View Full Version : WA: State Law Makers Seek to Ban Sales of Semi Automatic Weapons
Given how liberal this Washington State is, something like this was bound to come up given recent events.
In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.
The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.
The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.
It is named for Aaron Sullivan, 18, who was fatally shot last July in Seattle's Leschi neighborhood, allegedly with an assault-style weapon.
Supporters say they also are motivated by the Oct. 31 slaying of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton and the wounding of his partner. Police believe a .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle was used then.
The bill is backed by Seattle's police department, spokeswoman Renee Witt said. Also pushing it is Washington Ceasefire, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce gun violence. The group plans a news conference today to announce the proposal.
The lawmakers who plan to sponsor the bill are Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle.
The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.
"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.
Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, a publication of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, said such a ban would punish law-abiding citizens who own such guns.
"I don't care if my neighbor has a dozen of the things; ... as long as he's not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, leave him alone," Workman said.
He also said he doesn't consider the gun police say was used to kill Brenton an assault rifle.
Hunter knows getting the bill through the Legislature would be difficult, because of concerns about limits on gun ownership. However, he thinks the ban is necessary.
"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said.
Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.
"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," she said.
She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.
I'm not that well versed in the aspects of fighting something like this but I'd like to start. A) Can they even do this? B) How do the Washington gun owners (and there are a lot of us) on this board go about fighting it?
All banning this 'style' of weapon does is punish law abiding citizens....Does a felon care about the laws? No they dont...the people killing innocents and LEO's will get a gun no matter what....
I mean you can by full auto damn near anything you want on alot of corners in the downtown area of a major city....
I just wish lawmakers would see that it isn't the gun killing people, it's people killing people....
I find it interesting that the rifle that Monfort used to kill Timothy Brenton was NOT a military style rifle, nor was it an assault rifle. IIRC it was a Kel Tec SU16CA, a california compliant sporting rifle that comes with 10 round magazines. So this bill would not have prevented the sale of the rifle used to kill officer Brenton.
EPIC INTELLECTUAL FAIL!
http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/su16ca.htm
I'm not that well versed in the aspects of fighting something like this but I'd like to start. A) Can they even do this? B) How do the Washington gun owners (and there are a lot of us) on this board go about fighting it?
A) Yes they can do it if they get the votes.
B) Write your state representatives and tell them that you don't support this nor will you support anyone that does.
Typical knee-jerk reaction and they are using this tragedy to push their agenda.
Apparently Mr. Hunter needs to be reminded that you CAN IN FACT buy machine guns if they are pre-1986 and they are legal in almost every state out west except for Kalifornia and Washington. The ability to buy machine guns was taken away from Washington residents the last time they passed an "anti-crime" bill that was supposed to target criminals using "hi-powered" assault weapons.
I also know people that have historic military vehicles to include tanks.
Here is the _link_ (http://www.pitchengine.com/coalition-announces-push-for-state-ban-on-military-assault-weapons-/38134/) to this garbage. Truly vomit worthy.
drummerdude1188
12-17-09, 17:05
see, gun owners like to ridicule california, and point fingers like haha your shit is ****ed but not ours. Your state could be next....
You know it's funny. I was just giving a friend of mine some crap about me being able to bring my non-California legal stuff to a Magpul Training in SoCal...Then this shit comes up. I've contemplated packing up and moving to Oregon before because that's where my company HQ is but this might be the final push...
As to the Founding Fathers thinking that the citizens didn't need military grade weaponry, I call BS... they had some of the state of the art weapons and weren't afraid to use them. No way they would have said anything was ok except military grade weapons. We need to educate some people about what happened in the struggle to found this great nation...
Cascades236
12-17-09, 19:44
Washington cripples the hell out of its cops via Article 1 section 7 of its constitution and its wacky interpertations by wacky judges. Now it wants to cripple its citizens as well.
Washington wants bad guys to impose their will without interference. Squeeze those cheecks fellas.
As to the Founding Fathers thinking that the citizens didn't need military grade weaponry, I call BS... they had some of the state of the art weapons and weren't afraid to use them. No way they would have said anything was ok except military grade weapons. We need to educate some people about what happened in the struggle to found this great nation...
The whole point of the Second Amendment is that regular people are supposed to be able to own and carry, and in fact own and carry, militarily useful weapons. They could plausibly ban "sporting" guns but not military weapons.
They can ban these guns so long as that ban extends to the government as well.
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone would propose doing this. They need to look at why said scumball was allowed out of prison in WA state after he showed repeatedly that he could not handle being a free man. All this will do is make it easier for the criminals to take over more of the state. If the people in Olympia want to do something about crime, how about locking up some criminals for a change and sending a strong message that way. You have to get caught 6 times stealing a car before WA law will give you some jail time, that sends the wrong message.
Bills like this have been proposed every year in Washington State for many, many years, and in most states in the union (including, I bet, Oregon) as well for years. I don't know if this bill has any better chance this year (I am not in WA), but suggest you check with your local gun rights organization to see and help if necessary. Dave Workman, mentioned in the article, runs a good one.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-18-09, 08:11
Everyone knows the drill.
1. Sporting rifles are OK? How many ARs are used a year in the shooting sports and how many are used in crime?
2. The founder's surely didn't want these modern weapons in the hands of regular citizens. OK, if that's how you want to read the 2A, how about we limit the 2A to street heralding and Guttenburg presses??
I expect this bill will never gain much support. They've tried stuff like this nearly every year I've lived in WA (10 years), and it has never gotten much traction. There are even a good number of Democrats in the WA state legislature that are pro 2A, and they know very well that their constituents own many of these weapons, and that it would create a huge uproar and reelection issue for them were they to try this.
Usually these things are just grandstanding, so that some ladder-climbing politician can pad their resume' with an attempt to ban assault weapons.
Let them try. With the Heller ruling in place and Macdonald vs. Chicago coming down the pipe (very likely in favor of of Incorporation), this POS legislation has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving. Hell, even in Kalifornia, Macdonald may be a good sign for our asinine "assault weapon" laws.
Good thing I'm still technically an Idaho resident.
Koji
I would not get too bent out of shape about this. WA libs have been pulling this everytime any gun related anything happens. They will cry and whine to gain support, and hopefully fail.
The usual pro gun groups will do a good job of fighting this, and I'm sure most all gun shops and sportsmans clubs have already started spreading the word to combat this crap.
One more thing WA has going for it, is most the folks in the state outside of King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties are still mostly conservative folk who wont stand for this bill either.
Unfortunately with most the voters in Washington state being in those more liberal counties, it's only a matter of time before they pass commie style gun legislation just like California has.
Given how liberal this Washington State is, something like this was bound to come up given recent events.
The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.
I'm not that well versed in the aspects of fighting something like this but I'd like to start. A) Can they even do this? B) How do the Washington gun owners (and there are a lot of us) on this board go about fighting it?
this this wouldn't be banned??
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-15_VTR.asp
http://www.remington.com/images/products/firearms/centerfire/lgsil_r15.jpg
We created an unrivaled combination of precision accuracy, blazing-fast follow-ups and hunt-specific features. The new R-15 VTR™ modular repeating rifle was born of the most advanced design aspects of AR-15-style rifles available today with a strong emphasis on optimizing form and functionality for the modern predator aficionado.
they are idiots.
this won't hold up post Heller.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-18-09, 19:47
Fixed it for ya. ;)
Thanks, my wife says that all I think about is the 2A... let's keep that between us.
Belmont31R
12-18-09, 19:59
So glad I don't live there anymore. Also a shame the libtards pretty much own the west coast. I love the Pacific.....really pretty area...but damn I couldnt live there with the taxes, high cost of living, and stupid ass democrats ruining everything. Texas is hot and ugly most of the time (in comparison) but I enjoy the low cost of living, gun friendly, and our state isnt nearly bankrupt.
If I ever move from here it will be to the northern rockies (ID, MT, WY).
that's the people elected to represent the people of WA, your neighbors voted for these people.
That's why I like living where I do, if a cop gets shot here we are about catching the perp and putting a needle in their arm versus penalizing law abiding citizens.
Funny how other states make fun of CA and how bad the gun laws are here. I hope WA and other states don't end up like CA.
won't happen here, we don't elect liberal idiots. Our lawmakers are the one's that have proposed the laws we have today.
this won't hold up post Heller.
Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't think this particular attempt in WA will get any traction.
However, I have never seen much in the Heller decision that protects the 2A rights of semiauto rifle owners either, especially when talking about the AR platform. I always come back to section III of the Heller decision, quote below (with a few omissions indicated, to remove the long legal citations, and emphases added in bold).
===============
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [...] nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' [...]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
===============
Note that Scalia appears to have no problem in principle with...
* Banning weapons being carried in 'sensitive places.' And of course, the libs will simply define almost EVERYWHERE as 'sensitive'--certainly every PUBLIC place--right?
* Banning weapons that are not in 'customary use.' Again, the libs will simply place definitional and word games, and will define all the weapons they want to ban as 'not in customary use.'
* Banning the M16. He is clearly saying that the M16 is a legitimate case of a ban, and that this is consistent with the Heller ruling. And my point is, based on his comments about the M16, I have little doubt that the Left will do what they always do, and lump all similar semiautos based on the AR FOW into the same class. Nothing in Scalia's language protects against that.
I sure wish he would have thought out his language a little more carefully on this. In effect, he has actually swung the door wide open to everyone who wants to ban semiautos, and in fact, many anti- groups see it this way, and have said so.
they are idiots.
this won't hold up post Heller.
I agree the proponents are idiots, but Heller would not have any effect. It didn't address this type of law, or come anywhere close to doing so.
We still have a long way to go in terms of developing a body of favorable 2A case law. Heller was an OK but limited first step. The Court has not even addressed yet whether the 2A is incorporated and applies against states/localities (though they will decide that issue this term). They have said very little in the way of what specific laws are OK and which are not, other than to say you cannot have a blanket ban on handguns kept at home for protection.
millerlite
12-30-09, 00:28
so all I have to do is write my rep. and tell him I do not support this? There has to be more in order to stop it.
How many co-sponsors? Out of how many ?
This stuff is always a great reason to write reps and join organizations.
SAF is strong in the Pacific northwest.
www.saf.org
Heavy Metal
12-30-09, 10:37
The AR-15 easily passes the Heller 'Common Use' test. It is the best selling type of rifle in the Country.
I understant the 'dangerous and unusual' clause to mean RPG's and the like.
AR's are no more dangerous than many common firearm types and are certainly not unusual in this day and age.
Bingo:
The AR-15 easily passes the Heller 'Common Use' test. It is the best selling type of rifle in the Country.
I understant the 'dangerous and unusual' clause to mean RPG's and the like.
AR's are no more dangerous than many common firearm types and are certainly not unusual in this day and age.
It's not 1994 anymore.
Check out the Heller ruling and the Amicus briefs that supported Heller. There is some very solid foundation material that can support a huge amount of progress in the next 10 to 20 years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.