HB2354 to ban assault weapons and hi-cap magazines

#2
Wouldn't want any of dem "legals" to be able to purchase em, keep em on the black mkt for the ones that use them for nice things like robberies and homicides!
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
#3
All but one of the bill's authors are from liberalville. The other is from the Vancouver area. Figures. Jackasses likely don't know one end of a firearm from the other.
 

Lugan

Joe Streamer
#4
Any law purporting to ban "assault weapons" is just adding loopholes and confusion through ambiguity because the distinctions are probably impossible to define in any clear way. But I don't think that is politicians' concern. They are being told by some of their constituents to "do something!!!", and this is that something, whether it would be effective or not. Then at election time they can point to the law and say that they "did something" or at least "tried something" (if it doesn't pass). Messaging at campaign time is the real goal most likely, for this issue and most others unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

Jim Ficklin

Genuine Montana Fossil
#5
They are being told by some of their constituents to "do something!!!"
Should this pass (and I hope it doesn't), they will "do something." They'll finally prompt me to reconsider moving back home. I'm glad that I don't own an assault rifle - just semi-auto sporting & target arms with free-float barrels & ventilated forends, although they do have a scary pistol grip. Heck, only one of them is even evil black . . .
 
Last edited:

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#8
This would include magazines that hold more than 10 rounds...handguns anyone?
Ever wonder how they came up with the number 10? Was it based on a study of various model pistols and then derived through a sophisticated formula? Was it based on firearm crime statistics and lethality of gun types used? Was it really 11 and that sounded funny so they decided on 10? Will they eventually decide revolvers are scary and should be considered assault weapons? Will those 7+ shot models be the ones that are just too much armament?

WA is a wannabe CA... and they are in a fevered race to catch up. We made the decision years ago that the politics in this state were fucked up and that we would be responding with our wallet and feet.

I recently upgraded to NRA Life Member, was active writing numerous letters during the last Bloomberg led attack, and donate to WAC and other pro AR groups. At times it feels like pissing in the wind, but to do nothing irritates me more. Don't know about the rest of you, but I sure miss this great American and defender of our citizens 2AR's.

Heston.jpg
 

ribka

Active Member
#9
Any law purporting to ban "assault weapons" is just adding loopholes and confusion through ambiguity because the distinctions are probably impossible to define in any clear way. But I don't think that is politicians' concern. They are being told by some of their constituents to "do something!!!", and this is that something, whether it would be effective or not. Then at election time they can point to the law and say that they "did something" or at least "tried something" (if it doesn't pass). Messaging at campaign time is the real goal most likely, for this issue and most others unfortunately.
ten years ago I would just laugh this off as kook talk and would just agree this is political grandstanding, messaging, then i see the new anti gun laws just passed in California, Connecticut, New York,New Jersey, Colorado...

Non gun owning voters are quick to dismiss this as "ambiguous", "impossible to define" etc ..then a few politicians throw in juvenile rhetoric like "common sense" , "Intelligent", "for the children" to ban magazines of over ten rounds ( no ambiguity here), ammo taxes like in Seattle http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-upholds-seattles-gun-and-ammunition-tax/ ( no ambiguilty here), semi-autos suddenly termed "high caliber assault weapons"


look at what Connecticut just did

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494616

If that can't get voter approval they'll just tax until cost prohibitive or ban all lead ammo like in California
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/09/california-officially-bans-hunters-from-using-lead-bullets/

I could go on and on regarding other states' new draconian anti firearms laws passed the last few years. SAd thing is about fifty per cent of member son WFF support this crap
so much for sportsmen sticking together
 

flybill

Purveyor of fine hackle, wine & cigars!
#12
I don't get it, how does banning guns like an AR or lowering the capacity of magazines worry you guys so much?

You don't hunt with an AR, at least not animals.. If you haven't gotten the bad guys with 10 shots, you're probably not going to and you can always use your spare magazine(s).

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but seriously want to get an answer, beyond the "Dem's", "Liberals" want to take my guns away from me or create a loophole in the current laws. Or Obama is the anti-Christ.. He's done more for gun sales during his 7 years in office.. look how crazy things got with gun purchases, ammo shortages right after each election he won.

I have owned a number of guns, shotguns and a 22 long rifle. I will eventually get a handgun or two and maybe even a CCP. I have shot tons of guns (including AR's, handguns from 9mm to a 357 and lots of big game rifles), I've hunted birds (ducks and pheasant's).. but I just don't feel that it's ever going to get to a point where I can't legally purchase whatever I need to hunt or defend myself (or my property). The 2nd amendment won't disappear. The NRA is too well organized and gun advocates won't let it happen!

I fully support background checks, and things like serial number on guns and even ammo. So if you really know how to handle a gun and practice routinely, like many of you probably do, aren't 10 round magazines enough? Do you really need an AR15 or AK47? I know the answer for me.

I was going to read the full bill before I wrote anything, but couldn't get through it this late at night. I will go through some of the other links provided and hope that this discussion will remain civil...

FlyBill (The liberal, green, global warming is real, democrat you all worry about!)

PS - I personally care more about saving wild steelhead than guns.. and making sure my niece and nephews can fish for them long after I'm gone!
 

spadebit

Active Member
#13
People hunt with AR style rifles with appropriate mags.... Texas hog hunting is one example.

But this has nothing to do with hunting... that is a classic argument usually made from the Australian or British populous.

Store owners had "high capacity" magazines in the Watts riots, they needed them for a reason.

Will a magazine limit or help stop a murderer? No

Limiting the public won't limit criminals.

People face the same criminals law enforcement do. Since this is true, then why aren't police held to a 10 round magazine?

Clinton had a ten year ban on magazines, it failed.

I'll never understand why 10 is some magic number, it's as if the message is ok if someone kills ten it's not so bad, at least it wasn't 30.

Limiting magazines isn't the answer to anything, it is a feel good policy that only pops up after a tragic event.

Last time I checked it wasn't called the bill of needs.
 

Jim Ficklin

Genuine Montana Fossil
#14
I don't get it, how does banning guns like an AR or lowering the capacity of magazines worry you guys so much?
Because it starts a slide on a slippery slope, Bill. Thinking that throwing one type of firearm or magazine "under the bus" will be the end of it is not the end, it is the beginning. If the government is successful in eroding one of the Bill of Rights, which right will be next?

And I do hunt with a couple of mine, target shoot with another, and yet another was purchased for both personal protection against a potential future need (that hopefully never rears its head) & to complete a niche in my collection. The 2nd Amendment grants me that Right. What part of infringing or limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals who don't acknowledge laws makes sense? I own handguns with magazine capacities exceeding 10 rounds; these manufacturers don't currently offer <10 round magazines; I bought those pieces because they were my handguns of choice, and magazine capacity was not a primary consideration. Penalizing the innocent in hopes that will halt the actions of those of evil intent among mankind only renders the innocent helpless & emboldens the evil ones.
 
Last edited:
#15
I'm not trying to stir the pot, but seriously want to get an answer, beyond the "Dem's", "Liberals" want to take my guns away from me or create a loophole in the current laws. Or Obama is the anti-Christ.. He's done more for gun sales during his 7 years in office.. look how crazy things got with gun purchases, ammo shortages right after each election he won.

FlyBill (The liberal, green, global warming is real, democrat you all worry about!)
Maybe you took my use of the word dem out of context but no one has mentioned "Dems" or "liberals" trying to take their guns, except kinda by Kerry with the mention of Seattle. Outside of that politics really has no place in this discussion, it is about firearms. I don't identify as liberal or conservative. Planned parenthood is good, it's not your body so let them decide for them damn self and all I want is people of diverse sexual orientation to be able to protect their marijuana plants with high capacity magazines, because we know that people coming to do them harm will typically have more than a 10 round magazine.

To echo Mr. Call, this worked so well in CA

To echo Spadebit, Bill of RIGHTS not needs.