Contribute to the fight against I-1639:
Please use the form and map below to report and locate firearms retailers, ranges, clubs, or other shops that have SOS | NO on I-1639 handouts, and also the NRA NO on I-1639 handouts and or campaign materials.
Also, please indicate if the store is out or refuses to post or make materials available.
A downloadable and printable copy of the SOS | NO on I-1639 information handout is available at this link.
You don’t know what I-1639 is about? Here is the text.
Of particular interest is this definition:
25) “Semiautomatic assault rifle” means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
Hence, all semiautomatic rifles are “semiautomatic assault rifles”. Ruger Mini-30s, Ruger 10-22s, and even Remington Model 750 with four round magazines:
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one is after your hunting rifles.
And the cute rifle you might get as your daughter’s first gun will be included:
If I-1639 passes your daughter won’t be allowed to possess it until she turns 21, and then she will have to take “a recognized firearm safety training program”. The gun must be register to her. And:
The chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either, shall check with the national crime information center, including the national instant criminal background check system, provided for by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 et seq.), the Washington state patrol electronic database, the health care authority electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
Yes, law enforcement gets to look at your daughter’s medical records to see if she is unfit to possess an “semiautomatic assault rifle”, also known as a Ruger 10-22 or Remington Model 597.
Just say NO!
I-1639 is a terrible bill designed to discourage gun ownership by adding multiple new liabilities for the gun owner.
For example, even if you ‘lock’ up your guns and a ‘prohibited’ person still gets access then the burden of proof is on you to prove that your guns were securely stored. Just having gun locks or a gun safe may not be sufficient. This requirement reminds me of my days working in a classified environment where it was not uncommon for a coworker to be sanctioned for forgetting to lock up classified documents when they stepped away from their desk. It was a fairly easy thing to forget, and there were no excuses, so most of us hung a sign in our office doorway to remind us. Only under I-1639, you could face jail time for not having proof that your guns were securely stored. The burden is on you since I-1639 does deliberately not define what securely stored means. You’re guilty until you prove your innocence.
As Joe said, say no to I-1639. Unfortunately, my gut feeling is that I-1639 will pass.
“The burden is on you since I-1639 does deliberately not define what securely stored means. You’re guilty until you prove your innocence.”
And Good Luck on lay people understanding the flaw in that reasoning. Even my family won’t defer to me on questions of Economics and the Law — and they’re Architects and Geologists, so they have a lock on design and real estate. Woe to me if I insist on something different.
I’d argue that you can’t be guilty of something that isn’t described. Right?
Thank you for pointing out the health care records thing, I missed that.
Strangely the local news outlets seem pretty quiet about this one, compared to the “universal” background checks initiative a few years back.