Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of this may be on point, but it does not negate the fact that we still need to enact common-sense gun legislation. Other efforts to define 'assault weapon' have failed, in part I think due to the complexity of these high-tech-style weapons.
When the 1994 assault weapon ban(AWB) was passed, it was reported that many gun makers simply slightly changed their designs to comply, and the mass slaughters went on. IIRC Columbine was carried out with AWB compliant weapons.
Something clearly needs to be done. What is your suggestion?
The 1994 ban was based on looks and not function. A muzzle loader with "black" accessories would have been illegal.
When the 1994 assault weapon ban(AWB) was passed, it was reported that many gun makers simply slightly changed their designs to comply, and the mass slaughters went on. IIRC Columbine was carried out with AWB compliant weapons.
Something clearly needs to be done. What is your suggestion?
Meanwhile, homicide rates have been declining steadily almost every year since the early 90s. The massive wave of shootings you and the media are trying to push doesn't exist.
Mass shootings, while individually tragic, are statistically a drop in the bucket. Basing firearm policy on mass shootings is like basing your highway safety policy on Dukes of Hazzard style car chases.
Meanwhile, homicide rates have been declining steadily almost every year since the early 90s. The massive wave of shootings you and the media are trying to push doesn't exist.
Mass shootings, while individually tragic, are statistically a drop in the bucket. Basing firearm policy on mass shootings is like basing your highway safety policy on Dukes of Hazzard style car chases.
They ignore the truth. It doesn't fit their agenda.
A few years ago I heard it said that Washington had the highest per-capita NRA membership of any state. Undeniably, the state has traditionally opposed common-sense gun safety. A democratic governor even signed into law legalization of silencers in 2011. I don't know who needs a silencer other than an assassin or a gangster. I know that silencers were very popular among NY mafia back in the heyday of the Gambinos etc.
But the climate here has improved. I credit an influx of well-educated Californians, and well-informed millennial tech workers. Initiative 594, to mandate universal background checks, passed 59-40% in 2014. A coalition of concerned citizens, including Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, and Nick Hanauer (Amazon investor) generously donated to get it passed.
Now we have Initiative 1639, to restrict assault-style weapons. It's a good first step. There has always been confusion about the definition of 'assault style weapon.' I-1639 defines all semi-automatic style weapons as assault weapons. From the initiative: https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_I..._Measure_(2018)
I'm not a gun expert, so this is all Greek to me, but I'm told that this definition encompasses all semi-automatic-style weapons. This greatly simplifies things. No longer to police have to wonder whether the gun with the 'barrel shroud' is legal or not. The one thing I wish they had included is regulation of the high magazine clips. I think that is key, but they left it off.
Based on recent voting trends in the state, I think this will easily pass. Finally we will be on the road to common sense gun safety, as other advanced states such as California and New York.
Well considering the handgun involved in the Heller case which the SCOTUS clearly stated was protected by the second amendment was a semi-auto, this will fail in court.
It has often been said that in a state-wide election in WA, all the votes you need to win can be seen from the top of the Space Needle (located in downtown Seattle).
All the votes you need to win in Washington can be seen from the cemeteries of King County.
All of this may be on point, but it does not negate the fact that we still need to enact common-sense gun legislation. Other efforts to define 'assault weapon' have failed, in part I think due to the complexity of these high-tech-style weapons.
When the 1994 assault weapon ban(AWB) was passed, it was reported that many gun makers simply slightly changed their designs to comply, and the mass slaughters went on. IIRC Columbine was carried out with AWB compliant weapons.
Something clearly needs to be done. What is your suggestion?
You keep using that term "common sense", yet it does not apply here.
This legislation would also include the Marlin model 60 I purchased at 16 years old at a nearby gas station to my home. Had it for many years, never an incident.
Semi automatic? Check.
High capacity (17 rounds !!)? Check
Weapon of mass slaughter? Nope. Just an anemic plinker and small varmint tool.
And yet it is prohibited for purchase and possession by many now in Washington state. Not exactly common sense, nor an assault rifle, in this "simplified" legislation you are fond of. My 20 year old daughter can no longer buy one, or even use mine in Washington state under many circumstances.
And yes, manufacturers do indeed modify design to meet the law. They will continue to do so.
My suggestion? Start educating yourself. Ask hard questions, like how many semi auto rifles are used in crime, compared to handguns (of any type). Who is doing the majority of the crime? What types of areas are the majority of the criminals located in, and what are their demographics?
A picture may start to form for you, and how legislation like this is really not "common sense".
Also begin learning about firearms themselves.
What is the functional difference between the big scary AR-15 that dominates so much of the anti gunners posturing, and say the demure looking Ruger mini 14?
Well considering the handgun involved in the Heller case which the SCOTUS clearly stated was protected by the second amendment was a semi-auto, this will fail in court.
Maybe that is the intent. Get the 2nd amendment back in front of the SC.
You keep using that term "common sense", yet it does not apply here.
This legislation would also include the Marlin model 60 I purchased at 16 years old at a nearby gas station to my home. Had it for many years, never an incident.
Semi automatic? Check.
High capacity (17 rounds !!)? Check
Weapon of mass slaughter? Nope. Just an anemic plinker and small varmint tool.
And yet it is prohibited for purchase and possession by many now in Washington state. Not exactly common sense, nor an assault rifle, in this "simplified" legislation you are fond of. My 20 year old daughter can no longer buy one, or even use mine in Washington state under many circumstances.
And yes, manufacturers do indeed modify design to meet the law. They will continue to do so.
My suggestion? Start educating yourself. Ask hard questions, like how many semi auto rifles are used in crime, compared to handguns (of any type). Who is doing the majority of the crime? What types of areas are the majority of the criminals located in, and what are their demographics?
A picture may start to form for you, and how legislation like this is really not "common sense".
Also begin learning about firearms themselves.
What is the functional difference between the big scary AR-15 that dominates so much of the anti gunners posturing, and say the demure looking Ruger mini 14?
I have to remember to come back to this thread to see the answer(s) to that final question. It is something I have been wondering about, also.
Initiatives like this one are the primary reason why my son will leave the Seattle area as soon as his cancer therapy is complete, and why he will be moving from Washington to Northern Idaho as soon as certain legal problems are taken care of.
I wish he could move to Montana, but that isn't likely for various reasons.
I used to live in West Seattle. Sure glad I moved out in 1970. I still have two kids out there, but I won't go visit. I can't stand the place nowadays.
BTW, should mention that the initiative was already challenged in court, and a judge struck it down, saying that the drafters had not followed the law regarding the format of initiatives. That was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which reversed the decision, putting the initiative back on the ballot. I heard a UW law professor say that the court has always be reluctant to take initiatives off of the ballot. But no doubt it will be challenged again after the election if it passes.
Note that the initiative does not ban semiautomatic style weapons. It regulates, as has been done, and presumably upheld by courts, in other states. Also it is my understanding that I-1639 only apples to rifles, not to handguns. I'm not sure why, or what the technical differences are. My view would be that an assault style weapon is an assault style weapon, whether rifle or handgun. Both can kill you. As a James Bond actor once said:
Quote:
"I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around people will shoot each other. That's a simple fact. I've seen a bullet wound and it was a mess. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that's what's scary about them."
One would think James Bond would qualify as an expert on weapons, no?
BTW, should mention that the initiative was already challenged in court, and a judge struck it down, saying that the drafters had not followed the law regarding the format of initiatives. That was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which reversed the decision, putting the initiative back on the ballot. I heard a UW law professor say that the court has always be reluctant to take initiatives off of the ballot. But no doubt it will be challenged again after the election if it passes.
Note that the initiative does not ban semiautomatic style weapons. It regulates, as has been done, and presumably upheld by courts, in other states. Also it is my understanding that I-1639 only apples to rifles, not to handguns. I'm not sure why, or what the technical differences are. My view would be that an assault style weapon is an assault style weapon, whether rifle or handgun. Both can kill you. As a James Bond actor once said:
One would think James Bond would qualify as an expert on weapons, no?
You really need to polish up on the topic before you comment. You don't appear to have basically, any knowledge on firearms. No insult intended. We all want a safer society but fear and boogey men don't help us at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
