Washington State turning into new Killafornia

[1911_username]

The passage of I-594 in Washington State  What a big blow to Gun Owners! Looks like they are turning into that other country Killafornia. 

[ArizonaGunOwners.com]

[Kronos]

I think this belongs in the "Politics and Current Events" section.

Gun-safety control advocates deliver post-I 594 message: "We’re not done"

How reassuring.

[armoredman]

It has been said that Arizona is one of the states they are looking at trying this same tactic. On Facebook one AZ gun group rolled over and said we are too small to fight this fight. I don't think so, and we need to be ready. It will be a New York steamroller when it gets here, but we will derail the bastards.

[AIM9X]

I think that a measure like the one in WA would be successful in Arizona, unfortunately.  We might consider trying to pre-empt such a thing by setting up something like the BIDS system and providing private access to it.  (http://bidssytem.blogspot.com/)

You download an encrypted database that only includes the names of prohibited possessors culled from the NICS database.  You run a query of your transferee against the system, and all you get back is a "go/no-go" result.  No possible way for registration information to be generated; the government never has any indication of the transfer. 

[steve2md]

IMO, that shouldn't be necessary. If I want to teach my kids to shoot with only 1 rifle (my kids already shoot, but this is a hypothetical) I shouldn't have to do anything as a legal gunowner other than hand them the rifle and let them shoot it. There is no credible reason for me to have to either do a transfer for each of them, or a background check. Same goes with anyone who I happen to be shooting with. If they want to shoot my gun...have at it! I forsee more folks in WA shooting on forest land and less of them shooting at ranges because of this ridiculous law. 

[AIM9X]

IMO, that shouldn't be necessary. If I want to teach my kids to shoot with only 1 rifle (my kids already shoot, but this is a hypothetical) I shouldn't have to do anything as a legal gunowner other than hand them the rifle and let them shoot it. There is no credible reason for me to have to either do a transfer for each of them, or a background check. Same goes with anyone who I happen to be shooting with. If they want to shoot my gun...have at it! I forsee more folks in WA shooting on forest land and less of them shooting at ranges because of this ridiculous law.

I am more generally suggesting that, if some sort of "universal background check" law is an inevitability (and I believe it is), we should get out ahead of it and make sure it is written to our specifications.  BIDS instead of a NICS check is one idea.  Another, as you point out, would be to exempt loans and intra-familiy transfers, which the Washington statute doesn't do clearly enough.

[Kronos]

Here's a breakdown of what I-594 entails, for anyone trying to catch up with the matter.

[JesseL]

I am more generally suggesting that, if some sort of "universal background check" law is an inevitability (and I believe it is), we should get out ahead of it and make sure it is written to our specifications.  BIDS instead of a NICS check is one idea.  Another, as you point out, would be to exempt loans and intra-familiy transfers, which the Washington statute doesn't do clearly enough.

Arizona is pretty rabid about gun rights compared to Washington (or almost anywhere). Look at all the pro-gun laws we've adopted in the last few years - Constitutional Carry, Made-here-stays-here, universal reciprocity, etc.

I'm pretty far from convinced that universal background checks are an inevitability here, so I'd really prefer to hold off on trying to "get ahead of it".

[Thernlund]

I am more generally suggesting that, if some sort of "universal background check" law is an inevitability (and I believe it is), we should get out ahead of it and make sure it is written to our specifications.  BIDS instead of a NICS check is one idea.  Another, as you point out, would be to exempt loans and intra-familiy transfers, which the Washington statute doesn't do clearly enough.

BIDS would have to be implemented federally.  There's nothing happening on that level right now.  All these new laws are being passed at the state level.

BIDS addresses only one concern with background checks; registration.  It ignores the all other problems with the background check system and even introduces a few of its own.

BIDS is ok I guess, but if we're going to effectively replace the NICS system, it ought to be much more comprehensive than BIDS.  For all that money and hassle, for which there will be boatloads of both, I want to see more problems addressed and solved.


-T.

[steve2md]

I am more generally suggesting that, if some sort of "universal background check" law is an inevitability (and I believe it is), we should get out ahead of it and make sure it is written to our specifications.

I guess I'm not ready to roll over and play dead just yet. I see no reason for us to even consider a compromise on any gun control measure in AZ, given the political climate here. On top of that, ALL compromises on gun control matters are "the death of 1000 cuts", as the antis never concede anything, but cry when we won't "compromise" (aka Give something up)

[Thernlund]

There are some things I'd be willing to compromise on.  For example, I'd consider laying down for universal background checks in exchange for a full repeal of NFA laws.

I'd also consider allowing (short) waiting periods in exchange for a repeal of the 922(o) (ie. opening the registry).


-T.

[Kronos]

Look at all the pro-gun laws we've adopted in the last few years - Constitutional Carry, Made-here-stays-here, universal reciprocity, etc.

Forgive my ignorance, but... what's the "made-here-stays-here" law?

[Thernlund]

NFA laws are based on the idea of the federal gov't regulating interstate commerce (Commerce Clause).  The countering theory says that if that's the case, then if an NFA item is made here and does not cross state lines it is not subject to NFA laws. 

So, several states have passed laws to this effect, stating that if an item is "made here and stays here", then it is legal to own, sans federal involvement.


That hasn't been tested in court though, and I've never met anyone willing to be a test case.  Right now it just serves as a f*** you to the feds.


-T.

[freeman1685]

With the passage of Prop 122 (State Sovereignty), in conjunction with "Made Here, Stays Here," I might be willing to give it a go.

The only caveat being, someone's got to put up the cash for the legal battle...  And the Gun, of course.  Any takers? 

There is one problem though, Made here, Stays here, doesn't include select fire/full auto weapons:

13-3114. Arizona manufactured firearms; regulation; definitions
A. Beginning October 1, 2010, a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains within the borders of this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and is not considered to have traveled in interstate commerce.
B. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured in this state from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state.
C. The importation into this state of a firearm accessory, any generic or insignificant part that has other manufacturing or consumer product applications or any basic materials, including unmachined steel and unshaped wood that is incorporated into, attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in this state, does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition to federal regulation.
D. This section does not apply to:
1. A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person.
2. A firearm that has a bore diameter of more than one and one-half inches and that uses smokeless powder as a propellant.
3. Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm.
4. A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
E. A firearm that is manufactured and sold in this state pursuant to this section shall have the words "made in Arizona" clearly stamped on a central metallic part such as the receiver or frame.
F. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Firearm accessory" means an item that is used in conjunction with or mounted on a firearm but that is not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers and lights for target illumination.
2. "Generic or insignificant part" includes springs, screws, nuts and pins.
3. "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including forging, casting, machining or other processes for working materials.

[AIM9X]

Forgive my ignorance, but... what's the "made-here-stays-here" law?

It's a bit of nuttery dreamed up by people who don't understand the interstate commerce clause.

[AIM9X]

Arizona is pretty rabid about gun rights compared to Washington (or almost anywhere). Look at all the pro-gun laws we've adopted in the last few years - Constitutional Carry, Made-here-stays-here, universal reciprocity, etc.

I'm pretty far from convinced that universal background checks are an inevitability here, so I'd really prefer to hold off on trying to "get ahead of it".

National polling for "universal background checks" runs 80+%.  I don't believe that Arizona could be that much different from the national average, but I'd be happy to look at whatever state level polling data someone might have.

[JesseL]

Washington's ballot initiative passed by 60% and they're not nearly as pro-gun as AZ.

At the national level... I don't trust the polls.

[Thernlund]

Polling all depends on who you ask, where, and at what time.

I'll stand outside gunshows across America early in the morning and get a much different result than 80% in favor. 


-T.

[steve2md]

And the Gun, of course.  Any takers?

Just build a suppressor, or chop a shotgun to a very short length. Then you're just down to finding someone to fight the legal battle for you

[Thernlund]

I'm sure you could probably call up the NRA-ILA and let them know that you're ready to be a test case and ask how best you can go about it. 


-T.

[freeman1685]

Just build a suppressor, or chop a shotgun to a very short length. Then you're just down to finding someone to fight the legal battle for you

Building a suppressor might be an option.  And I've actually thought about that.

Chopping a shotty not so much, unless it was manufactured in AZ.  That would include the receiver, the barrel (chopped, of course), most of the trigger group (except the springs, pins/screws, etc. You know, all those "generic or insignificant parts"), the forend, and the stock.  It's all gotta be "Made in Arizona."  Take a good look at that statute.  ^^^^  It's pretty well spelled out.

I'm sure you could probably call up the NRA-ILA and let them know that you're ready to be a test case and ask how best you can go about it. 


-T.

You might have something there.     Though AzCDL might be the better option.

[Rusty Young Man]

Building a suppressor might be an option.  And I've actually thought about that.

Chopping a shotty not so much, unless it was manufactured in AZ.  That would include the receiver, the barrel (chopped, of course), most of the trigger group (except the springs, pins/screws, etc. You know, all those "generic or insignificant parts"), the forend, and the stock.  It's all gotta be "Made in Arizona."  Take a good look at that statute.  ^^^^  It's pretty well spelled out.SNIP...

Not too familiar with suppressor manufacturing.

Would it be easier to just make an AR-style rifle instead of a shotgun? I figure it'd be easier to get the AZ-made parts, have the barrel be 12 inches* (I know, I know. Just bear with me ) then add an AZ-made suppressor (homemade bubba or machined; doesn't make a difference for the purposes of this post except for the fact that I wouldn't shoot with the former ).
Just to really push the envelope, I guess you could slap on an adjustable stock (allows for "spraying from the hip" ), some kind of forward grip (making it one thousand times deadlier ), and making it all-black (to enhance the tactical lethality ).

Essentially going for a political statement while preserving functionality* and vastly improving aesthetics. My $.02.


*I know what the 12 inch barrel would do to the reliability.

[steve2md]

An effective suppressor can be made with some exhaust tube and freeze plugs. The only tools you need are a pipe cutter, drill,  and a hammer. Super easy to do. But, if I was going to go for it, I'd do a monocore with wipes that could be run wet in .22lr, and make it crazy quiet. That one requires a lathe and either a mill or a decent drill press....

[Thernlund]

You might have something there.     Though AzCDL might be the better option.

I very much disagree there.  The AzCDL doesn't have anywhere near the resources that the NRA-ILA does.  You'll need every resource you can get I think.

The AzCDL is certainly effective locally, but they're not a very large organization. 


-T. 

[Marx-ism's]

GOA might also be interested in helping someone fight that fight... 

[ArizonaGunOwners.com]