DC still at it

[NextExit]

It's tough to read thru the BS since the writer is a clueless libtard.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6109528?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[Ugly]

They will never stop

[DWARREN123]

Person comes off like a real idiot to me. Some do not understand that the law abiding folks are law abiding and criminals are not, plain and simple!

[2.ooohhh]

I-594 was on the Washington state ballot, they have their own breed of crazy out there, independant of Washington DC.

[Oh Shoot]

I-594 was on the Washington state ballot, they have their own breed of crazy out there, independant of Washington DC.

 

I dunno. It would pass in a lot of states. Maybe even here?

 

- OS

[peejman]

I-594 was on the Washington state ballot, they have their own breed of crazy out there, independant of Washington DC.

 

Right... this is all Washington State, not Washington DC. 

[2.ooohhh]

Having spent time in Seattle, Portland, and all along the Oregon coast I can firmly say that while it might someday pass here it will be a MUCH harder battle that it was out there.

[K191145]

Having spent time in Seattle, Portland, and all along the Oregon coast I can firmly say that while it might someday pass here it will be a MUCH harder battle that it was out there.

 

It wouldn't even come up in the legislature here. Also even in states that may pass such a law, they can only trace transactions ater the law was enacted, if you bought a gun before that date and sold it to a friend they can't know when you sold the gun. Unless someone is stupid and bragged about selling a gun after that date there's no proof. I'm not surprised that Washington passed such a law, it's a liberal state anyway but lawmakers here surely don't want to anger gun owners, they are a big part of their votes.

[Oh Shoot]

It wouldn't even come up in the legislature here. ...

 

I don't know the process for a binding state referendum in TN, and the legislature's role beforehand, if any -- you?

 

- OS

[K191145]

I don't know the process for a binding state referendum in TN, and the legislature's role beforehand, if any -- you?

 

- OS

 

No, I guess any rep could propose some bill of that nature, I just don't see that even getting out of committie. Maybe we don't always get all the pro-gun legislation we want but I think the legislature in Tennessee is smart enough not to bring any anti-gun legislation to the floor. I would guess a referendum would have to go through the legislature first.

 

I was still thinking about legislation and proposed bills by legislators. I think a petition with a required number of signatures would be the first step in a referendum.

Edited November 7, 2014 by K191145

[K191145]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States

 

 

Tennessee falls into this catagory, whatever that means.

 

 

States that allow legislatively-referred initiated constitutional amendments only.

Edited November 7, 2014 by K191145

[Oh Shoot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States

 

 

Tennessee falls into this catagory, whatever that means.

 

Good for looking that up. Seems unlike city/county referendums, we can't do statutory ones on a state level then.

 

- OS

[K191145]

Good for looking that up. Seems unlike city/county referendums, we can't do statutory ones on a state level then.

 

- OS

 

I still have no idea how it all works to get a referendum on the ballot, I guess if some real motivated activist made a petition and collected enough signatures, that would be a first step. The thing is about gun issues in Tennessee, there's motivation from gun owners to speak up, write their Reps and stay with it till some pro-gun legislation is proposed, on the other hand there seems to be no motivation from the anti's to fight. Like this Rayburn guy who tried his best to keep it illegal to carry in restraunts, got alot of media attention but ultimatly failed because I think the average person in Tennessee weather they are gun owners or not, are not very concerned about gun issues and laws in Tennessee. Notice when a pro-carry bill is passed and signed there are a few who get media attention who scream about blood in the streets, wild west shootouts, weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth etc. That lasts for one or two weeks then it just goes away and is forgotten by most all people in the state. I would bet that no one could get enough people in Tennessee motivated to start a fight and a referendum for background checks for private sales.

Edited November 7, 2014 by K191145

[Ugly]

The antis are going for referendums now, it was on Cam and Co yesterday. They will try to sneak crap through.

Does anyone really think folks in Wash state really want to criminalize anyone that wants to share a firearm at the range with their wife, kid, or any other non criminal?

Hoodwinked I say!

[i1afli]

This seems to be a growing trend...let the public vote on controversial issues like alcohol sales, abortion, gambling, public pensions...the list goes on. The whole idea behind the 3 branches of government to provide a balance of power is to prevent the will of the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority. This is completely negated when rights are put up for vote...after all it's the "will of the people".

[Ugly]

It gets better. What do they call it, "un-intended consequences"
http://patdollard.com/2014/12/eric-holder-moves-to-put-cleveland-police-department-under-federal-control/

[LagerHead]

The antis are going for referendums now, it was on Cam and Co yesterday. They will try to sneak crap through.

Does anyone really think folks in Wash state really want to criminalize anyone that wants to share a firearm at the range with their wife, kid, or any other non criminal?

Hoodwinked I say!

 

I guarantee you there are people out there that would say yes to this. 

[Worriedman]

Uh, the People have spoken via plebiscite re same sex marriage, and the courts have overturned their selection in most instances, and will eventually get them all.

Your vote for issues is just as fruitious as it is for a Republican majority to oppose Obama's immigration and healthcare unconstitutional acts...worthless as a matter of fact.