WA. Initiative 1491
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
The I-594 slippery-slope just got a little more
slippery.
>"to temporarily prevent individuals who are at high risk of harming themselves or others from accessing firearms by allowing family, household members, and police to obtain a court order when there is demonstrated evidence that the person poses a significant danger, including danger as a result of a dangerous mental health crisis or violent behavior."
Well as expected here we go with our 1st initiative for this November
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_1016.pdf
Well, it's better than California's version at least, in that it requires you to present evidence that someone is a threat.
>>30327124
Naw son. Not in my state. Not if I can help it.
>>30327224
> what every washington said before I-594 trying to fight I-594
Wait, when exactly is this one up for vote?
>>30327240
Well shit, It honestly seems like a chunk of the statistics in their are skewed to all hell and it seems like it'd still be pretty easy to abuse a law like this.
I hope the rest of Washington at least reads this shit and isn't piss-scared by the shooting as of late.
>>30327250
If i'm not mistaken around fall, I just seen this though
>>30327286
Seattle.
'Nuff said.
http://politistick.com/washington-states-1491-gun-control-measure-abominable/#
>Imagine this scenario: you had a roommate for a while, and he is a fervent anti-gun type. He is also a teetotaler. So, right off the bat, being that you liked to pound some Coors after work and owned a couple of guns, you guys just didn’t click. After some robust arguments, you ask him to move out. Six months later, a police officer is at your door with an ex-parte court order to confiscate your guns for one year, pending a final order.
>>30327309
As if they could push through the hobo shanties to get to the poll booths.
>>30327198
>Well, it's better than California's version at least, in that it requires you to present evidence that someone is a threat.
I can't imagine a law that doesn't require evidence of a threat. It's basically an open door to categorize everyone who isn't a "special case" (read: rich or politician) as a threat and deny them.
Jesus fuck that man's "smile".
