The Lynden Pioneer Museum, near the Canadian border in the northwest region of Washington state, nearly removed 11 weapons on display as part of a WWII exhibit because of new gun legislation.
Fox News
Luginbill [Troy Luginbill, director for the Lynden Pioneer Museum], the museum's only full-time employee, said he was concerned about the financial burden of having to perform background checks in order to return the weapons to their owners after the exhibit ends next May. Then a local gun shop owner came forward and volunteered to cover the cost of approximately $400 for background checks for each of the guns.
“It’s a financial hardship for them to pay for the fees to register the guns,” said Melissa Denny, owner of Pistol Annie’s Jewelry and Pawn in nearby Bonney Lake, told FoxNews.com. “So we decided to step up and help. It’s normally a $40 fee for each weapon. We just waived it for them.
“I like to champion for the underdog because we are one of them,” added Denny, who opened up her shop two years ago.
Some said Luginbill was being overly cautious and that the new law was never meant to apply to cases like his.
Now, that wasn't so hard was it? I guess Kurt will have to find another example of the "atrocity" which this law is responsible for.
Now, that wasn't so hard was it? I guess Kurt will have to find another example of the "atrocity" which this law is responsible for.
MikeB: "Now, that wasn't so hard was it?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it was hard. The museum got national media attention to the cause and a FFL to step up and do the transactions for free. I wouldn't call that easy, and I don't expect that to happen to every common person who can't afford $400 in transfer fees. One thing making this easier for the museum is that they have only one curator. Imagine if they have to keep going through this to have different people service the pieces. Also imagine if the curator didn't take the time to understand the law and committed crimes as a result of returning or receiving exhibits.
Yeah, coming up with 400 bucks was a nearly insurmountable obstacle. Got it.
DeleteYeah, coming up with 400 bucks was a nearly insurmountable obstacle/
DeleteMore insurmountable than coming up with enough money to acquire ID acceptable for voting in any state.
First of all, the $400 is for 10 guns. Secondly, we're not talking about the voter suppression maneuvers that just took place. Apples and oranges.
DeleteSecondly, we're not talking about the voter [ID requirements].
DeleteWell, you're obviously avoiding the hell out of talking about them, and I can see why. If I were trying to argue that it's "racist" to be required to show a state-issued photo ID card to vote, but just fine to require a $40 fee to sell, give, or loan a gun, I wouldn't want those conversations to intersect, either.
Imagine if instead of 10 guns, the museum has hundreds of guns. And this bigger museum has a staff instead of just one person, so they might have to pay this fee at every shift change.
Delete"I wouldn't want those conversations to intersect, either."
DeleteWell, one is talking about a basic, human right protected by the Constitution and the other is talking about legally owning a gun.
Well, one is talking about a basic, human right protected by the Constitution and the other is talking about voting.
DeleteFixed it for you.
Don't thank me--happy to help.
Obviously we disagree on the protection of gun rights by the constitution, but apart from that, are you really saying it's ok to be racist so long as it is not against a constitutionally protected right?
DeleteTS, what the hell kind of twisted nonsense is that? Are you bored, making up shit like that?
DeleteI guess Kurt will have to find another example of the "atrocity" which this law is responsible for.
ReplyDeleteNo difficulty there. If you want to give me a challenge, tell me to find one aspect of the law that's not an atrocity.
Scratch that--I can't do the impossible.
According to you the 2nd A is not an atrocity of law.
DeleteSo, just because someone volunteered to pay the money for someone else that negates the law being overbroad?
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying "Look, the NAACP decided to pay the fees for smaller groups that have less money--there's no problem with this law that requires you to pay for onerous fees for registration to demonstrate in public."
No, it's not like that at all. The law requires that owners of guns be responsible for their personal property.
DeletePrecisely, Anon.
DeleteAnd the other law would require that people pay a fee to keep them responsible for their speech--ensure they don't block traffic, riot, or otherwise incite violence, and would allow us to better hold them responsible if they did misuse their freedom. Frankly, I can't see where your problem is with the proposal--dog gone would be jumping all over it according to her past comments about reasonable restrictions for the First Amendment.
DeleteWe're not talking about the 1st Amendment. We're talking about gun owners being qualified and responsible for their personal property.
Delete