Washington State gun law proposal calls for ban on "assault weapons"
46 replies, posted
[quote=examiner.com]Across the country, Democrats are seeking to restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But the proposal put forward by Democrats in Washington state will, if passed into law, effectively strip Washingtonians who legally own "assault" weapons of their Fourth Amendment right, an article at the Observation Post said Thursday.
The proposal introduced in the Senate, SB 5737, not only bans so-called "assault" weapons, it gives local sheriffs the authority to inspect the homes of those who legally own such weapons once a year.[/quote]
The article is pretty shit, half of it is quotes from a conservative news blog. Read the Bill for more info.
Full Article: [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-gun-control-proposal-said-to-violate-fourth-amendment-to-constitution[/url]
SENATE BILL 5737: [url]http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5737.pdf[/url]
Snippet from the bill:
[quote=Senate Bill 5737][B]"Assault weapon" means:[/B]
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle or shotgun
that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a capacity to accept
more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also possesses any of the following:
(i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located rear of the trigger;
(ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but
not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that
allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such
that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be
placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
(iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration,
including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;
(iv) A barrel shroud;
(v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
(vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held
by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
(b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine at any
location outside of the pistol grip;
(c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,or any shotgun
with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept
more than ten rounds of ammunition;
(d) Any firearm with a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
suppression or noise suppression device;
(e) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
(f) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
(g) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault
weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the
control of any person.[/quote]
Stupid knee-jerk response.
[quote]Across the country, Democrats are seeking to restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[/quote]
what a massive generalization
'a barrel shroud'
Which is made not to get your hands burned/not expose hot parts of the firearm to the user's hand.
What a wonderful way to stop crime. What a load of dumbasses.
[editline]18th February 2013[/editline]
'A pistol grip located rear of the trigger'
So pretty much every gun post 1960.
Noo, not Washington! You used to be cool, man! You used to be [I]cool[/I]!
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE] (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or configuration,
including but not limited to a folding stock or a telescoping stock;[/QUOTE]
Uh, guys, this is already restricted. Good job, legislators.
Whoa, this is news to me.
Also, you can carry a concealed weapon inside the capitol building in Olympia. Can't find the article I read about it recently in the newspaper though.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39637721]'a barrel shroud'
Which is made not to get your hands burned/not expose hot parts of the firearm to the user's hand.
What a wonderful way to stop crime. What a load of dumbasses.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously the criminals and psychopaths wouldn't use guns if the gun might burn their hands. :downs:
[QUOTE=Riller;39637738]
Uh, guys, this is already restricted. Good job, legislators.[/QUOTE]
It's not restricted, but has to be registered as a 'Short Barreled Rifle', and you must pay a $500 tax stamp.
Criminals already don't go through the trouble to do so.
[QUOTE](g) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an assault
weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the
control of any person.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ATF-shoestring-machine-gun-2007.jpg[/IMG]
[quote](ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but
not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that
allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such
that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be
placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;[/quote]
There goes bumpfire stocks, this is so stupid.
[quote](ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any configuration, including but
not limited to a thumbhole stock, a folding stock or a telescoping stock, that
allows the bearer of the firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such
that the web of the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be
placed below the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;[/quote]
Cool I'll just bumpfire it without the slide-fire stock, thanks legislators!
What a crock of shit
and this is coming from someone in Europe
I also find it hilarious that it will upset the purchase of kits, because criminals will totally spend their sweet-ass time putting a gun together.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39637844]It's not restricted, but has to be registered as a 'Short Barreled Rifle', and you must pay a $500 tax stamp.
Criminals already don't go through the trouble to do so.[/QUOTE]
I said restricted, not banned. But yeah, this is damn stupid on so many levels. Feel good politics at it's finest.
I honestly have more respect for politicians who want to ban semi-auto guns outright instead of pushing this shit. I disagree with them, but they make sense. This doesn't.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39638134]
Its 200$, and a 6ish month background check. I went through the process for it, but then the SBR I wanted to obtain fell out of favor with me, so i abandoned it.[/QUOTE]
Still used to Illinois law, sorry. Here it's $500 and a minimum 8 months waiting period, alongside background check.
[quote]The proposal introduced in the Senate, SB 5737, not only bans so-called "assault" weapons, it gives local sheriffs the authority to inspect the homes of those who legally own such weapons once a year.[/quote]
Oh wow, these guys are really stepping it up. Violating two Amendments of the Bill of Rights at once, how ballsy.
They must really get a kick out of seeing if they can pass illegal laws.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39638176]The glorious peoples republic of illinois.[/QUOTE]
Yep. 3 criminal governors and 2 cities on the 'Top 10 most dangerous US cities'.
It all just seems too damn stupid to me. Everyone and their grandmother knows where to get a firearm illegally, if they want to. It's both cheaper and 'cleaner' than doing it legally, if you're only gonna be using the gun for crimes, anyway. Hell, I've personally been offered an illegal M9 at one point.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39637721]'a barrel shroud'
Which is made not to get your hands burned/not expose hot parts of the firearm to the user's hand.[/QUOTE]
That's not a barrel shroud.
A barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.
banning assault weapons wont do a thing, criminals will get these guns from other places if they want them
[QUOTE=Riller;39638313]It all just seems too damn stupid to me. Everyone and their grandmother knows where to get a firearm illegally, if they want to. It's both cheaper and 'cleaner' than doing it legally, if you're only gonna be using the gun for crimes, anyway. Hell, I've personally been offered an illegal M9 at one point.[/QUOTE]
I've been offered an automatic M10 with a suppressor before too :v:
Anyone know how likely it is this non sense will pass?
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;39638918]banning assault weapons wont do a thing, criminals will get these guns from other places if they want them[/QUOTE]
90% of criminals don't even use "assault weapons". they use handguns, lol
No one wants to carry around a 1500 dollar rifle that will be instantly seen. It's all about fitting a gun into your pockets.
[editline]18th February 2013[/editline]
Like seriously. How can you even hide a fucking "Assault Weapon". It's still at least over a foot long.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39638966]
90% of criminals don't even use "assault weapons". they use handguns, lol[/QUOTE]
exactly, so this ban has no affect other than stripping the general public of their firearms. And what i was getting at was that in the case that a criminal [I]did[/I] want an AR-15, they could just get one regardless of a ban or not.
I see a lot of dumb ratings but no arguments.
Step up, Sobotnick and Co.
[QUOTE=Kyouko;39640652]I see a lot of dumb ratings but no arguments.
Step up, Sobotnick and Co.[/QUOTE]
they are tired of being "shot" down
I really don't want that to pass ,but I'm interested in lever guns and revolvers for the most part.
Fuck these assholes.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39638966]I've been offered an automatic M10 with a suppressor before too :v:
Anyone know how likely it is this non sense will pass?
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
90% of criminals don't even use "assault weapons". they use handguns, lol[/QUOTE]
then lets ban handguns too
i'm all for it
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;39640847]then lets ban handguns too
i'm all for it[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]The Supreme Court has already ruled that banning handguns for civilian ownership would be unconstitutional.[/url]
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;39641125][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]The Supreme Court has already ruled that banning handguns for civilian ownership would be unconstitutional.[/url][/QUOTE]
i'm familiar with the case, but all you have to do is change the constitution. preferably by repealing the 2nd amendment.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;39641201]i'm familiar with the case, but all you have to do is change the constitution. preferably by repealing the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE]
You really don't know how the Constitution works do you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.