Washington State Considers Gun Bans Which, Shockingly, Mostly Affect Law Abiding Citizens

Democrats have lots of talking points for in public. Things like they just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That they want to reduce gun violence. We’ll get things like they believe in the 2nd Amendment, and just want common sense gun control. That they don’t really want to confiscate guns. But, when they aren’t yammering to the general public, we see that they really do want to mostly ban guns from the law abiding citizens, and when they submit legislation, it isn’t about criminals, it’s about banning guns from the hands of non-criminals

(Breitbart) Washington state senator David Frockt (D-Seattle) and representative Strom Peterson (D-Edmonds) are pushing bans that will outlaw many of the most popular semiautomatic rifles and pistols in their state.

The bans are ubiquitously aimed at law-abiding “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazine” owners and also criminalize numerous semiautomatic pistol owners along the way. They do this by making the age old Democrat mistake of banning guns in light of cosmetic features, such a flash hider, a thumb hole stock, a collapsible stock, or a threaded barrel, as if any of these features make a round fly faster and alter the basic operation of the weapon.

By focusing on these things, Frockt and Peterson paint with a wide brush, expanding the “assault weapons” moniker to outlaw a plethora of weapons.

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is also involved

For example, Frockt’s bill clearly bans any “semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” and also has a “threaded barrel.”

Quick question: How many crime scene photos have you seen where a pistol with a threaded barrel was used? My answer: None. But Frockt’s bill goes after law-abiding citizens who possess them any way, as if having a threaded barrel inclines one to crime.

As bad as this all sounds, it could be even worse if passed, because the bill is written in a way that could open it to broad interpretation. Those of you who own a semiautomatic pistol understand that the barrel on the vast majority of them is not just removable, but quickly removable. Therefore, if you have a threaded barrel you could switch it out for a non-threaded barrel in a snap and avoid the ban. However, if Democrats are interpreting the law, it could be that your pistol must be banned because it has the capability of accepting a threaded barrel.

These geniuses even include the word “silencer” (page 6, line 5) in regards to threaded barrels, something that doesn’t exist. The proper term is suppressor.

For “assault rifle”, it would ban any rifle with “A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;” a pretty broad ban. Fortunately, they also ban any rifle with a grenade launcher. Because this is very common, you know.

Magazines over 10 rounds would be banned.

As the NRA notes

The first bill prohibits all possession, purchase, sale or transfer of an “assault weapon” or LCM, except as permitted. (“Transfer” already has a special definition in Washington law, and means any “intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.”) The exceptions for other than law enforcement personnel or licensed dealers include persons who legally possess such items when the law takeseffect, and persons who become owners through inheritance or other operation of law, provided these owners can “establish such provenance.” Once grandfathered, owners are themselves prohibited from selling or transferring the item, other than to a licensed dealer or by way of permanent relinquishment to law enforcement. Guns and magazines relinquished to law enforcement “must be destroyed.”

The bill also imposes a storage requirement on grandfathered owners as a condition of continued lawful possession. The “assault weapon” or LCM must be kept in a safe, gun safe, lock box or other device that can be locked and constructed of workmanship and material such “that it cannot be pried open or easily removed or defeated.”

Penalties for non-compliance are heavy, and, surprise, aimed at law abiding citizens, rather than criminals in the streets.

These bills have less to do with “meaningful reforms” for public safety and reducing crime (other than the newly defined crimes of being gun owners) than they do with moving the incremental process of stigmatizing guns and eliminating firearm possession by law-abiding citizens another giant step forward in Washington State.

This is what the gun grabbers do.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Washington State Considers Gun Bans Which, Shockingly, Mostly Affect Law Abiding Citizens”

  1. Dana says:

    I wish that Jeffrey or John or someone from the left could explain to me how the left believe that criminals, people who are defined by their willingness to break the law, will somehow obey gun control laws. If a firearm is one of the tools of the trade of the criminal, why would he give up his tools just because the legislature passed a law?

    Perhaps the left believe that, by banning weapons, they will eventually reduce the supply of those weapons, so that criminals will find it more difficult to obtain firearms. I suppose that might work, but the logic of the situation is clear: if it did work, it would be the law-abiding citizens who were disarmed first, before the criminals, leaving us with the wonderful situation of armed predators versus a disarmed population.

    Well, since the left are just so much smarter than us rednecked rubes from flyover country, I’m sure that Jeffrey can explain it to me. I just ask that he not use words of more than two syllables, so that I will be able to understand him.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Gun bans will not work in the US. We HAVE effectively limited machine guns (fully auto), rocket launchers, grenades etc. Do you think we should reconsider fully auto settings since that would allow us to defend ourselves even more effectively against violent Blacks and Muslims? Certainly limits on fully auto weapons violate our god-given rights.

    I’m a gun owning redneck rube myself here in flyover country with two full gun safes and I never felt threatened by the right-wing gun control myths. But my friends and I who hunt and shoot don’t possess weapons designed to mimic military weapons – never saw the appeal, but that’s just us. To be honest, I haven’t seen laws proposed to confiscate my 870 pump, 1100 semis, 30-30s, Rem 700 30-06s, 243, muzzle loaders, double barrel 16, Colt 38 police special, etc. We understand that there are shooting hobbyists. And my friends and I are OK with the “oppressive” state laws that limit the magazine sizes of my shotguns and rifles when afield.

    But to be honest, I have considered purchasing more firepower now that a petty tyrant has been installed.

  3. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    But my friends and I who hunt and shoot don’t possess weapons designed to mimic military weapons – never saw the appeal, but that’s just us.

    Therein lies the rub, Jeffery, they “mimic military weapons” they are NOT military weapons. They want to ban something because of the way they “look” not function.

    To be honest, I haven’t seen laws proposed to confiscate my 870 pump, 1100 semis, 30-30s, Rem 700 30-06s, 243, muzzle loaders, double barrel 16, Colt 38 police special, etc.

    So are you saying as long as the law proposes to take somebody elses gun rights away but not yours you are okay with it? You’ll only care when they confiscate your 30-30’s or 30-06s but if they grab your neighbors Mini 14screw’em? That’s not standing on your principles, it’s standing on your privilege. Your guns are the “good” guns his Mini 14 is a bad, bad gun cause it “mimics” something. Wow.

    And my friends and I are OK with the “oppressive” state laws that limit the magazine sizes of my shotguns and rifles when afield.

    That’s not really the truth is it? You and your friends can limit your magazine sizes any time you want by buying lower capacity magazines. Nobody’s stopping you. What you want is the power to stomp on other people’s right to do the same regarding the capacity of their magazines.

    But to be honest, I have considered purchasing more firepower now that a petty tyrant has been installed.

    If you are referring to the petty tyrant who governed by executive order and threatened the people of the United States with his “pen and his phone” for the last 8 years his despotic rule is ending. If you are referring to Trump he has not yet been “installed” and if he’s as bad as you say we won’t be hearing from you after January 21 regardless of your magazine capacity.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    If you are referring to Trump he has not yet been “installed” and if he’s as bad as you say we won’t be hearing from you after January 21 regardless of your magazine capacity.

    Yep, the little guy and his ilk will be dealt with at the appropriate time.

  5. Brass says:

    Gonna put my pedantic pants on here for a second and let you know that the original patent was for the Hiriam Maxim silencer for guns. Patent # US 1482805 A.

    “Be it known that I, HIRAM PERCY MAXIM, a citizen of the United States and a. resident of Hartford, county of Hartford, State of” Connecticut, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in a Silencer for Guns,…”

  6. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    We HAVE effectively limited machine guns (fully auto), rocket launchers, grenades etc. Do you think we should reconsider fully auto settings since that would allow us to defend ourselves even more effectively against violent Blacks and Muslims? Certainly limits on fully auto weapons violate our god-given rights.

    The military has limited the M-16 and M-4 to three round bursts, because fully automatic wastes ammunition, spoils aim and dramatically overheats barrels, quickly ruining weapons. A thug with a fully automatic weapon is probably less dangerous, because he is unlikely to be able to control his weapon on rock-and-roll, and more likely to ruin it trying.

  7. Stosh says:

    Banning any gun because a criminal shoots someone makes as much sense as banning cars because there are drunk drivers.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    If comrade trumpski comes a callin’, I’ll be ready for him!

    Plus, he might not be so bad after all, his latest on national healthcare is further left than Obama, and closer to what Senator Sanders wanted. Will the Teabag House agree or will trumpski just change his mind again?

  9. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    I think we’re both safe Jeffery. We’re both ready. We and about 50 million other Americans.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4843 access attempts in the last 7 days.