Wash. state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals

[NomadS]

Wash. state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals - Seattle Political Buzz | Examiner.com

The bill, S.B. 5737, proposes "banning the sale of assault weapons." According to the legislation, an "assault weapon" is any semiautomatic pistol, pump-action rifle or shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine, with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Any magazine that accepts over 10 rounds itself will also be banned.

Also included in the definition is any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip, a stock of any kind, a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator. The bill also prohibits the manufacturing, possessing, purchasing, selling or transferring of an assault weapons "conversion kit."
....
Any person who, after the effective date of the section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest or succession must within thirty days either dispose of the weapon or have it permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile. Failure to comply will result in a class C felony.​

 

[Mark 1911]

There really needs to be some harsh consequences for politicians who try to introduce this garbage. They should be charged with a felony. Treason sounds appropriate.

 

[NomadS]

if you know anyone in Wash State. Forward them this NRA-ILA | Washington: Your State Legislators MUST Hear from You TODAY

 

[Classic]

Failure to uphold the oath of office.

 

[Scutter01]

Any rifle that has a stock of any kind? So, any rifle? Yes, I agree that legislators that try to push laws such as this ought to be tried for attempted subversion of the United States Constitution and for violating their sworn oath of office.

 

[lucky4034]

Seems these politicians are pushing for revolution by taking an extreme stance. I wonder if they understand what they are proposing?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Wash. state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals - Seattle Political Buzz | Examiner.com

The bill, S.B. 5737, proposes "banning the sale of assault weapons." According to the legislation, an "assault weapon" is any semiautomatic pistol, pump-action rifle or shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine, with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. Any magazine that accepts over 10 rounds itself will also be banned.

Also included in the definition is any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip, a stock of any kind, a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator. The bill also prohibits the manufacturing, possessing, purchasing, selling or transferring of an assault weapons "conversion kit."
....
Any person who, after the effective date of the section, acquires title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest or succession must within thirty days either dispose of the weapon or have it permanently disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile. Failure to comply will result in a class C felony.​

OK, the interface between magazine and mag well is defined. By way of example, consider the Ruger 10/22; the magazine that Ruger originally made for it was a rotary 10-rd, hence the name: 10 rounds of .22LR. Nonetheless, there were for years (and still are) aftermarket mags that hold 25 and 50 rounds and maybe more. Ruger now makes their own 25rd mag as well. If the mag fits the well, there is nothing preventing it from being made to contain 100, 500, or 1000 rounds, other than weight.

So technically, what this is saying is that if you have a firearm capable of accepting a magazine, it is in violation of this proposed bill.

My question, apart from the obvious, is "Why?" After all, this bill, if passed into law, would ban any mag with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. If all of those 11- and more round mags are banned, why do we need to ban any gun that can accept these no-longer-existent magazines?

Could it be that the author realizes that the bill is pointless and that the mags will still exist despite it? Or is it more likely that, like most anti-gun rights people, s/he didn't give this much thought at all and feels that if a law is written, it will be followed?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Scutter01]

My question, apart from the obvious, is "Why?"

You forget how negotiations work. You ask for something ridiculous, and then you get the other side to "compromise" down to the thing you actually want, which is a simple mag limit. Because from what I've seen on INGO, there are plenty of gun owners that are perfectly happy to compromise away yet another bit of their Rights as long as the nastier bills don't pass.


NO MORE COMPROMISES. NOT ONE MORE INCH.

 

[japartridge]

NO MORE COMPROMISES. NOT ONE MORE INCH.

^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

You forget how negotiations work. You ask for something ridiculous, and then you get the other side to "compromise" down to the thing you actually want, which is a simple mag limit. Because from what I've seen on INGO, there are plenty of gun owners that are perfectly happy to compromise away yet another bit of their Rights as long as the nastier bills don't pass.


NO MORE COMPROMISES. NOT ONE MORE INCH.

I haven't forgotten, and I agree fully with your closing line. My questions above are meant to point out the logical fallacies in the above bill. Compromise, as we know, means that both sides "give up a little". I've quoted many times, "When you sit down to compromise that which you already have, you've already lost."

My questions to those who propose such as the bill above are, "What are you willing to give up? No, I don't mean from your bill, I mean from your basic, human rights. You're asking me to give up my right to protect my life, the lives of my family, and the sanctity of my country. What are you willing to give up? Self incrimination? Unreasonable search and seizure? Free speech?

Good. You give those up. Sign here. Thanks. Have a nice day. What? Oh. No, I never said I'd give up anything, I just asked what you were willing to give up. That's what you had in mind for me, wasn't it?"

And if you think about it, that's what they've done, every time. They propose a bill and think that that's the starting point of negotiations. Wrong. There are no negotiations. Those bills violate the spirit of our Founders' intent, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. It's not treason, per se, to try to legislate in that arena, but it is a violation of their sworn oath.

I am reminded again of this:

And in many cases, I think it's long overdue.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Foxxwoof]

What a bunch of baloney. So basically everything becomes illegal except for a revolver?

The sad part is that you can't make this stuff up. Some of these politicians really are "that" ignorant. I've got some feathers. Run 'em out on a rail!

 

[miguel]

No ****ing surrender.

 

[Methane Herder]

The voters of Washington state "We are not amused!"
MH

 

[tom1025]

Seems these politicians are pushing for revolution by taking an extreme stance. I wonder if they understand what they are proposing?

Revolution? Really?

I don't think so. Not after all the threads I read on here about how Gun Owners are supose to be the up most law abiding citizens. I have a feeling most people will surrender there arms and fall back in line with the rest of the sheep.

 

[Hookeye]

They will give them up as fast as they can, when it's leveraged against their source of income or health insurance.

That I think the big thing with government health insurance, some clause where you only get services or on a list for services, when you sign that you'll have a "safe recovery place" where no guns are allowed. Probably a crime for lying on the form if you go against that.

Kid needs an serious operation done, or wife? 90% will cave.

 

[tom1025]

They will give them up as fast as they can, when it's leveraged against their source of income or health insurance.

That I think the big thing with government health insurance, some clause where you only get services or on a list for services, when you sign that you'll have a "safe recovery place" where no guns are allowed. Probably a crime for lying on the form if you go against that.

Kid needs an serious operation done, or wife? 90% will cave.

 

[bw8755]

There really needs to be some harsh consequences for politicians who try to introduce this garbage. They should be charged with a felony. Treason sounds appropriate.

And the death penalty still applies to treason, right? Sounds good to me.

 

[mrjarrell]

"When Democracy Becomes Tyranny

I Still Get To Vote"