WA. Initiative 1491

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".