Washington State Gun Control: All Semiautomatic Rifles Are 'Assault Rifles'

[alfsauve]

And,,, thank God I was born in Alabama

And I as a Gawja boy, am thankful also. Thankful also for Alabama. Else we'd be next to Mssissippi.

 

[Old Dog]

And,,, thank God I was born in Alabama

Ah, real helpful here. Almost like the posters who tell native Californians who have strong roots, all their family members, and great jobs in that state, that they must immediately move to a "free state."

Washington state has a long and proud tradition of supporting the Second Amendment, gun rights in general, and a HUGE gun-owning, gun-carrying populace (even in Seattle and King County) ... not to mention we are the original "shall-issue" state. We are NOT going down without a fight. Two Seattle billionaires, Bloomberg and the latte-swilling liberal millenials in King County will not prevail again.

 

[Trey Veston]

Bought another AR-15 lower today. Will be buying a Glock 27 before the end of the year.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Ah, real helpful here. Almost like the posters who tell native Californians who have strong roots, all their family members, and great jobs in that state, that they must immediately move to a "free state."

Washington state has a long and proud tradition of supporting the Second Amendment, gun rights in general, and a HUGE gun-owning, gun-carrying populace (even in Seattle and King County) ... not to mention we are the original "shall-issue" state. We are NOT going down without a fight. Two Seattle billionaires, Bloomberg and the latte-swilling liberal millenials in King County will not prevail again.

I think I-594 may have been a wake up call for a lot of gun owners who wouldn't take the time to vote. There really is no excuse this time around because this state has vote by mail. You get your ballot in the mail, you vote and mail it. I can't remember if we had that when I-594 was on the ballot but I think a few were doing it even then. It's pretty common now.

I suspect that I-1639 will be defeated but I'm not taking any chances. I called my dealer a few days ago and ordered another carbine. I'm going to talk to him next week and ask him if his carbine sales have increased. I'm hoping that dealers are selling thousands of SA rifles and I-1639 is defeated. And maybe the liberal media rag Seattle Times will do a story on the increase in sales and how I-1639 caused it. But I doubt they will because that just doesn't promote their agenda.

 

[alfsauve]

In reading 1639 I noticed that rather than starting up front with definitions, they were interspersed in the text. At least they cut right to the chase. If it's semi-auto it's an assault rifle. At least it's straight up and plain. They are after all semi-autos. Next step, semi-auto handguns.

Many of us are "settled" in our own areas. It's hard to pickup and leave. I didn't go far, on my mother's side from Cordele to Statesboro to Marietta, GA. Now my father got sent from Ontario, Canada (US Army Air Corp) to Statesboro during WWII and basically married into a Georgia family. Never went back. My wife and I have talked. We believe we would, could and can uproot if circumstances presented themselves to seek a better environment. The fly in the ointment would be getting the sons and their families out as well. But we are unique. Retired, have our familial feet in three states and relatives from FL to Maine, and from SC to AZ.

Another aspect of this is the wisdom of allowing the representative system to be shortcut by a popular referendum.

 

[theotherwaldo]

-And I was born in Alabama City, Alabama, the quintessential southern town.
Still, I've spent as much time on the Left Coast as I have in the Deep South.
As it stands, I can't return to California without selling most of my collection, Washington is steadily getting worse, and even Oregon is starting the long, slow slide toward disarming the law-abiding and empowering the criminals.
As Davy Crockett said, “You may all go to **** and I will go to Texas.”

 

[GEM]

I've deleted some of the off topic posts about states in general. Please stay on the issue.

A comment - one poster suggested a march carrying rifles. Think about this - who does it motivate to come out to vote?

Second, a suggestion that we have to get all the gun folks out to vote. Well, that makes sense but it is losing proposition. The gun world is terrible in coming up with messages that resonate outside of the committed choir. Otherwise, as cities grow and rural areas shrink, the bans will increase.

 

[commygun]

Not to be a downer but 1639 will absolutely sail through. The ignorance of the Pugetopolis voter is impossible to exaggerate. Yes, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties have thriving gun cultures but not nearly enough to make a dent at the ballot box.

 

[GEM]

Just for info. Here's a decision out of NJ on mag bans. https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...nd-mags-is-constitutional-says-federal-judge/

I would read the court's decision. Some take away points that the gun world has to deal with besides just saying: Shall not be infringed!!

a. A review of the danger of higher capacity magazines in massacres.
b. Such bans are just fine with Heller (surprise).
c. The progun research was not convincing (Kleck's testimony).
d. Other states are doing.
e. No compelling reason for such vs. the danger posed by such

So what do you say in rebuttal to such decisions? The surface validity of danger is compelling to many people. The gun world has many folks in the 5 is enough, Zumbo camps. The need for defense against tyranny seems to have dropped out of the discussion for the most part. Many in the gun world mock it also.

 

[Old Dog]

Another aspect of this is the wisdom of allowing the representative system to be shortcut by a popular referendum.

Excellent point. Our initiative systems presumes the electorate is educated or at least possesses a modicum of critical thinking skills.

Sadly, 'til not the case anymore, probably everywhere ...

 

[Old Dog]

So what do you say in rebuttal to such decisions? The surface validity of danger is compelling to many people. The gun world has many folks in the 5 is enough, Zumbo camps. The need for defense against tyranny seems to have dropped out of the discussion for the most part. Many in the gun world mock it also.

A good question, and more good points. 'Tis also a fact that many, if not most (judging by election results in several states over the past couple of decades) gun-owners are not bothering to educate themselves to the point where they can articulate the pro-gun arguments in a logical, reasoned manner. Then there remains the pesky question of actually voting ... In any case, it behooves us all to be life-long students of history, as well as following events in other countries which often provide evidence of the need for defense against tyranny.

 

[alfsauve]

Michael Bane just recommended this book which appears to be applicable to this thread. I've downloaded it and will start reading it today. Report later unless someone else has already reviewed it.

Conservative Insurgency - Schlichter

 

[CoalTrain49]

There's always going to be a large segment of gun owners that will vote against the semi-auto rifle. They will never own one, they probably own a pistol or revolver and never shoot it. They vote for initiatives like 1639 because they aren't a part of that crowd. It's like the people that drive compact cars and rail about people who drive full size pickups. They're trying to force their morals and lifestyle on everybody else. I'm sure there are a lot of Seattle liberals that own a gun, (I actually know one) that will vote for I-1639.

I think we have about a 50/50 chance of defeating this.

 

[JR24]

Ah, real helpful here. Almost like the posters who tell native Californians who have strong roots, all their family members, and great jobs in that state, that they must immediately move to a "free state."

Washington state has a long and proud tradition of supporting the Second Amendment, gun rights in general, and a HUGE gun-owning, gun-carrying populace (even in Seattle and King County) ... not to mention we are the original "shall-issue" state. We are NOT going down without a fight. Two Seattle billionaires, Bloomberg and the latte-swilling liberal millenials in King County will not prevail again.

I hope you are right, but it seems every year that passes WA goes further California loonbin.

 

[Texas10mm]

There's always going to be a large segment of gun owners that will vote against the semi-auto rifle. They will never own one, they probably own a pistol or revolver and never shoot it. They vote for initiatives like 1639 because they aren't a part of that crowd. It's like the people that drive compact cars and rail about people who drive full size pickups. They're trying to force their morals and lifestyle on everybody else. I'm sure there are a lot of Seattle liberals that own a gun, (I actually know one) that will vote for I-1639.

I think we have about a 50/50 chance of defeating this.

Most of them are idiots. They picture an AR15 or a AK47 as the rifles mentioned in this 1639. Imagine their surprise when they find out it applies to their Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 60.

 

[Trey Veston]

Bought a S&W M&P40c with night sights today. Couldn't pass up under $300 for such a great little pistol.

Now my gun buying is done for another year or so.

Will give me time to evaluate what happens with 1639 and get my house sold.

 

[Labguy47]

Are they willing to extend this ban to law enforcement? I would like to see how this plays out when police are no longer allowed weapons that rival gangbangers or drug dealers. Of course there will be exception after exception until it finally is seen for what it is. I cant wait to see the ban on steak knives next.

 

[Trey Veston]

They're not banning semi-auto rifles; just trying to make owning them expensive, inconvenient, and removing all constitutional rights from the owners.

It's tyranny. Plain and simple.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Same old story.
"The Revolution cannot be successful while the counter-revolutionaries are still legally armed."

 

[CoalTrain49]

They're not banning semi-auto rifles; just trying to make owning them expensive, inconvenient, and removing all constitutional rights from the owners.

It's tyranny. Plain and simple.

Correct. It's not a ban. That's why a lot of people will vote for it. It doesn't directly affect a lot of gun owners because they don't own semi-auto rifles. The only semi-auto rifle I own is 75 years old. I doubt very many M1 carbines are used in any mass shootings, yet I get thrown in with the black rifle crowd even though I don't own one. My neighbor owns a 10/22. Now he's also part of the "assault rifle" crowd.

So my conclusion is if I'm going to be penalized for collecting military relicts I might as well own a more modern rifle. So I bought one just to make a statement. I'll own it, shoot it and become proficient with it just to piss off all of the "assault rifle" haters living in this state. Breaking bad.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

They're not banning semi-auto rifles; just trying to make owning them expensive, inconvenient, and removing all constitutional rights from the owners.

It's tyranny. Plain and simple.

Let's look at something similar to this from a long time ago.

Of course everyone may ride the bus but certain people have to sit in the back...

 

[alfsauve]

Had some other thoughts and questions after going over 1639.

Existing semi-autos are grandfathered in? Assuming you're not otherwise prohibited.

Are there state prohibitions on manufacture? (assembling)

How will dealers handle the sale of AR lowers? It is at the time of sale neither a rifle nor a pistol, NOR is it a semi-auto as it can as easily be built as a straight pull bolt or a conventional bolt. Even built as a shotgun.

What about converting an AR with straight pull bolt to a semi-auto?

I don't think anyone should make a big deal about these questions just yet. If passed and this goes straight in to law then I think there are some major gaps in the rules, from the anti-gun perspective. If passed, but state government bureaucrats can add "regulations" to "clarify" the law then things could get a whole lot worse.

 

[Pudge]

Just for info. Here's a decision out of NJ on mag bans. https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...nd-mags-is-constitutional-says-federal-judge/

I would read the court's decision. Some take away points that the gun world has to deal with besides just saying: Shall not be infringed!!

a. A review of the danger of higher capacity magazines in massacres.
b. Such bans are just fine with Heller (surprise).
c. The progun research was not convincing (Kleck's testimony).
d. Other states are doing.
e. No compelling reason for such vs. the danger posed by such

So what do you say in rebuttal to such decisions? The surface validity of danger is compelling to many people. The gun world has many folks in the 5 is enough, Zumbo camps. The need for defense against tyranny seems to have dropped out of the discussion for the most part. Many in the gun world mock it also.

What do you say? How about asking whether they expect the measurable impact in violent crime from such laws will be, and why they support compromising civil rights? They don't expect any social impact, it is just a political goal, and they don't care about the government restricting the civil rights of citizens.

 

[DannyLandrum]

There are a lot of very bad, very draconian things in this state question - gun owners in WA - please get off your duffs and VOTE in November, for goodness sake.

 

[DannyLandrum]

The framers of the initiative define a “semiautomatic assault rifle” as “any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”

So your Ruger 10/22, Marlin 60, Browning BAR, and Remington 7400 will be highly-regulated "assault rifles". But the gun-haters tell us every single day that "no one is coming for your hunting gun, and you're both crazy and disingenuous to suggest as much". They wouldn't lie to us..... would they?