It’s written in a way that puts a chilling effect on gun ownership, but quite frankly, it’s unenforceable. There’s a giant loophole in this law. If they go to Oregon or Idaho, they can bring [a rifle] back. It’s totally legal. They just can’t buy it in Washington state.
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
November 7, 2018
Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639
[There are other loopholes as well. I was at a gun store recently and suggested a loophole they might use. The clerk behind the counter said, paraphrasing, “That should work. But most of the time I expect we will just do it like….” and he explained a simpler approach. I had considered his suggestion weeks ago but figured it was clearly violating the spirit of the law even though it was complying with the letter of the law and that might be too risky. But, he didn’t seem bothered by it so I’m not going to worry about it. I make so many trips to Idaho I will just buy my guns there and not subject myself to the risk.
I’m a bit torn between keeping loopholes like this quiet and openly mocking the ignorance and stupidity of the people that write these laws. On the one hand we get more time to get more guns into the hands of more people. On the other we embarrass the anti-gun activists and cause them to lose face and status in the eyes of those who donate millions of dollars.—Joe]
Complaining about a loophole in your shiny new law is really complaining that other people have much better reading comprehension than you do.
I was happy to read about loopholes in California’s assault weapons law, and I’m happy to read that they also exist in Washington’s shiny new law.
And since when do Leftists care about the spirit of the law if they can hew closely to the letter and say, proudly, “What I did wasn’t illegal.”
I swear, I learn more about Procedure in the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and Senate and House rules watching Leftists use those laws to their advantage.
So the only thing this law accomplished was to turn semi-auto rifles into Indian reservation cigarettes?
In the most generous reading of it, yes. Reading it literally means it slows down the sale at your local gun store by about 30 seconds.
Gun control people, again, demonstrate their ignorance.
Im guessing an additional backdoor out of that law is also to purchase a receiver since those are transferred as neither rifle or pistol, or DIY a receiver. Im told that’s what they’re doing in Florida.
While I’m not sure of the status of receivers in Washington, you couldn’t just go to Idaho instead – receivers fall under the ‘other’ category on the 4473 and must be bought in your state of residence.
I had once thought that, but then I found out the idea wouldn’t work.
There’s a concept in federal law about state criminal laws not directly applying on federal lands (including Indian reservations) within the bounds of the surrounding state. BUT, if you do something that would be against the state criminal code if the land wasn’t federally controlled, you would be charged under the federal law for doing the naughty things and sentenced to a period in federal prison just coincidentally equal to the sentencing standard for the state.
That a law doesn’t work or produces an effect opposite to that which was intended is never an embarrassment to the writers. It provides an even worse bogeyman for them to write another law against, even more oppressive to “close the bogeyman loophole” and expand the reach of the original to places that in the original law would have been rejected as over reaching.
Bad law begets even worse law.
It also further inflames those who were wrongly targeted by the law. This makes them even more inclined to disobey the law and find ways to stymy their antagonists.
It’s all about making criminals, then.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand
Too a lefty gun grabber a ‘loophole’ is just a convenient excuse to bleat loudly for MORE gun control laws.
But what of the people who sponsor them? Will they tire of donating money to a cause that never accomplishes the claimed goal?
Speaking rhetorically here, or satirically?
They will always have money to throw at useless causes, because the solution is (as Kevin Baker put it), ‘Do it again, only HARDER!’.
Well… they certainly are always willing to throw other peoples money at useless causes. I’m not convinced they are willing to throw their own money away.
If the goal is total disarmament of law abiding people then I believe they will continue to gleefully hurl their money at that malevolent cause.
Well, it seems pretty clear that is the goal. But I suspect that if the courts quickly throw out the entire I-1639 bill of goods the donors will have harsh words with the activists and demand they do better next time. And if this happens repeatedly with no progress made they will turn off the spigot.
I’m a bit confused. I thought you could only buy firearms from an FFL within your residence state.
Not true for long guns.
As I am a frequent visitor to WA, I would appreciate some hard information about exactly what is in this abomination and how it will be enforced. Thanks in advance, Joe.
Are short-barreled rifles considered rifles or pistols for that ban?
“On the other we embarrass the anti-gun activists and cause them to lose face and status in the eyes of those who donate millions of dollars.—Joe”
Apply this theory to true-believing Christians (as only one possible example). They have expressed their will to achieve the “correct” solution to perceived “sin” via the weekly donation plate. Those who openly mock and subvert the expression of their will by blatantly working to circumvent their pious commandments threaten the communal bliss they intend via their Great Plan. Do you honestly believe they won’t double down on the next passing of the plate?
There’s a clandestine pipeline to liberty to build here. Shut up and shovel, Joe.
I wonder about how a state’s laws affect it’s residents out of state: specifically, I have been in stores in PA and WV that won’t sell long guns to Maryland residents that they couldn’t buy in Maryland. I don’t know if they are being careful, or if there is a legal reason for it.
Many times it isn’t buying the rifle in the state that is the problem, it is the possession of the rifle that is prohibited.