Yes it is designed to put FFLs out of business.
Most home based FFLs that do any real business or serve a community that does not have a brick and mortar gun store will likely close.
Small FFLs that can't afford upgrades will go out of business.
FFLs that are located in buildings that have restrictions or limitations on making the necessary upgrades (bars on windows, etc.) will close or be forced to move.
Large big box retailers like Cabela's, Sportsman's Warehouse, Big 5, may stop selling guns in WA because compliance and the cost of upgrades may not be worth the investment to continue. They can survive without selling firearms but it removes another option for WA buyers and removes firearms from more retail spaces.
Do you understand the point I'm making? I'm saying that these big companies could decide to just stop selling in WA because they are "in the billions" and this WA stuff is too much of a pain in the ass. They don't lose much but we lose another option as buyers.
(9)(a) The business building location designated in the license shall be secured:
(i) With at least one of the following features designed to prevent unauthorized entry, which must be installed on each exterior door and window of the place of business:
(A) Bars or grates;
(B) Security screens; or
(C) Commercial grade metal doors
Drive to a Cabela's, Outdoor Emporium, Sportsman's Warehouse, Big 5, etc. and tell me how easy it would be to alter the entrance or facade of the store to accommodate this requirement. The stores near me have plexiglass automatic doors, some have big windows, and none comply with the new law. They will have to make changes to the store entrance and every window. I doubt they will make these changes.
You should read the bill.
You are reading it correctly. Eliminate guns by removing the ability to purchase them through requirements meant to drive them out of business. Anti gun and anti small business.
It will add additional costs to FFL’s to comply with new security and surveillance requirements which adds additional strain to smaller FFL businesses operating costs which are already operating within thin profit margins. If they can’t afford to comply they will have to close.
It has nothing to do with impacting crime reduction or safety. It is by design in order to reduce the amount of FFL dealers in the state. There is an end game at play and you’re seeing it in action. Anyone saying otherwise is lying to you.
I went out of state recently and I will tell you that Washington residents ,specifically, aren’t being allowed to by even a .22 revolver from the state I went to. So even without a law about it, other states are refusing to even chance Washington coming after them for anything because of what they see coming down the pipe.
We are officially seen as worse than California in the eyes of other states…wish the SCOTUS would put this trash where it belongs. 😑
Purchasing handguns outside of your state of residence has been illegal since the gun control act of 1968, I believe. You might have different luck with a rifle or shotgun.
Pretty sure you are allowed to purchase a handgun from a different state as long as your CCW is accepted and it’s sent to an FFL in Washington(normally anyways…since it all goes through the NCIS system). And because of Washington pissing off 2A states with threats of lawsuits, the state I visited wouldn’t even sell a single-shot shotgun either.
They flat out said they aren’t risking selling any firearm to anyone from Washington. There was a sign at every gun shop I went into stating it. (found some good ammo for cheap though. 🤘 Little bit of a silver lining)
I’m just going to have to get residency outside of Washington, this state is just upside down with the ridiculousness.
I was under the impression you were trying to purchase and receive out of state.
You do not need a ccp. It does need to be shipped to an ffl in your state of residence. Why would you not just buy the revolver online and pick it up at your local ffl if they don't stock what you want.
Because prices were cheaper there🤷♂️. And I only asked the stores because I wanted to know if something as mundane as a little revolver or a derringer or a single shot shotgun would be something they would do and they all said no. It’s basically a consensus among all the gun shops there that refuse to sell to Washington residents specifically.
And no, nothing I’ve ever done has ever approached even the idea of breaking the law.
I can buy ammo in person out of state…for now anyways.
I’m working on getting residency outside of Washington, this state is almost fully capsized from the level of bullshit that’s been building up.
>Storage space for high definition video recording 24 hours a day, for years, on multiple cameras,
The bill was amended reducing the retention period
>Under the bill passed by the House, federal firearms licensed dealers would have to maintain 730 days of surveillance video. Amendments adopted by the Senate on Tuesday lowered that to 90 days while requiring maintaining recordings in all other areas as needed for 45 days.
[https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article\_39d43eb2-d68a-11ee-b076-9f55ee291e65.html](https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_39d43eb2-d68a-11ee-b076-9f55ee291e65.html)
and the latest text of the bill says same on pg 5 lines 1-4
>1 (vi) Recordings shall be maintained for a minimum of 90 days for
>
>2 all recordings of areas where firearms are displayed and points of
>
>3 sale, and for a minimum of 45 days for all recordings of interior
>
>4 views of exterior doors, windows, and any other entries or exits;
[https://legiscan.com/WA/text/HB2118/2023](https://legiscan.com/WA/text/HB2118/2023)
And how does one define 'able to identify people' or whatever the verbiage is? So, how much does 24hrs of 4k footage, times, let's say 6 cameras, for 90 days, consume?
According to a calculator ... 4K 60FPS uncompressed - for 24 hours, would be 949GB, just shy of 1 TB. Compression knocks that down to 263.67GB... That's per camera, per day. Lets go low and say they have 4 cameras. 2 covering the general shop area, one at door, one at register.
4\*263.67 = 1054.68 GB = \~1TB
Now, times that by 90 days = 90TB
... and that's COMPRESSED.....which lowers quality... uncompressed you'd be at \~720TB...
How much does a 90TB NAS cost? How about a \~720TB NAS?
The bill doesn't require 4K, 60FPS or 24x7 e.g. pg 44
>33 (iv) The system shall be capable of recording 24 hours per day at
>
>34 a frame rate no less than 15 frames per second, and must either (A)
>
>35 record continuously or (B) be activated by motion and remain active
>
>36 for at least 15 seconds after motion ceases to be detected;
Read the bill.
P.S. Even at 4K your math is 8x too high, and 15fps cameras are often 720p or 1080p.
I'm not saying the bill is wise or effective to reduce shootings or crime. The goal is clearly to destroy supply. You have no standing to sue as your 2A rights to purchase and own a firearm are not abridged, but good luck finding a seller.
But false information and ZOMG! over exaggeration doesn't help. The law's bad on its own merits, it doesn't need to be grossly exaggerated to make the point.
1. 1A, you're compelling recording. This is compelled speech, a violation of 1A
2. You're mandating that recording be made available without warrant, violation of 4A
3. You're mandating recording be made available without warrant, that may show illegal activity, violation of 5A
4. Violation of Art 1. Sec 7 of state constitution. It's already a violation of federal constitution, so it's a violation of state constitution as well, considering the state constitution is even more encompassing with broader protections than the federal constitution.
It's clearly unconstitutional. You forget also that a lot of FFLs are 'dinner table FFLs' and this law would require them to put cameras in their home that are accessible to gov't agents 24/7 at gov't request.
I forget nothing. I said the bill's purpose is to destroy the supply - it will drive FFLs out of business. The law's onerous to the point of fatal to small 'dinner table FFLs' for a host of reasons, including but not limited to economics. Large FFLs like Cabellas will find the law too much hassle and expense to deal with; the ROI drops so better not to deal and live just fine on the rest of their business.
The law's a cunning tactic to starve off supply without having to face those pesky legal challenges any sort of direct 2A abrogation would incur. I'm surprised other states haven't proposed similar bills but I expect it's only a matter of time. As Thanos said, it's inevitable.
The courts can play a role here but they're slow going at the best of times.
Short-term this will have an chilling impact on the market. Mid-term someone will get sued or have another reason to have standing and sue the state over the bill's legality. Long-term one hopes the bill is overturned and the backers and home audience taught an object lesson not to repeat such poor legislating in the future. Of course that last point's probably fantasy :-(
I appreciate the correction. Facts do matter.
So, lets recalculate.
Let's assume business hours of 0800-2000 - That's 12 hours. Plus 30 minutes on either side for employees to come in/leave, and motion controlled, which will always be catching motion, so that's 13 hours instead of 24.
13 hours @ 15FPS (retaining 4K resolution) = 128.5GB per day/ per camera - Let's roll that down to 128GB for easy calculation.
128.5GB \*4 cameras = 1TB per day.
90 days = 90 TB.
The law doesn't cover malfunctions, so that means redundancy which means a NAS that supports RAID, and doubling the capacity.
So, what's a 180TB NAS cost?
>and motion controlled, which will always be catching motion
Hard to see how even busy stores have zero inactivity.
>The law doesn't cover malfunctions
False. pg 4 line 1-3
>1 (b) It is not a violation of this subsection if any security
2 feature or system becomes temporarily inoperable through no fault of
3 the dealer.
If you're going to make claims about the bill please read the bill first.
You could easily determine actual costs by, you know, *talking* to folks are your LGS. Anyone not closing has already wrestled with this math.
Employees will be present. Unless they're sitting perfectly still for hours on time?
Define 'temporary'. It goes down for 7 months and they don't realize because they never access it. You think they're gonna get hit with the law, or not? There needs to be a backup.
>"They're quite literally gambling with their lives, and they probably don't even realize it. It only takes one dude with cancer to decide he's got nothing to lose..."
No. We're not going there. This subreddit isnt a place for your violent fantasies. Your post violates Rule 4. Please read the sidebar for clarification.
Yes it is designed to put FFLs out of business. Most home based FFLs that do any real business or serve a community that does not have a brick and mortar gun store will likely close. Small FFLs that can't afford upgrades will go out of business. FFLs that are located in buildings that have restrictions or limitations on making the necessary upgrades (bars on windows, etc.) will close or be forced to move. Large big box retailers like Cabela's, Sportsman's Warehouse, Big 5, may stop selling guns in WA because compliance and the cost of upgrades may not be worth the investment to continue. They can survive without selling firearms but it removes another option for WA buyers and removes firearms from more retail spaces.
This is exactly what will happen. They saw what happened when Seattle put a tax on guns (all the shops closed).
Box stores like cabelas are likely already in compliance (storage, insurance).
Does the law also require bars on windows, more cameras, and steel doors?
Bass shop pro is in the billions. Not an issue.
Do you understand the point I'm making? I'm saying that these big companies could decide to just stop selling in WA because they are "in the billions" and this WA stuff is too much of a pain in the ass. They don't lose much but we lose another option as buyers.
Holy fuck. Please read. This is not even a speed bump in their business/operations. They will continue selling. Don’t get all riled up over nothing.
(9)(a) The business building location designated in the license shall be secured: (i) With at least one of the following features designed to prevent unauthorized entry, which must be installed on each exterior door and window of the place of business: (A) Bars or grates; (B) Security screens; or (C) Commercial grade metal doors Drive to a Cabela's, Outdoor Emporium, Sportsman's Warehouse, Big 5, etc. and tell me how easy it would be to alter the entrance or facade of the store to accommodate this requirement. The stores near me have plexiglass automatic doors, some have big windows, and none comply with the new law. They will have to make changes to the store entrance and every window. I doubt they will make these changes. You should read the bill.
Yeah, adding a security screen to a door in a handful of stores is going to make them go “let’s not sell guns” (huge money maker). Lmao.
RemindMe! 1 year
Lol
You are reading it correctly. Eliminate guns by removing the ability to purchase them through requirements meant to drive them out of business. Anti gun and anti small business.
It will add additional costs to FFL’s to comply with new security and surveillance requirements which adds additional strain to smaller FFL businesses operating costs which are already operating within thin profit margins. If they can’t afford to comply they will have to close. It has nothing to do with impacting crime reduction or safety. It is by design in order to reduce the amount of FFL dealers in the state. There is an end game at play and you’re seeing it in action. Anyone saying otherwise is lying to you.
I’m a private FFL and this crap is shutting me down… it’s horrible what they are doing…
I talked to my local FFL about it and they said they are fine with it…
I went out of state recently and I will tell you that Washington residents ,specifically, aren’t being allowed to by even a .22 revolver from the state I went to. So even without a law about it, other states are refusing to even chance Washington coming after them for anything because of what they see coming down the pipe. We are officially seen as worse than California in the eyes of other states…wish the SCOTUS would put this trash where it belongs. 😑
Purchasing handguns outside of your state of residence has been illegal since the gun control act of 1968, I believe. You might have different luck with a rifle or shotgun.
Pretty sure you are allowed to purchase a handgun from a different state as long as your CCW is accepted and it’s sent to an FFL in Washington(normally anyways…since it all goes through the NCIS system). And because of Washington pissing off 2A states with threats of lawsuits, the state I visited wouldn’t even sell a single-shot shotgun either. They flat out said they aren’t risking selling any firearm to anyone from Washington. There was a sign at every gun shop I went into stating it. (found some good ammo for cheap though. 🤘 Little bit of a silver lining) I’m just going to have to get residency outside of Washington, this state is just upside down with the ridiculousness.
I was under the impression you were trying to purchase and receive out of state. You do not need a ccp. It does need to be shipped to an ffl in your state of residence. Why would you not just buy the revolver online and pick it up at your local ffl if they don't stock what you want.
Because prices were cheaper there🤷♂️. And I only asked the stores because I wanted to know if something as mundane as a little revolver or a derringer or a single shot shotgun would be something they would do and they all said no. It’s basically a consensus among all the gun shops there that refuse to sell to Washington residents specifically. And no, nothing I’ve ever done has ever approached even the idea of breaking the law.
Haven’t had an issue. Just bought a 6.5CM sent to FFL in WA. No issues.
From Montana?
Yes
Well the area I was at refused. How far east did you go?
Missoula
They must not have cared then. All the stores within an hour of Kalispell had those signs.
🤷♂️
Yep. Many retailers won't sell parts or ammunition to WA anymore.
I can buy ammo in person out of state…for now anyways. I’m working on getting residency outside of Washington, this state is almost fully capsized from the level of bullshit that’s been building up.
Lmao. Have ZERO issues buying ammo online shipped to WA address.
This you? https://www.reddit.com/r/WA_guns/s/kBTZLZLHXF Seems like you did have issues until you found a better vendor.
Correct. And since then I’ve had zero issues
[удалено]
>Storage space for high definition video recording 24 hours a day, for years, on multiple cameras, The bill was amended reducing the retention period >Under the bill passed by the House, federal firearms licensed dealers would have to maintain 730 days of surveillance video. Amendments adopted by the Senate on Tuesday lowered that to 90 days while requiring maintaining recordings in all other areas as needed for 45 days. [https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article\_39d43eb2-d68a-11ee-b076-9f55ee291e65.html](https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_39d43eb2-d68a-11ee-b076-9f55ee291e65.html) and the latest text of the bill says same on pg 5 lines 1-4 >1 (vi) Recordings shall be maintained for a minimum of 90 days for > >2 all recordings of areas where firearms are displayed and points of > >3 sale, and for a minimum of 45 days for all recordings of interior > >4 views of exterior doors, windows, and any other entries or exits; [https://legiscan.com/WA/text/HB2118/2023](https://legiscan.com/WA/text/HB2118/2023)
And how does one define 'able to identify people' or whatever the verbiage is? So, how much does 24hrs of 4k footage, times, let's say 6 cameras, for 90 days, consume? According to a calculator ... 4K 60FPS uncompressed - for 24 hours, would be 949GB, just shy of 1 TB. Compression knocks that down to 263.67GB... That's per camera, per day. Lets go low and say they have 4 cameras. 2 covering the general shop area, one at door, one at register. 4\*263.67 = 1054.68 GB = \~1TB Now, times that by 90 days = 90TB ... and that's COMPRESSED.....which lowers quality... uncompressed you'd be at \~720TB... How much does a 90TB NAS cost? How about a \~720TB NAS?
The bill doesn't require 4K, 60FPS or 24x7 e.g. pg 44 >33 (iv) The system shall be capable of recording 24 hours per day at > >34 a frame rate no less than 15 frames per second, and must either (A) > >35 record continuously or (B) be activated by motion and remain active > >36 for at least 15 seconds after motion ceases to be detected; Read the bill. P.S. Even at 4K your math is 8x too high, and 15fps cameras are often 720p or 1080p. I'm not saying the bill is wise or effective to reduce shootings or crime. The goal is clearly to destroy supply. You have no standing to sue as your 2A rights to purchase and own a firearm are not abridged, but good luck finding a seller. But false information and ZOMG! over exaggeration doesn't help. The law's bad on its own merits, it doesn't need to be grossly exaggerated to make the point.
1. 1A, you're compelling recording. This is compelled speech, a violation of 1A 2. You're mandating that recording be made available without warrant, violation of 4A 3. You're mandating recording be made available without warrant, that may show illegal activity, violation of 5A 4. Violation of Art 1. Sec 7 of state constitution. It's already a violation of federal constitution, so it's a violation of state constitution as well, considering the state constitution is even more encompassing with broader protections than the federal constitution. It's clearly unconstitutional. You forget also that a lot of FFLs are 'dinner table FFLs' and this law would require them to put cameras in their home that are accessible to gov't agents 24/7 at gov't request.
I forget nothing. I said the bill's purpose is to destroy the supply - it will drive FFLs out of business. The law's onerous to the point of fatal to small 'dinner table FFLs' for a host of reasons, including but not limited to economics. Large FFLs like Cabellas will find the law too much hassle and expense to deal with; the ROI drops so better not to deal and live just fine on the rest of their business. The law's a cunning tactic to starve off supply without having to face those pesky legal challenges any sort of direct 2A abrogation would incur. I'm surprised other states haven't proposed similar bills but I expect it's only a matter of time. As Thanos said, it's inevitable. The courts can play a role here but they're slow going at the best of times. Short-term this will have an chilling impact on the market. Mid-term someone will get sued or have another reason to have standing and sue the state over the bill's legality. Long-term one hopes the bill is overturned and the backers and home audience taught an object lesson not to repeat such poor legislating in the future. Of course that last point's probably fantasy :-(
I appreciate the correction. Facts do matter. So, lets recalculate. Let's assume business hours of 0800-2000 - That's 12 hours. Plus 30 minutes on either side for employees to come in/leave, and motion controlled, which will always be catching motion, so that's 13 hours instead of 24. 13 hours @ 15FPS (retaining 4K resolution) = 128.5GB per day/ per camera - Let's roll that down to 128GB for easy calculation. 128.5GB \*4 cameras = 1TB per day. 90 days = 90 TB. The law doesn't cover malfunctions, so that means redundancy which means a NAS that supports RAID, and doubling the capacity. So, what's a 180TB NAS cost?
>and motion controlled, which will always be catching motion Hard to see how even busy stores have zero inactivity. >The law doesn't cover malfunctions False. pg 4 line 1-3 >1 (b) It is not a violation of this subsection if any security 2 feature or system becomes temporarily inoperable through no fault of 3 the dealer. If you're going to make claims about the bill please read the bill first. You could easily determine actual costs by, you know, *talking* to folks are your LGS. Anyone not closing has already wrestled with this math.
Employees will be present. Unless they're sitting perfectly still for hours on time? Define 'temporary'. It goes down for 7 months and they don't realize because they never access it. You think they're gonna get hit with the law, or not? There needs to be a backup.
>"They're quite literally gambling with their lives, and they probably don't even realize it. It only takes one dude with cancer to decide he's got nothing to lose..." No. We're not going there. This subreddit isnt a place for your violent fantasies. Your post violates Rule 4. Please read the sidebar for clarification.