http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/New-gun-law-prompts-Lynden-museum-to-remove-rifles-5903332.php
Wonder what other places will follow.
Wonder what other places will follow.
What part of the law does this violate? Storage? Can you cite the section they say it violates?Wait a second, this story is impossible.
Our know-it-all Primus said cops would NOT enforce this law. So what is the museum worried about?
What part of the law does this violate? Storage? Can you cite the section they say it violates?
Storage is not mentioned and is actually irrelevant. Who cares how you store the gun once you possess it, we are only concerned that you are cleared to possess the gun. The museum clearly does not trust Calkins, and his ilk, to abide by his "promise" to not enforce this law on persons "loaning" guns to each other.(17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.
(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...n-museum-to-remove-WWII-rifles-283197591.html
Read the freaking law!!...the museum clearly thinks the law will be enforced even onto them in spite of what Calkins, or any other I-594 suporter, says.
From the bill/law.Storage is not mentioned and is actually irrelevant. Who cares how you store the gun once you possess it, we are only concerned that you are cleared to possess the gun. The museum clearly does not trust Calkins, and his ilk, to abide by his "promise" to not enforce this law on persons "loaning" guns to each other.
Ok OC I'll try with you instead.
What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.
Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
The language does not mention storage (did a word search, no results). The museum is not in a position (financially) to challenge the law to keep some WWII guns until May of next year. Even if they wanted to, the decision would likely be long after the exhibit is over. They will not take any chances.Ok OC I'll try with you instead.
What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.
Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
Maybe this part.................Why is the museum worried? Call them and ask.
To say not to worry about the law because "cops won't enforce illogical laws" has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. How obtuse and short-sighted can a person possibly be to make such an insanely ignorant statement? The law makes explicit statements and explicitly defines terms. There is no arguing that.
As usual you are commenting on something that you have not taken the time to even read. From the article:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ar...ts-Lynden-museum-to-remove-rifles-5903332.php
The museum is not concerned about their current possession of the firearms. They are concerned about the transfers that will have to occur when the exhibit ends.
I'll leave this here... Pay attention to second part of my above post.Ok OC I'll try with you instead.
What part does mere possession violate? Its a museum. So I'm assuming the guns are just sitting there. There is no transferring or passing around.
Are you referring to the fact the guns are on loan from private collectors? Is it that someone would be afraid by returning the loaned gun they would need to do a background check on the actually owner/loaner to get his own guns back?
As usual you are commenting on something that you have not taken the time to even read. From the article:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ar...ts-Lynden-museum-to-remove-rifles-5903332.php
The museum is not concerned about their current possession of the firearms. They are concerned about the transfers that will have to occur when the exhibit ends.
I'll leave this here... Pay attention to second part of my above post.
The law passed this month with 59 percent of the vote.
59%. How. Did. This. Happen.
Are you attempting to engage me in legitimate reasoned dialogue? If so I'll glaldly response with what is my humble opinion on the matter. If its an attempt to troll like several others keep doing then let me know I'll save my time responding with a full opinion.Seriously, do people think these business are not going to have one of their lawyers also read the law? Primus did you really think that LE are the only ones paying any attention, and that businesses affected would not do everything possible to minimize liability and hold themselves accountable for what the law explicitly states?
59%. How. Did. This. Happen.