Joe Huffman points out that the new two-thirds majority Dem Washington Legislature will be re-sending a state-wide semi-auto rifle ban down the pike this upcoming session.
The short version of the legalese below is that nearly all semi-auto firearms are to be banned. If already have such a firearm you can either turn it in, with no compensation, to the police for destruction (once such an evil gun has been in the hands of private ownership it cannot ever again be trusted, even in the hands of the police), register it, or deactivate it. The registration option means you have to not only allow the police to visit your assault weapon storage facility yearly you have to pay them to do that and to do a yearly background check on you.Â
While we do have enough “Blue-Dog” Democrats in the Legislature that it will very likely see a quick death (though that hasn’t stopped me from making some calls, as should the rest of you WA residents be doing right now), I am absolutely incensed that it has made it as far as to actually be written up in legalese. See Joe’s place for the complete text, if you can handle your stomach turning at their bigotry.
They not only included semi-automatic rifles, with no exemption for thumbhole stocks as in the national AWB, also included were pump-action firearms and all shotguns of either semi-auto or pump action design. Under this bill, the only long guns that wouldn’t have to be registered would be muzzleloaders, single shots rifles and shotguns, multi-barreled long guns and lever rifles.
If they don’t feel that they can trust me with my rifles, then I absolutely do not feel that I can trust them.
I Will Never Register My Firearms. I Will Never Surrender My Firearms.
Sounds like if this passed, there will be a lot of dead cops.
I remember the firestorm about 10 yeas ago about the gun ownership test proposition. This is the same sort of BS. It’s also why I fully believe that when (not if) the next American civil war starts, it’ll start in Washington.
I modified my post slightly after carefully re-reading the proposed law. Where you have quoted, “…nearly all semi-auto firearms…” I now have “…nearly all my semi-auto firearms…”.
You have to actually have a loaded, greater than 10 round detachable magazine for your firearm, not just be capable of having a greater than 10 round magazine used with it as I originally thought.
However, if your firearm is capable having greater than 10 round magazines and has one or more “evil features” it is also banned.
Something to keep in mind–It is my belief that there will never be a shortage of cops. I do believe it is possible to create a shortage oppressive politicians. It has to do with the psychology of the people in those professions.
Should be noted that for pump action rifles and shotguns, they have to use detachable (with an over 10 round capacity) or revolving magazines to be on the eeevil list. Very few meet this requirement.
Even many semi-auto rifles won’t fall into their classification. If you don’t have any of the scary looking features, it has to take detachable magazines of over 10 round capacity.
Bad bill. Bad. Hope it never makes it to law. It’s not as restrictive as people are making it out to be, though. Still overly restrictive. Way way overly restrictive.
Grrr…
Thin edge of the wedge time. Undoubtedly preaching to the choir on this one, but once this sort of thing gets on the books in any form it is all too easy to add a little here, modify a little there and before you know if you’re California (or Canada for that matter).
Just look north of the border here. When our federal registry was introduced the Liberal government swore up and down that it was not a prelude to confiscation, that it was merely a public safety issue, that gun owners need not worry.
A few years pass, and suddenly they’re trying to pass legislation that would give individual provinces and territories the power to BAN firearms within their jurisdictions.
Ok, so technically they were not lying. Registration doesn’t lead to confiscation, it first leads to bans, which in turn lead to confiscation.
My bad.
Grrr…
I think “Bullshit” must be a politicians first langugage, since many of them do not understand “the right of the people….shall not be infringed”.
To paraphrase:
“One step for gun-grabbers, one giant step backwards for the Bill of Rights.”
Just my opinion.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I’m biting my tongue here…
This bears an eerie resemblance to the Aussie laws, and of course, the demographic results would be similar: a huge increase in gun crime, robbery, assault, murder, etc.
Prediction One: It will be referred if passed. It will be defeated as a referendum. Think large infusions of NRA cash to help it into the dumpster.
Prediction Two: If it made it into law, there WILL be caching. A lot of caching. There will be weapons held in Oregon and Idaho. I will personally turn my entire house into a gun repository for my WA friends.
Prediction Three: It would only take the untimely demise of about two dozen gun enforcement agents to put a total kibosh on police recruiting in WA. As far as current cops go, they are all taught that they will “go home to mama every night”, so when the streets get REALLY mean and nasty, with some NOT going home to mama, how many are going to push the envelope to enforce this unpopular law? Not many.
Prediction Four: In the case of Prediction Three coming true, the law would be enforced by exception only.
Prediction Five: Barely-Governor Christine would increase her WSP bodyguard to around 500 troopers….
Pingback: SayUncle » More on bans on weapons that look like assault weapons
Prediction six: 500 isn’t enough.
Advice: legislators voting “yes” on anything like that bill should also be figuring lifelong (short) bodyguard expenses into the calculation.