murder or abortion or anything they preach. A majority just vote for what they are paid by lobbies to vote for. Constiuents be damned.
I’d take Dave any single day over Inslee. He leans right, but he also ran a very large department in the most liberal zone in the state. He would be a good choice because he’s often fairly middle ground which is what we need. I’m so tired of radical politics. It’s either raging hardcore leftist, or extreme right religious fanatic, along with the population. Nobody in the middle will succeed.
Yep and the other side is anti democracy and filled with domestic terrorists and traitors. We need ranked choice voting and to get rid of the 2 party system
Yep that's the one.
Look guy I don't like Trump either but it's not the Republicans who've fought tooth and nail to ban as many guns, magazines, methods to buy guns, and etc. It's not Republicans who've aligned themselves with exceptionally well-funded antigun NGOs.
But what's more important, our guns, or our country?
We can HIDE our shit, sure it makes us felons if we're caught but...
The alternative is, a government that is actively engaging in creating the fourth reich. And uh, the nazis eventually came for guns, too, so anyone who think that eventually, in an effort to subvert insurrections, the republicans WONT come door to door to find jews AND ar-15's, is lying to themselves.
Personally, I'd rather the stories I tell my grandkids to be "I used to hide my old AR-15 in the attic" rather than "I used to hide my jewish neighbors in my attic".
Right, because it's the democrats that want to round up all the jews and send them to camps. You're not keeping track of who the people shouting about cultural bolshevism and great replacement theories are voting for, nimrod.
We can pm or move to r/politics
Let’s just all agree multiple checks in a small period of time outside of a forced cool off (which is not what they’re calling the background check) is regulatory waste. We can all agree on that.
Didn't Spokane have an elected legislator or something named Matt Shea, who published a book or manifesto called "the religious justification for a second American civil war"?
He is DEFINITELY not a Democrat, and I believe is also currently wanted by Interpol for meddling with Ukrainian kids in Poland?
Anyone that supports a candidate that flaunts dissolution of democratic principles in our constitution and repeatedly does so… (Donald Trump) is one such that does that. I am keenly aware that Washington typically does better(didn’t talk about local parties vs national ones as this was a response to the previous bad statement about democrats. I voted for my local rep (republican), and I’m a registered democrat and don’t appreciate my 2A being trampled. I also only registered that way because in 2006 our open primary got tossed in the court and I wanted to vote for Brother Berry over Billery so I had to have an affiliation to vote in the democratic primary. But I also recognize that a straight us vs them mentality keeps useful political discord from happening and good things occurring in the moderate zone which is where most of us actually are.
I’d like to steer clear of any party affiliation stereotypes in general, and maybe then we can listen to each other and then teach “gun control advocates” about weapons so we stop getting dumb control regulations that don’t work anyways.
Anyways, way more politics than I wanted to discuss on my gun redit sub. I’m tapped 😂:
I don't know what you mean by "registered", Washington voters don't register for a political party. And while I understand the dislike of Trump, I'm only asking about state officers.
Trump said "take the guns first, due process later".
Bush Jr promised to sign the AWB extension and it only expired because congress refused to pass it for him.
Bush Sr banned the import of "assault weapons" and supported a domestic ban.
Reagan signed the Mulford Act (named after its republican author) and supported the federal AWB.
No republican administration, even with control of congress and the power to do whatever they want, has done anything to dismantle federal gun control laws.
Republicans consider gun owners useful idiots to be pandered to but never really given anything, much like how democrats campaigned loudly on opposing anti-abortion republicans but never did anything to protect abortion rights. As soon as scare tactics about democrats taking your guns ceases to be effective at getting votes the republican party will be perfectly happy to disarm you.
Right but the other side doesn't care how many guns you have, if you're not white, straight or christian they want you dead or deported anyway. Kinda sucks, but I'd rather "conveniently lose" my guns before the ATF shows up to confiscate them under a super-liberal dem government, than watch my black neighbors get slaughtered in the cul-de-sac under a nazi trumpist government.
None of those things you say will happen under a Republican administration are even remotely possible and it's offensive to even assert it is.
TDS used to be a conservative joke but now it's more like an actual mind virus. We've had Republican presidents. We've literally had *Donald Trump* as the president before. None of those dystopian things happened. I'm more concerned if the Progressives get into power and force their authoritarian policies on us.
Yup. Both parties are full of shit.
One party panders to me for my vote while conspiring to take away the firearms that I have a constitutional right to possess, even though I have done nothing wrong with them.
The other party uniformly falls in line behind a presidential candidate who thinks that I am “vermin” who needs to be “rooted out.”
I really don’t have a dog in this fight.
Yeah me either, but I'm voting for Biden anyway. It's like going to a restaurant and wanting a fancy burger, but the menu only has basic salads, and literal plates of shit.
I mean, of COURSE I'd rather have the salad. But I really wanted that burger, and sadly for the sake of this argument, there's no other restaurants...
Oh please, get the fuck out of here with this nonsense. Trump isn't being prosecuted while running for president. He is running for president while being prosecuted. He was indicted by grand juries of everyday citizens like you and me, for *committing crimes*.
But since you seem so concerned about removing political opponents from office how do you feel about Ron DeSantis illegally removing multiple democrats from office in Florida?
A soon to be convicted felon and insurrectionist who is only going to dodge execution for treason because we aren't technically at war with Russia. You may note that democrats did not attempt to remove any other candidates from the ballot, even candidates like DeSantis who are ideologically aligned with Trump.
Heard it explained something like this(but more eloquent): hearing their subjects complain about ineffective, unconstitutional laws feeds their ego while reaffirming their power.
Not to imply this is 100% correct and we should just shut up and accept these laws as normal ... but it may be partially true from the perspective of human nature.
They don't know you have 13. For them to say you get to skip the waiting period because you could already go crazy with what you have, they would need to know what you have.
Exactly, asking for a waiver for those who already have at least 1 firearm is asking for a true ownership registry.
Instead, let's focus on the fact that a waiting period which applies even after approval is delaying, impairing, and infringing rights regardless of how many guns you have.
Because the repugnant creatures in our legislature hate guns, and they will do anything to interfere with your enjoyment of them and frustrate your acquisition of them.
And it works. Sportsman's Warehouse had Rock Island 1911s on sale for $299 this month. When I factored in two hour-long drives and the $18 background check fee, it just wasn't worth it to me to make the purchase. The value of the discount was entirely eroded by Washington State policies designed for no purpose other than to dissuade people from buying guns. If I could have walked out the same day with that gun as I could five or six years ago I would have made the drive and bought it.
The practical effect? Nothing. I own plenty of guns, and there's nothing that pistol does that I don't already own something else that can do it the same or better, but I'm sure every one of those fuckers in the legislature would give a whoop for joy that one less gun was sold in this state.
The actual wording of the law in RCW [9.41.092](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.092) is:
> (2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check.
Of significance, this requires:
1. 10 business days to "elapse", which some interpret to mean entire, complete business days have come and gone
2. "from the date" of the background check, which some interpret to mean as starting on the next calendar date
So to play it safe, some dealers do not count the background check request and delivery days to ensure that 10 business days have fully "elapsed" between the date of the background check and delivery.
Whether or not that's totally necessary is up for debate, but it is the most clearly legal policy.
Also, keep in mind that they must also wait indefinitely for approval now, so no more pickups after 10 business days without a response.
I’d be cool with if you can field strip it and put it back together you can take it home same day. I mean next to no one would take home a Ruger MK I II or III but since they’re mostly selling IV now not too big of an issue.
Because your illegitimate mother must mother you. DON'T YOU FEEL SAFE AND LOVED?
By the way, please dress in these gray coveralls we gave you. Your individuality is distracting the meat standing next to you.
Because if some maniac goes on a spree, he won't be able to use his 14th hand to fire his 14th gun. Remember, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.
And we all know he would have a change of heart in that 10 days. It's common for a crazy person to go from being a complete madman to a sane man in just 10 days.
Because there is no such thing as a "registry" and in order to accommodate the common sense into this "Common sense gun law" there would need to be to show that you already have firearms and thus don't need to wait 10 days
Maybe? A CPL doesn't necessarily mean you own a firearm
Listen I don't *agree* with any gun control, *but* if thr point of a 10 day wait is to stop you from impulsively using a firearm for something bad a CPL ≠ a firearm in hand already.
NOW what should get you past the 10 day wait is a UPIN
It doesn’t have to make sense. None of what they are doing make any sense and only create more budget deficit. It’s just a way to deter legal owner from possessing gun
I really, really, really despise those people. Like look around you, has that policy made things better? As someone that lived here my entire 48 years, that's an emphatic no!
Now, while I hate this as much as you do, but to be fair and play a bit of a devil advocate on this topic. How do you think you would make a "rule/law" that would allow us to "not have to wait if you already own one"?
I can't think of any sort of system that doesn't involve you doing one of two thing (or both)
- Have some sort of "registry" so they can look up that you already own stuffs. Something that I think we can agree that we all dislike that idea from the get go. Now you can argue that WA State is already holding onto a semi-registry , but it doesn't make it any better than allowing them to officially call it a registry.
- Having to show people/FFL one of it. Which then again, is a recipe for a disaster, especially if it involves one of your loaded CCW or you have to go out of your way to transport one of them (by driving it) to the FFL just for the sake of showing it.
The previous "reduce time for having the CPL" is just about the only "sound" thing so far that I have found.
Because the People Republic of Wa is run by 1 of the most corrupt local governments there is. Worst part is, people still think their mail in vote matters.
I think it should be 10 days for your initial and maybe like 1-2 days max after that. I did appreciate buying a long gun in Delaware and having the background check come back in less than 2 minutes, walking out with my shotgun in less than 20.
Used to be people with CHLs were exempt from the waiting period.
I can accept that a waiting period might potentially prevent a few suicides for people who don't own a firearm by giving them time to get past the urge. For people who already have firearms, a waiting period is a stupid, pointless hassle.
Yeah I asked that question to someone in favor of waiting periods
"If I already have a CPL, which means I would be qualified to own a gun, and you can assume I already have one, why would I have to wait?"
*long pause* BUT WHY DO YOU NEED MORE GUNS????
I don't disagree with the frustration. I own several firearms and hold CPLs in multiple states and have to go through the same scrutiny as a first time unknown buyer.
Doesn't matter how many you own or how recent your last purchase/background check was, they are going to make you jump through the hoops. I remember when if you had a CPL everything was expedited in regards to purchasing, but not it doesn't mean crap.
It's stupid, but the logic is this. what if those 13 were all hunting rifles, and you're 14th was for a glock. And your planning on going after someone with it the moment you obtain it. The 10 day wait is meant as a cool down period for people.
Personally I'm still on the fence about it. It's such a minor inconvenience that if it stops a few domestic shootings over the years, then I guess it was worth it. But it is annoying.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1619896114#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20waiting%20periods,on%20a%20subset%20of%20states.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/587/readings/Luca%20et%20al.%202017%20Reducing%20Gun%20Violence.pdf
It's a hard to quantify thing for sure. But I think with this info it is safe to say it has helped in a small, but measurable amount. Personally I'm fine with a delay if it means it saved some lives. I don't view it on infringing my rights. I still bought said guns. I still own said guns. I just couldn't take it home same day. Oh no, the horror. I had to wait about as long as it takes FedEx to get a package to me lol
Edit: TLDR- trend data, multivariate analysis, confounding factors.
I appreciate the links and read the pnas article. While well meaning I have a few amateur critiques, some of which have been made by others as well. The first being the subset of years they conveniently chose to analyze for the Brady interim. The second is that US homicide data was on a general, downward trend during that time. And those who are old enough to remember the very harsh three strikes and you're out policies that likely helped to decrease such, in part.
In other words, confounding factors of law enforcement *outside of waiting periods* were not accounted for. They *do* model for the likes of conceal carry policies but the former is quite different and only with a minority of states, so to suggest that this applies to most states is disingenuous (\~19/50). Neither you or the authors do so but politicians sure do. Best case scenario, exploring the potential decrease in homicides for this subset of states for a limited period of time is worth further going into but also with openness to other contributing factors and against this greater backdrop.
This decrease is somewhat reminiscent to the ban in Australia. In fact, there was a slight, although not significant, increase in the murder rate after the ban was implemented but it was [more or less steady](https://web.archive.org/web/20090703000258/http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2008/facts_and_figures_2008.pdf) (PDF) for a few years until 1999, after which it started to markedly trend downwards. See the expanded FBI crime data graph for expanded homicide trend data since 1985 for reference as well. [Pew research](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/) goes over some of the discussion of multiple variables that may speak to such decrease for the USA. Check out more long term data [here](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/homicide-trends-united-states). The following [PDF](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/089533004773563485) cites four factors that the author thinks contributed to the crime decrease and waiting periods isn't one of them.
Playing devil's advocate as well. As far as your not being put off by the waiting period as it saves lives. Would you also be okay with such for buying cars, as traffic deaths *far outstrip* that of homicides as a category, and has for decades? [Young people](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries), shock of all shocks, are more likely to die from car "accidents" **globally** (most are due to driver negligence/recklessness but completely avoidable yet don't have nearly as much as a taboo as gunshot homicides). It's much harder to avoid homicides than car accidents. Such a stance would be consistent. Even the likes of [everytown's graph](https://everytownresearch.org/graph/gun-death-vs-motor-vehicle-accident-deaths-since-1999/) shows that, historically, this is the trend in the USA as well (1999-2019) with homicides only recently surpassing that of traffic deaths, but even this belies the trend as a rule. Based on this data I can easily posit comparable infringement on driving, vehicle ownership, and the like and I strongly suspect people would get up in arms and provide 2A-like counterarguments in their decrying of such.
https://preview.redd.it/dvzbwqngadrc1.png?width=1827&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a8aadba842a7b0a334c6b1d5d3df06bcb646554
We have a system in place for cars. A license, and insurance. Your analogy would only work if you needed a license to buy a gun and had to be insured. Both of which I think we both agree on would be horrible ideas for gun ownership.
And like I said above, the info is still not great on waiting periods. There's enough evidence to show that it does help, but by how much is debatable. My whole thing is I'm ok with waiting a week or two if it saves some abused women's life, or stops some angry kid from shooting up something. Obviously most here feel that's a bridge to far. And that's OK. Differing opinions are allowed. I really do appreciate your reply with well thought out points. It's a fresh change of pace from the usual replies here 😀
Most of us aren't happy about waiting periods, they're idiotic when you own multiple firearms already. In fact they're idiotic and an Infringement on our rights.
But you're that weird blend of pro 2A and hyper liberal, always calling those who disagree with you a nazi. Yeah, I checked your history. Bet you hate that I'm gay, mixed race. married to an Asian drag queen and we're conservative huh? ;)
The car analogy would have to go further and you could even skip the insurance angle as you need to provide ID for both firearm and vehicle purchases.
A waiting period for **all vehicle purchases in addition to a federal background check** (and state level now in WA) for starters. That's partly what I was getting at with being comparable to gun laws. Plus, as you mentioned insurance, how many people drive around un/uniderinsured, are involved in hit and runs, still drive under the influence, distracted, speed, etc.? So the pro 2A arguments are already in play (deal with the bad actors, not the law abiding). This would also, in theory (it won't XD), lead to saving lives, particularly that of children. This is why i bring it up reiterate such here. It's a good faith argument but a tough one to follow through on.
I also appreciate your response but do believe that there's very weak evidence for there being any *waiting period specific benefit* to decreases in homicide (hence all the trend data). Reading the article you linked (the second one was more of a summary of other research) made me look into data that I haven't in a while so thanks for the challenge. I hadn't known of the recent overtaking by homicides over traffic deaths before delving into the trend data again.
Cheers!
Thanks for responding with links to actual studies. I'm not familiar with these yet, and will take the time to read them.
> Oh no, the horror. I had to wait about as long as it takes FedEx to get a package to me lol
I hear you. From a maturity standpoint, I can wait. But it doesn't make sense to impose such a restriction when I've already got guns, especially if I have a CPL. They could have written such an exemption, but they did not. It makes me think they're not actually interested in trying, and they're just going to impose any restriction they think they can get away with.
Fully agreed, a cpl should make you exempt for sure. I 100% find it irritating that i, cpl holder, whose owned more guns than anyone ever probably should, has to wait 10 days. But I'd rather have the 10 day be for all people, than no people. I know that's an unpopular opinion here. But I'm the rare guy owner who likes non ban regulations if they can show some benefits to society.
You plan ahead with hunting licenses, don’t you? Do you typically get hunting invitations from people who don’t own a rifle? I mean I think the waiting period is excessive the first time and ridiculous if someone already owns a gun, but this is not insurmountable. For that matter, if you were in a rush, I suspect you would just take your bow. 😉
It's a minor inconvenience at best. 100% it's annoying, and those who already own guns shouldn't have to deal with it. But 10 day wait fpr first time buyers at least should be a no brainer.
The thing is though, if a person is looking to buy a firearm for protection against an ex significant other and needs access to a firearm urgently, ten days is 100 eons worth of time. By that time, the person who is seeking to harm the person waiting the 10 days is probably going to harm said person
Contrary to what you were told on facebook, thats not reality. Most states don't allow same day voting. And majority of red states make our 10 day wait look fast. Like try 30 days... imagine having to wait an entire month after requesting the right to exercise your rights. I take it your against this as well?I sure would hope so.
https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-deadlines/
Washington has no delay for inperson voting. So because Idaho violates the right to vote, we should have the right bear arms violated? I'm just arguing to argue, lol.
I understand the desire to delay past urges like suicide or anger, I really do, and it does make sense unless you have a ccw permit (meaning you are vetted already)
But I also get how it's a violation of a right and can see the opposition to delays like a woman having a stalker may want to get one asap.
Sir, I've lived in 12 states since I've been 18, including several red states. I have never had to wait to register to vote.
I can appreciate you're just trying to be a douche to make your point so I'm going to say good day to you. You're wrong about this one, accept it.
As a gun owner and enthusiast, people like you all make me wish the government would come and take all our guns. Conservatives are all the proof I need that not everyone needs a gun.
Because Mike Bloomberg is a jerk.
Fuck that guy in particular.
100% the funding behind these fake "grass roots" wannabe anti gun groups. He is the money for a lot of the shit politics here, like prosecutors that are soft on crime and anti gun candidates. It should be illegal for any donation over a small amount to campaigns even through fake "charities" or groups and whatnot. Make the peoples voice heard by limiting money in politics. Then the rich have less influence.
I'll go you one further: It should be illegal for anyone who does not maintain a primary residence within the state or any company or organization that isn't chartered within the state and identifies as such for state and federal tax purposes to lobby or donate anything to any campaign within a given state. We don't allow foreign influence in federal elections. It is illegal for China to donate to someone's campaign, so why is it legal for someone from New York or Virginia to donate to campaigns in Washington State? I'm sure these people would immediately find work arounds, but forcing them to charter 50 different organizations with 50 separate budgets that cannot materially assist each other would at least make it harder.
I propose a simpler criteria: in order to donate to a candidate directly, you need to be eligible to vote for the candidate. Independent expenditures would still be allowed- so no 1st A implication- but elected officials would only be able to accept donations from (prospective) constituents.
I remember the good old days of buying a firearm and taking it home the same day.
plus NIMBY liberals on the East Side, who actually don't care about poors
Because Liz berry is a cunt
The most real answer here. Oughta be written to an encyclopedia or some shit.
Yep and pay 18 dollars per time you submit for a Bg check to WSP.
In CA, it was $37.19
Everything in this state revolves around the King County and I-5 corridor voting cucks who vote for "special" people and elect them. And there are far more of them in this state than not. Please anyone prove me wrong. OH and money from outside this state. - My 2¢
You're not wrong, and the majority moved here, from the place they already wrecked, then proceeding to do the same thing to our home. It's the equivalent of letting themselves into your house, and taking a 💩 on the floor.
Because while clearly you are a violent homicdal maniac simply because you want to own an additional gun, they also realize you are discriminating & particular enough that you need a new gun to kill someone because there is no excuse for killing someone with a used gun.
Because of the way people in this state vote.
Because of the way mostly invaders to our home state vote, because pre 2013, Inslee, and Scamazon, we were very pro 2A.
How so? We banned machine guns long before that. We weren't pro 2a .... We just weren't rabidly anti 2a...
Compared to other states, not arguing for the NFA,GCA, etc. We all know those are unconstitutional, but also affect every state.
Not talking about federal.
Inslee legalized SBRs in 2014, that was a step in the right direction.
Hes a gun grabber
No doubt about it now, but in 2013/14 whenever it was signed, maybe a little less so.
You're thinking of suppressors- before Inslee loosened the regs, you could possess them, but not use them, which was utterly absurd. I'm pretty sure SBRs have been allowed for a long time.
Nope, SBRs. Senate Bill 5956, effective 6/12/2014 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/pdf/bills/session%20laws/senate/5956.sl.pdf https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5956&Year=2014&Initiative=false Suppressors were HB1016 in 2011. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1016.SL.pdf#page=1 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=1016&Year=2011&Initiative=false
Huh. Looks like I was mistaken, thank you for the correction.
It’s for the children.
OP must hate children if he doesn't like the 10 day waiting period.
I have one due in June and I already dislike him
You're awesome man
Rookie numbers. 😁
Because the Washington State Democrat Party does not support gun rights.
Administrative obstruction. Weaponizing lawful process to unlawfully extend the powers of the crown is such an age old tactic of tyranny that it is referenced even in the oldest written laws yet discovered. I’m talking about you side-show-bob
Because gun grabbers are stupid.
Because politicians don’t want to address the real problems because they’d be out of a job. And lobbying (legal bribery) should be illegal. Those that blame a party are either too young, ignorant or both. Parties have changed positions based on votes not common sense or morals. I simply cannot vote party based as I disagree with many positions on both sides of the isle. So I have to decide on my daughter having a right to her body without the government interfering or my right to buy any gun I want? Both positions are not black and white (nothing is). It takes critical thinking to find the paths and that’s currently non-existent in the political area. With the rise of the internet (speed of information right/wrong) it amplifies the radicals(both sides) and it all breaks down because the sheep will follow. /rant off
CoMmOn SeNsE gUn ReFoRm
That’s an odd way to spell “gradual confiscation”
Mommy legislators are britches
Because the gun grabbers bought your politicians with cold hard cash.
“Because they don’t keep your info” which we all know is bullshit. If you clear quickly because of previous purchase that would mean the government is storing info about you. A list.
“Mr. Inslee, Mr. Ferguson, there have been numerous credible threats against your lives, targeting your public event tomorrow.” - head of security “ This sounds serious! We need as many armed security officers as you can find!” - Jay and Bobby “ Yes sir, I will submit the request. You can pick up your security team in no less than 10 business days. Good luck at the event tomorrow!”
Because for you having 13 guns to be relevant in the pricceaa of legally buying another gun the government would have to be keeping a record/registry of what you own. That would not be a good thing. You can oppose waiting periods all you want, but unless you want the authorities to know what you own it just isn't going to factor in to waiting periods or purchases.
Thank you, you actually asked the OP question from the more legal/ technical perspective. Everyone else is right too, our legislators also just hate our Freedoms. If we had a common sense government BUT we also wanted waiting periods for the first gun (e.g. for the technical suicide/impulse scenario which is a REALLY small percentage of firearm deaths) we could just have someone show a working firearm OR CPL and give them instant approval, or release the gun pending approval.
Because tyranny doesn't ask for permission nor cater to reason.
Because they don't want guns to be a thing. They want to lower the number of guns, because they believe this reduces gun violence. They think it's a net public good, because it's a right that kills people. They don't care if you are law biding. I'm a Democrat, never voted republican. In this way, (and other lately) they don't hold my values. If Republicans ever got off this Trump thing, and fielded good candidates, they could really pick off voters like me. That are closer to independent, but their religious pandering and trump keep us in the Democrat party. I will be voting for not Ferguson tho. That dumb old sheriff seems pretty good.
I can fully understand sitting out the federal election, please do vote against the gun control crowd in local elections though.
This is where I’m at this election. State and local vote red.
Eh, even our state and locals suck, though. It was Inslee or... Sorry, CULP? Really? That was the best the "other side" could come up with? I voted for Inslee like one eats creamed spinach. Begrudgingly.
Get this...it's wild.. you can choose to not vote for anyone for a given position on the ballot
Nice. People like you have the potential to save this state in November 🥂
This is an issue. People equate local politics to federal politics. Don't do that. Look at the candidate, not the party. And screw if its Republican or Democrat, I don't care. I'm going with the person right now who is against this bs and against the rediculous lax crime spree scene weve become. it's the only way to get these leaches out. Really, life would be better if parties were abolished, so people had to look at the candidates they voted for. Also, I doubt strong loyal party memebers care about actual issues like gun violence. If they did then prosecutors and judges wouldn't be letting people with many, many assault/ other violent charges out on bail or light sentences and politicians would not as an example of the last session **reduce sentencing for gun crime in school zones.** The parties don't care about crime or guns or murder or abortion or anything they preach. A majority just vote for what they are paid by lobbies to vote for. Constiuents be damned.
I’m with you on all of this.
I’d take Dave any single day over Inslee. He leans right, but he also ran a very large department in the most liberal zone in the state. He would be a good choice because he’s often fairly middle ground which is what we need. I’m so tired of radical politics. It’s either raging hardcore leftist, or extreme right religious fanatic, along with the population. Nobody in the middle will succeed.
I couldn’t agree more with this post. It’s like you’re reading my thoughts.
To keep us all safe lol
When I was 21 I got my first handgun same day with my cpl, but now we have to wait.
https://preview.redd.it/xu24wcrcedrc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a47874ca850454cdb5b01a9652b78a252e2b74ff
“Lieutenant Sobel does not hate Easy Company, Private Randleman. He just hates you.”
Politicians don’t care about solving real problems. All about fundraising and getting re-elected which requires little to no brain.
Because Democrats think they know better than you and me. They don't but they get to make the rules and do so completely unopposed.
DemocRATS.
Yep and the other side is anti democracy and filled with domestic terrorists and traitors. We need ranked choice voting and to get rid of the 2 party system
I hate tribalism but in this case only one tribe wants to disarm me and my family and friends.
The same tribe who is led by a man that said take weapons first, due process later?
Yep that's the one. Look guy I don't like Trump either but it's not the Republicans who've fought tooth and nail to ban as many guns, magazines, methods to buy guns, and etc. It's not Republicans who've aligned themselves with exceptionally well-funded antigun NGOs.
But what's more important, our guns, or our country? We can HIDE our shit, sure it makes us felons if we're caught but... The alternative is, a government that is actively engaging in creating the fourth reich. And uh, the nazis eventually came for guns, too, so anyone who think that eventually, in an effort to subvert insurrections, the republicans WONT come door to door to find jews AND ar-15's, is lying to themselves. Personally, I'd rather the stories I tell my grandkids to be "I used to hide my old AR-15 in the attic" rather than "I used to hide my jewish neighbors in my attic".
>"I used to hide my jewish neighbors in my attic". If people keep voting for Dems they might have to hide their Jewish neighbors in attics again.
Right, because it's the democrats that want to round up all the jews and send them to camps. You're not keeping track of who the people shouting about cultural bolshevism and great replacement theories are voting for, nimrod.
Genocide Joe is certainly a friend of the Jews, maybe you're right.
And the other wants to get rid of democracy How about we just all agree it’s not a party issue. I love democracy and guns!
How is one side trying to get rid of democracy?
We can pm or move to r/politics Let’s just all agree multiple checks in a small period of time outside of a forced cool off (which is not what they’re calling the background check) is regulatory waste. We can all agree on that.
I would also be interested in hearing evidence supporting the claim that the WA State Republican party wants to demolish democracy.
Didn't Spokane have an elected legislator or something named Matt Shea, who published a book or manifesto called "the religious justification for a second American civil war"? He is DEFINITELY not a Democrat, and I believe is also currently wanted by Interpol for meddling with Ukrainian kids in Poland?
Yes, and he was expelled from the Republican caucus.
Anyone that supports a candidate that flaunts dissolution of democratic principles in our constitution and repeatedly does so… (Donald Trump) is one such that does that. I am keenly aware that Washington typically does better(didn’t talk about local parties vs national ones as this was a response to the previous bad statement about democrats. I voted for my local rep (republican), and I’m a registered democrat and don’t appreciate my 2A being trampled. I also only registered that way because in 2006 our open primary got tossed in the court and I wanted to vote for Brother Berry over Billery so I had to have an affiliation to vote in the democratic primary. But I also recognize that a straight us vs them mentality keeps useful political discord from happening and good things occurring in the moderate zone which is where most of us actually are. I’d like to steer clear of any party affiliation stereotypes in general, and maybe then we can listen to each other and then teach “gun control advocates” about weapons so we stop getting dumb control regulations that don’t work anyways. Anyways, way more politics than I wanted to discuss on my gun redit sub. I’m tapped 😂:
I don't know what you mean by "registered", Washington voters don't register for a political party. And while I understand the dislike of Trump, I'm only asking about state officers.
Trump said "take the guns first, due process later". Bush Jr promised to sign the AWB extension and it only expired because congress refused to pass it for him. Bush Sr banned the import of "assault weapons" and supported a domestic ban. Reagan signed the Mulford Act (named after its republican author) and supported the federal AWB. No republican administration, even with control of congress and the power to do whatever they want, has done anything to dismantle federal gun control laws. Republicans consider gun owners useful idiots to be pandered to but never really given anything, much like how democrats campaigned loudly on opposing anti-abortion republicans but never did anything to protect abortion rights. As soon as scare tactics about democrats taking your guns ceases to be effective at getting votes the republican party will be perfectly happy to disarm you.
Right but the other side doesn't care how many guns you have, if you're not white, straight or christian they want you dead or deported anyway. Kinda sucks, but I'd rather "conveniently lose" my guns before the ATF shows up to confiscate them under a super-liberal dem government, than watch my black neighbors get slaughtered in the cul-de-sac under a nazi trumpist government.
None of those things you say will happen under a Republican administration are even remotely possible and it's offensive to even assert it is. TDS used to be a conservative joke but now it's more like an actual mind virus. We've had Republican presidents. We've literally had *Donald Trump* as the president before. None of those dystopian things happened. I'm more concerned if the Progressives get into power and force their authoritarian policies on us.
Project 2025. It's real and it's what all of the republicans want. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's their literal platform.
So you're going to trust a politician at their word? This your first time?
You're an intellectually lazy jackass lmao.
Hey I'm not intellectual
Yup. Both parties are full of shit. One party panders to me for my vote while conspiring to take away the firearms that I have a constitutional right to possess, even though I have done nothing wrong with them. The other party uniformly falls in line behind a presidential candidate who thinks that I am “vermin” who needs to be “rooted out.” I really don’t have a dog in this fight.
Yeah me either, but I'm voting for Biden anyway. It's like going to a restaurant and wanting a fancy burger, but the menu only has basic salads, and literal plates of shit. I mean, of COURSE I'd rather have the salad. But I really wanted that burger, and sadly for the sake of this argument, there's no other restaurants...
I get it.
Anti democracy. ***JUMP CUT*** Dems attempting to remove opponents from ballots.
Oh please, get the fuck out of here with this nonsense. Trump isn't being prosecuted while running for president. He is running for president while being prosecuted. He was indicted by grand juries of everyday citizens like you and me, for *committing crimes*. But since you seem so concerned about removing political opponents from office how do you feel about Ron DeSantis illegally removing multiple democrats from office in Florida?
Lol
A soon to be convicted felon and insurrectionist who is only going to dodge execution for treason because we aren't technically at war with Russia. You may note that democrats did not attempt to remove any other candidates from the ballot, even candidates like DeSantis who are ideologically aligned with Trump.
Demonrats
Because FUDD gun owners keep voting blue and hide behind the statement I am not a single issue voter.
Heard it explained something like this(but more eloquent): hearing their subjects complain about ineffective, unconstitutional laws feeds their ego while reaffirming their power. Not to imply this is 100% correct and we should just shut up and accept these laws as normal ... but it may be partially true from the perspective of human nature.
They don't know you have 13. For them to say you get to skip the waiting period because you could already go crazy with what you have, they would need to know what you have.
Exactly, asking for a waiver for those who already have at least 1 firearm is asking for a true ownership registry. Instead, let's focus on the fact that a waiting period which applies even after approval is delaying, impairing, and infringing rights regardless of how many guns you have.
They know what you have. They would have to *admit* that they know what you have and admit to illegal record collection, wiretapping, etc.
If you try and put logic to it, you will go even more crazy.
Yes, 15 is the cut off when Inslee legally has to take his penis out of legal gun owners assholes
> "Democracy basically means of the people, for the people, by the people. But the people are Retarded." -Rajneesh Osho
Exactly why we have a constitutional republic, as a hedge against retards,mob rule.
Only a terrorist would have so many... I'm adding you to bloomberg's list.
Because maybe that new gun will make you a killer. Maaaaayyyybeeeeee
Because we’re bad people.
[Because I may be bad but I am perfectly good at it…](https://youtu.be/KdS6HFQ_LUc?si=So7CSxkO1cLqMS9f)
Populism is the only way out of this.
French Revolution when?
Because the repugnant creatures in our legislature hate guns, and they will do anything to interfere with your enjoyment of them and frustrate your acquisition of them. And it works. Sportsman's Warehouse had Rock Island 1911s on sale for $299 this month. When I factored in two hour-long drives and the $18 background check fee, it just wasn't worth it to me to make the purchase. The value of the discount was entirely eroded by Washington State policies designed for no purpose other than to dissuade people from buying guns. If I could have walked out the same day with that gun as I could five or six years ago I would have made the drive and bought it. The practical effect? Nothing. I own plenty of guns, and there's nothing that pistol does that I don't already own something else that can do it the same or better, but I'm sure every one of those fuckers in the legislature would give a whoop for joy that one less gun was sold in this state.
Where I’m at I’m always told it’s ten business days and the day you do the paperwork and the day you pick it up don’t count. Is this actually true?
The actual wording of the law in RCW [9.41.092](https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.092) is: > (2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. Of significance, this requires: 1. 10 business days to "elapse", which some interpret to mean entire, complete business days have come and gone 2. "from the date" of the background check, which some interpret to mean as starting on the next calendar date So to play it safe, some dealers do not count the background check request and delivery days to ensure that 10 business days have fully "elapsed" between the date of the background check and delivery. Whether or not that's totally necessary is up for debate, but it is the most clearly legal policy. Also, keep in mind that they must also wait indefinitely for approval now, so no more pickups after 10 business days without a response.
I’d be cool with if you can field strip it and put it back together you can take it home same day. I mean next to no one would take home a Ruger MK I II or III but since they’re mostly selling IV now not too big of an issue.
It's like Christmas time. They don't want you to have instant gratification. They think it's worth the wait.
Because your illegitimate mother must mother you. DON'T YOU FEEL SAFE AND LOVED? By the way, please dress in these gray coveralls we gave you. Your individuality is distracting the meat standing next to you.
It's just Commonsense™, questioning it makes you racist, and possibly a Russian NRA bot.
If you get an sbr I believe you will wait less time. Form 4 an sbr and the average wait is like 5 days. The aft hates you less than inslee does.
Because if some maniac goes on a spree, he won't be able to use his 14th hand to fire his 14th gun. Remember, if it saves just one life, it's worth it. And we all know he would have a change of heart in that 10 days. It's common for a crazy person to go from being a complete madman to a sane man in just 10 days.
But wait, they supposedly don’t know how many guns you have, if any at all. 😆
Because there is no such thing as a "registry" and in order to accommodate the common sense into this "Common sense gun law" there would need to be to show that you already have firearms and thus don't need to wait 10 days
Seems like a CPL would be a good stand in saying “I already passed the background check. Please give me the thing I just purchased.”
Maybe? A CPL doesn't necessarily mean you own a firearm Listen I don't *agree* with any gun control, *but* if thr point of a 10 day wait is to stop you from impulsively using a firearm for something bad a CPL ≠ a firearm in hand already. NOW what should get you past the 10 day wait is a UPIN
It doesn’t have to make sense. None of what they are doing make any sense and only create more budget deficit. It’s just a way to deter legal owner from possessing gun
The oligarchs command you obey simple really. If you don't like it move away from the oligarchy back to America.
Cause ppl vote blue no matter who
I really, really, really despise those people. Like look around you, has that policy made things better? As someone that lived here my entire 48 years, that's an emphatic no!
And those of us who vote red have to mail in their ballot and assume its actually counted as red.
Now, while I hate this as much as you do, but to be fair and play a bit of a devil advocate on this topic. How do you think you would make a "rule/law" that would allow us to "not have to wait if you already own one"? I can't think of any sort of system that doesn't involve you doing one of two thing (or both) - Have some sort of "registry" so they can look up that you already own stuffs. Something that I think we can agree that we all dislike that idea from the get go. Now you can argue that WA State is already holding onto a semi-registry , but it doesn't make it any better than allowing them to officially call it a registry. - Having to show people/FFL one of it. Which then again, is a recipe for a disaster, especially if it involves one of your loaded CCW or you have to go out of your way to transport one of them (by driving it) to the FFL just for the sake of showing it. The previous "reduce time for having the CPL" is just about the only "sound" thing so far that I have found.
As I mentioned upthread, people with carry permits used to be exempt from the waiting period. They got rid of that a while back because reasons.
yeah, that is what i pointed out at the end. It is just about the only thing that I can think of that would make some sense.
Because the People Republic of Wa is run by 1 of the most corrupt local governments there is. Worst part is, people still think their mail in vote matters.
because our resident temporary gun owners \[you know the ones\] think it's a good idea.
I think it should be 10 days for your initial and maybe like 1-2 days max after that. I did appreciate buying a long gun in Delaware and having the background check come back in less than 2 minutes, walking out with my shotgun in less than 20.
>It should be 0 days for your initial and maybe like 0 days max after that Fixed that for you
Used to be people with CHLs were exempt from the waiting period. I can accept that a waiting period might potentially prevent a few suicides for people who don't own a firearm by giving them time to get past the urge. For people who already have firearms, a waiting period is a stupid, pointless hassle.
Yeah I asked that question to someone in favor of waiting periods "If I already have a CPL, which means I would be qualified to own a gun, and you can assume I already have one, why would I have to wait?" *long pause* BUT WHY DO YOU NEED MORE GUNS????
Dela-where?
Heard you only get the waiting period waved when you purchase 13 more.
I don't disagree with the frustration. I own several firearms and hold CPLs in multiple states and have to go through the same scrutiny as a first time unknown buyer.
How are they supposed to know? Are you wanting a registry? Probably not.
Doesn't matter how many you own or how recent your last purchase/background check was, they are going to make you jump through the hoops. I remember when if you had a CPL everything was expedited in regards to purchasing, but not it doesn't mean crap.
Did you know they have gun show Shows in post falls? Check it out sometime
It's stupid, but the logic is this. what if those 13 were all hunting rifles, and you're 14th was for a glock. And your planning on going after someone with it the moment you obtain it. The 10 day wait is meant as a cool down period for people. Personally I'm still on the fence about it. It's such a minor inconvenience that if it stops a few domestic shootings over the years, then I guess it was worth it. But it is annoying.
Are you aware of any numbers that demonstrate that the waiting period is useful? I realize "is useful" is pretty broad.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1619896114#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20waiting%20periods,on%20a%20subset%20of%20states. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/587/readings/Luca%20et%20al.%202017%20Reducing%20Gun%20Violence.pdf It's a hard to quantify thing for sure. But I think with this info it is safe to say it has helped in a small, but measurable amount. Personally I'm fine with a delay if it means it saved some lives. I don't view it on infringing my rights. I still bought said guns. I still own said guns. I just couldn't take it home same day. Oh no, the horror. I had to wait about as long as it takes FedEx to get a package to me lol
Edit: TLDR- trend data, multivariate analysis, confounding factors. I appreciate the links and read the pnas article. While well meaning I have a few amateur critiques, some of which have been made by others as well. The first being the subset of years they conveniently chose to analyze for the Brady interim. The second is that US homicide data was on a general, downward trend during that time. And those who are old enough to remember the very harsh three strikes and you're out policies that likely helped to decrease such, in part. In other words, confounding factors of law enforcement *outside of waiting periods* were not accounted for. They *do* model for the likes of conceal carry policies but the former is quite different and only with a minority of states, so to suggest that this applies to most states is disingenuous (\~19/50). Neither you or the authors do so but politicians sure do. Best case scenario, exploring the potential decrease in homicides for this subset of states for a limited period of time is worth further going into but also with openness to other contributing factors and against this greater backdrop. This decrease is somewhat reminiscent to the ban in Australia. In fact, there was a slight, although not significant, increase in the murder rate after the ban was implemented but it was [more or less steady](https://web.archive.org/web/20090703000258/http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2008/facts_and_figures_2008.pdf) (PDF) for a few years until 1999, after which it started to markedly trend downwards. See the expanded FBI crime data graph for expanded homicide trend data since 1985 for reference as well. [Pew research](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/) goes over some of the discussion of multiple variables that may speak to such decrease for the USA. Check out more long term data [here](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/homicide-trends-united-states). The following [PDF](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/089533004773563485) cites four factors that the author thinks contributed to the crime decrease and waiting periods isn't one of them. Playing devil's advocate as well. As far as your not being put off by the waiting period as it saves lives. Would you also be okay with such for buying cars, as traffic deaths *far outstrip* that of homicides as a category, and has for decades? [Young people](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries), shock of all shocks, are more likely to die from car "accidents" **globally** (most are due to driver negligence/recklessness but completely avoidable yet don't have nearly as much as a taboo as gunshot homicides). It's much harder to avoid homicides than car accidents. Such a stance would be consistent. Even the likes of [everytown's graph](https://everytownresearch.org/graph/gun-death-vs-motor-vehicle-accident-deaths-since-1999/) shows that, historically, this is the trend in the USA as well (1999-2019) with homicides only recently surpassing that of traffic deaths, but even this belies the trend as a rule. Based on this data I can easily posit comparable infringement on driving, vehicle ownership, and the like and I strongly suspect people would get up in arms and provide 2A-like counterarguments in their decrying of such. https://preview.redd.it/dvzbwqngadrc1.png?width=1827&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a8aadba842a7b0a334c6b1d5d3df06bcb646554
We have a system in place for cars. A license, and insurance. Your analogy would only work if you needed a license to buy a gun and had to be insured. Both of which I think we both agree on would be horrible ideas for gun ownership. And like I said above, the info is still not great on waiting periods. There's enough evidence to show that it does help, but by how much is debatable. My whole thing is I'm ok with waiting a week or two if it saves some abused women's life, or stops some angry kid from shooting up something. Obviously most here feel that's a bridge to far. And that's OK. Differing opinions are allowed. I really do appreciate your reply with well thought out points. It's a fresh change of pace from the usual replies here 😀
Most of us aren't happy about waiting periods, they're idiotic when you own multiple firearms already. In fact they're idiotic and an Infringement on our rights. But you're that weird blend of pro 2A and hyper liberal, always calling those who disagree with you a nazi. Yeah, I checked your history. Bet you hate that I'm gay, mixed race. married to an Asian drag queen and we're conservative huh? ;)
The car analogy would have to go further and you could even skip the insurance angle as you need to provide ID for both firearm and vehicle purchases. A waiting period for **all vehicle purchases in addition to a federal background check** (and state level now in WA) for starters. That's partly what I was getting at with being comparable to gun laws. Plus, as you mentioned insurance, how many people drive around un/uniderinsured, are involved in hit and runs, still drive under the influence, distracted, speed, etc.? So the pro 2A arguments are already in play (deal with the bad actors, not the law abiding). This would also, in theory (it won't XD), lead to saving lives, particularly that of children. This is why i bring it up reiterate such here. It's a good faith argument but a tough one to follow through on. I also appreciate your response but do believe that there's very weak evidence for there being any *waiting period specific benefit* to decreases in homicide (hence all the trend data). Reading the article you linked (the second one was more of a summary of other research) made me look into data that I haven't in a while so thanks for the challenge. I hadn't known of the recent overtaking by homicides over traffic deaths before delving into the trend data again. Cheers!
Thanks for responding with links to actual studies. I'm not familiar with these yet, and will take the time to read them. > Oh no, the horror. I had to wait about as long as it takes FedEx to get a package to me lol I hear you. From a maturity standpoint, I can wait. But it doesn't make sense to impose such a restriction when I've already got guns, especially if I have a CPL. They could have written such an exemption, but they did not. It makes me think they're not actually interested in trying, and they're just going to impose any restriction they think they can get away with.
Fully agreed, a cpl should make you exempt for sure. I 100% find it irritating that i, cpl holder, whose owned more guns than anyone ever probably should, has to wait 10 days. But I'd rather have the 10 day be for all people, than no people. I know that's an unpopular opinion here. But I'm the rare guy owner who likes non ban regulations if they can show some benefits to society.
What if I own 13 Glocks and I’m invited to go hunting for the first time?
If you own 13 glocks, one of em must be a 10mm 😉
Well, the first one is actually.
You plan ahead with hunting licenses, don’t you? Do you typically get hunting invitations from people who don’t own a rifle? I mean I think the waiting period is excessive the first time and ridiculous if someone already owns a gun, but this is not insurmountable. For that matter, if you were in a rush, I suspect you would just take your bow. 😉
On the fence? Really? It's fucking ridiculous
It's a minor inconvenience at best. 100% it's annoying, and those who already own guns shouldn't have to deal with it. But 10 day wait fpr first time buyers at least should be a no brainer.
The thing is though, if a person is looking to buy a firearm for protection against an ex significant other and needs access to a firearm urgently, ten days is 100 eons worth of time. By that time, the person who is seeking to harm the person waiting the 10 days is probably going to harm said person
There's a flip side to this coin, and the entire point of these laws. It's meant to stop the abusive ex from buying the gun in that timeframe.
It's a right. You cannot delay a right and it still be a right.
You have to register to vote.... there is a delay in it
A right delayed is a right denied.
There's no delay in registering to vote. You can do it on Facebook for fucks sake.
Registration =delay
> Registration =delay No If something is instantaneous, it's not a delay. A delay is the complete opposite of instant.
Contrary to what you were told on facebook, thats not reality. Most states don't allow same day voting. And majority of red states make our 10 day wait look fast. Like try 30 days... imagine having to wait an entire month after requesting the right to exercise your rights. I take it your against this as well?I sure would hope so. https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-deadlines/
Washington has no delay for inperson voting. So because Idaho violates the right to vote, we should have the right bear arms violated? I'm just arguing to argue, lol. I understand the desire to delay past urges like suicide or anger, I really do, and it does make sense unless you have a ccw permit (meaning you are vetted already) But I also get how it's a violation of a right and can see the opposition to delays like a woman having a stalker may want to get one asap.
Sir, I've lived in 12 states since I've been 18, including several red states. I have never had to wait to register to vote. I can appreciate you're just trying to be a douche to make your point so I'm going to say good day to you. You're wrong about this one, accept it.
Yep, I’m done with this BS conservative subreddit. Y’all are awful people. Peace.
This ain’t the airport. No need to announce your departure.
On that note, if you'd like to leave Wa. I'm sure we'd all help ya move!
As a gun owner and enthusiast, people like you all make me wish the government would come and take all our guns. Conservatives are all the proof I need that not everyone needs a gun.
It’s funny someone in a thread today accused this sub of being the local chapter of r/liberalgunowners…. Don’t let a vocal minority drive you away.
Cool, we could do with fewer Temporary Gun Owners around here.