A museum is having to return parts of an exhibit because the guns were on loan, and when I-594 goes into effect, that will be illegal. There will be a lot of little stories like this, and each one is ammunition that can be used to help defeat this in other states.
3 thoughts on “First Victim of the Washington State Transfer Ban”
I’d say it was an “unintended consequence” except for the fact that I think those who wrote the bill knew exactly what they were doing, and knew that this type of thing – problems for folks who pose no threat to anyone – would happen.
It is indeed an effort to eviscerate whatever firearms culture exists in Washington state.
Yep. To them, not being able to see guns in a museum is a plus.
I saw an idiotic comment saying “Good riddance, now the place can really call itself a museum, rather than an arsenal”. If I were more inclined to wade through Registration Heck, I would have responded with something like:
1. Does this mean that the Hill Airforce Base Museum isn’t a museum, but an airport, because it has dozens of airplanes on display?
2. What about my local pioneer heritage museum has guns used by…gasp…pioneers! as though pioneers used guns or something.
3. Another local city heritage museum has a machine gun from WWII, which is silly if you think about it: who ever heard of a machine gun being used in WWII, of all wars?
4. Finally, about that “arsenal” word: I do not think it means what you think it means. I once visited an arsenal in New York State, and among the types of guns it made over the years, one was called “Atomic Annie” because it was designed to deliver nuclear warheads fifty miles away. That arsenal made all sorts of arms, of all types; I have a funny feeling that the place would be ashamed if I could only find 12 rifles, all dating back to WWII days…
(The place was Watervliett Arsenal, in NY, the oldest operating arsenal in the United States.)
Comments are closed.