Washington State Legislature Introduces Bill to Ban ‘Assault Rifles’ and ‘High Capacity’ Magazines

Tequila! (courtesy eBay.com)

Democratic Washington state legislators have introduced a bill to ban “Assault Weapons” and “High Capacity” magazines (HB2354). The “Assault Weapon” definition is quite broad; it doesn’t exclude .22LR firearms. As per usual, LEO and government officials are exempt. It’s currently sitting in the Judiciary committee. TTAG reader MB sent us the heads-up and the following alcohol-infused analogy . . .

Stop Drunk Driving!

This is my common sense, and reasonable, solution to reducing deaths from drunk driving. Deaths from drunk driving kill and destroy thousands of families each year, and are completely preventable. No longer can we stand by and allow our children to be put in harm’s way by a drunk driver.

Therefore, my proposed solution is reasonable, easy to implement, and keeps our children safe.

To begin with, we need to ban vodka. This drink is dangerously potent, at 80 proof, and is highly popular in bars and clubs because of its ability to be added to nearly any drink. Colorless, vodka can also be used to trick people, as alcoholics use vodka instead of water. You can see this at any number of public and kid-friendly sporting events. This is dangerous, as these drinkers will then drive home, endangering other drivers.

By removing this highly-potent alcohol from the shelves of bars and restaurants, we’ll make the roads safer for our children.

In addition to banning vodka, I propose that we eliminate large glasses from bars and other establishments that serve alcoholic beverages. Large volume glasses only allow drinkers to get drunk quickly. There is no need for 16oz, 22oz, or even 32oz glasses. If I can enjoy my wine in a 4oz pour, then 4oz is good enough for anyone.

The only people who should have access to these sizes of glasses should be food critics, as they require the beverages to last the entire course of the meal they are reviewing. Festivals, sporting events, bars, and private brewhouses have no need for such large glasses that only serve to make people drunk.

Clearly these two proposals can be accepted by any reasonable person with common sense. Please remember that drunk driving kills our children every year. It’s completely preventable, and easily done if these solutions are enacted.

comments

  1. avatar Kyle says:

    So what is the likelihood that it passes in the state?

    1. avatar Brentondadams says:

      Count the number of Ds vs Rs in the legislature and you have your answer

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        Not really. A lot of the D’s might vote against it or the R’s might vote for it, depending on the politics of the state. Washington state, provided the website I’m going by is right, currently has 24 Democratic party Senate members and 25 Republicans Senate members, and 50 Democratic party House members and 47 Republican party House members, and the Governor is a Democrat.

        1. avatar rosignol says:

          Inslee has a long record of supporting gun control. If it reaches him, he’ll sign it.

      2. avatar 2Asux says:

        Count the numbers in the US House and Senate, and Republicans get anything they want.

        Why expect the left coast Washington to be any different ?

        1. avatar Newshawk says:

          Don’t you mean, “…and the Democrats get anything they want…”?

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Using my small laptop; snarc key not included on keyboard.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          It doesn’t work that way for passing bills. But it does work that way for not allowing bills you don’t want to pass. Whoever has the simple majority wins on that count.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          It was a tongue-in-cheek response to the notion that a three-vote majority could be counted on to always stop bad legislation.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          In a climate of extremely high partisanship on the relevant issue, and a trend of said partisanship steadily growing even higher over time, it actually can.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Bookmark your conclusion; check back every so often.

        7. avatar Radio Randy says:

          2Asux,

          I’m a relative stranger to this blog. Does your pseudonym actually stand for what I think it does?

          Thanks.

        8. avatar Sam I An says:

          It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

          Actually, 2Asux for those who oppose it,

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          Yes, Sam I An (can’t even spell his screen name) got it right. 2A does indeed suck for those who hate the fact it exists.

      3. avatar Omni says:

        That is not how Washington State works.

        Two of the biggest most progun reps in this state are Ds. They have legalized suppressors and SBRs.

        Party bullshit at its finest.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      From what I’ve read, this has been proposed several times but has never made it out of committee.

    3. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      As I resident of Washington State, I already sent off an email to my representative who responded that he “wholeheartedly supports the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms – without qualification” and that he is opposed to this bill, and will do everything in his power to oppose and defeat it.

      I further note that the bill has only seven sponsors. It may climb, but that’s a very low number.

      1. avatar Sabrina says:

        I already contacted my rep, and from what he wrote back, it’s pretty much DOA.

    4. avatar Frank Masotti says:

      When it does they will have to take them after they take my bullets at about 2400 FPS and only then from my cold dead hands.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Frank, it doesn’t affect the guns you already own, but I support your sentiments. I would like to continue to buy high capacity rifles and pistols and have unrestricted liberty.

    5. avatar Mike H in WA says:

      They just legalized SBR’s not that long ago, so the odds of this passing aren’t that great. Even some of the more liberal places outside of Seattle are relatively pro gun.

    6. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Even in the event it passes, people in the Eastern part of the state will not obey the rules and sheriffs won’t bother enforcing it. It will be the same civil disobedience seen in Connecticut.

    7. avatar int19h says:

      Zero chance. It won’t even get to the vote, it’ll die in committee like all the similar bills before it. It’s just a yearly ritual for some Democrats in the state House that they must perform to appease their voters, nothing more. Kinda like Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare every month.

  2. avatar GWHNick says:

    Once they legalize marijuana, the liberals come flocking in to form their hippy brigades and wipe their ass with the bill of rights. Happened to CO and it will probably happen in WA too. Stay out of AZ! We don’t need liberals here…

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      Maybe if conservatives stopped shilling for the murderous drug war, more people would vote for them.

    2. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

      AZ is pretty much liberal proof at this point in time.

      They keep trying to come here and change shit up and we end up scaring them all away with open carry. Hell, even half of the homosexual community down on Central is carrying a gun. Seems to be just a way of life here.

    3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      Maybe if the GOP stopped their support for the murderous drug war, hippies might consider voting for them.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        Maybe if the left-wing Progressive Democrats actually believed in the 10th amendment, the Drug Wars wouldn’t be a Federal issue period. But that would assume all Democrats support elimination of anti-drug laws, which is not the case either.

        BTW I do think the anti-drug efforts is a failure, and I do think the Federal government has overstepped it’s authority in the matter. However, I am not naive to think that the problems of drug use or cartels go away with the lifting of all drug laws, nor am I ignorant enough to think that drugs are as culturally acceptable as alcohol was and is

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          You do realize the drug war was ruled legal as per the commerce clause, a rule that has been abused with bipartisan fervor, right? Moreover, the drug war was started by Nixon and vastly expanded by Reagan and Bush Sr as a cynical way to draw in social conservative/law-and-order voters. Say what you want about Democrats abusing federal authority, the drug war is by-and-large a conservative effort.

          Nice strawmen arguments with the “naive” line, by the way. The point is, don’t act shocked that a deliberate Republican effort to punish hippies in return for conservative votes ends up causing said hippies to not vote for Republicans.

  3. avatar S.CROCK says:

    Some analogies are good and all but they tend to get old. This one on the other hand is extremely awesome. My favorite part was about the food critics needing more than 4oz.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      Though perhaps food critics should have been FDA regulators…

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    We know Washington and Oregon are already lost. Only court action can stop this sort of state-level restriction of an enumerated right. But the 9th covers Washington and Oregon, so the matter must be brought to the SC, which refuses to rule further.

    This is how evil wins.

    1. avatar mike oregon says:

      Oregon is not lost, the laws here don’t ban anything that legal nationally. Shall issue CCW legal open carry, no magazine restrictions.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        And in Portland ??

        1. avatar DCJ says:

          No different in Portland. And WA State Constitution prohibits local law stricter than state law so little threat of Seattle becoming like Chicago in Illinois.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Taking the long view, Oregon will be a pit stop on the way to Californicating Washington state. California refugees are already destroying the real estate market in Portland, and surrounds. Wherever they go, Californians try to replicate that state on the cheap, for the first ones in. Afraid the entire left coast is merely one or two elections away from a border-to-border gun free zone.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      Not necessarily. After Newtown, there was an attempt at getting an AWB passed in Washington and it failed. So it could fail this time as well. Yes, the universal background check measure in the state was sad, but that was done by direct democracy and is to many people a reasonable-sounding policy.

      1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

        The UBC check passed because of money-bag advertising saturation in the population rich west coast areas.
        When one looks at the voting records by county, UBC failed in a majority of counties, but passed in the Seattle area counties as well as Spokane County. The smaller counties got stepped on.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          My point, exactly. Doesn’t matter what the county culture looks like, the population centers are leftist, and that is all that matters.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          UBC passed because most people wanted it. You can spin it however you want, but it’s plainly true.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        And the ammunition tax ??

        1. avatar Defens says:

          Liberal city council in Seattle only. Affects a grand total of one gunshop, which has relocated outside city limits.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The population centers rule. Once the hard left turn is made there, the others will line-up eventually. A three vote majority in the legislature is not insurance. When the Californicators devour Oregon one their way to Washington, the fun will just be starting. You can’t talk your way out of an infestation of rats.

    3. avatar MurrDog says:

      I just bought a can for my sbr and a friend just took possession of an MG. My carry licence took 4 days to get to me from the time I filled out the application at the sheriffs office to the time it ended up in my mailbox. Oregon is doing fine right now. No need to lump us in with Washington.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        How confident are you the invasion from Calif will not overwhelm ?

        Seems we had a report recently from Sarah Tipton that identifiec the complete change in Colorado, after their Californicator invasion.

      2. avatar gipper says:

        You are blind sir, It may seem all rosy at the moment, but Salem has its own agenda, and the Queen “B” sitting in her new office is part of the problem. She will sign anything that crosses her desk.

        1. avatar gipper says:

          to wit: Oregon people did not get to vote for the background check bill. ( as did fleeced washingtonians)

    4. avatar Hasdrubal says:

      The vote for 594 here in WA succeeded in large part due to deception regarding what the thing actually did. The legislature is not able to reverse it for some arbitrary amount of time (not sure how long, but it was talked about locally in the days leading up to the vote), or it would have been reversed already. In the meantime, every law enforcement agency in the state seems to be ignoring it.

      They actually passed a law allowing WA residents to own and use short barrel rifles, but they made mistakes in the wording causing the ATF to start denying form 1 construction (after some clerk in Olympia called and made a stink about it, they were approving them with no issues for something like a year). The bill to correct the language is up next Thursday. With any luck, it will pass in time for me to file some form 1s online before 41p goes into effect.

      The liberal demographic in the Northwest is far too strong, but for the time being, they are nowhere near as anti-gun as you would expect.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The large population centers always control the voting. A three vote margin in the state legislature is not something to take comfort in.

      2. avatar Christopher Bingham says:

        There are a lot more liberals in WA that support the 2nd, than the parties want you to believe. Unless he’s changed his tune, my dem senator, Steve Hobbs, has voted against most confiscationist laws.

        I’m one being pretty vocal about no infringement. There are others, but it’s not an easy road, if you want to keep your friends.

        Gun control is a losing argument for the left, much like abortion is for the right. The point I like to make is that telling half the population that you want to make them criminals for being a gun owner is not a plan for success long term.

        In the same breath, I want the banksters in jail, tax the rich / feed the poor, public education etc – pretty much Bernie Sanders platform with Vermont carry. Strong individual rights, including 2A rights, are actually part of the *liberal* tradition. Conservatives have usually been the ones to be “tough on crime.” (See how fast Saint Ronnie jumped on gun control, when the Panthers started to open carry in Oakland. Ronnie got it passed faster than you can shout “Black men with guns!” and the NRA was happy to be on board.)

        We need to support Dems who will support us and make it safe for them to do so. Gun supporters are not all to the right of Ayn Rand.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> In the same breath, I want the banksters in jail, tax the rich / feed the poor, public education, pretty much Bernie Sanders platform with Vermont carry.

          I would personally amend this to doing all that on state level rather than federal level as much as possible (and scale the latter down dramatically). Basically, I want Ron Paul and his cadre for President / Congress on federal level, and Sanders and his cadre (and Vermont carry) on state level. Other states can do whatever they want – I mean, I would approve or disapprove, but it’s their choice, ultimately. The feds should mainly be in the business of ensuring that states don’t trample on citizens’ rights (per 14A) and little else. All actual regulation can be done by the states.

          Case in point: Canadian public healthcare system, that’s so favorably viewed by many liberals in US, originated as a coalition of provinces banding together to unify their own provincial public healthcare systems. To this date, all powers that Canadian federal government has in that system are those delegated to it by those provinces, and any province can withdraw at any time.

    5. avatar int19h says:

      Washington has its own RKBA provision in its state constitution, and it’s actually significantly stronger than the federal one – it specifically and unambiguously states that RKBA is an individual right and not collective, and it explicitly lists self-defense as one of the legitimate reasons to carry.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        And this “right” is subject to no encroachment for “common sense” ? Courts are prohibited from justifying rulings based on “compelling interest” ? The state constitution prohibits (and who would enforce it?) any alteration to the constitution in the future ? Is bullet-proof against state courts who rule that restrictions that make a community “feel safer” are legitimate ?

        Oh yes, and the state constitution regarding RTKBA is immune to federal intervention to overturn the state laws ?

        Point is, the gun-grabbers never rest. They have no honor, and will never cease trying to impose their rule over the populace. Good people reach a conclusion to an issue, and then agree it is settled, and move on. Not so the dishonorable left.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> And this “right” is subject to no encroachment for “common sense” ? Courts are prohibited from justifying rulings based on “compelling interest” ?

          Such ability is always limited when constitutional protections are more explicit.

          We haven’t had that many rulings to judge upon, because the state had historically been pretty hands-off on guns. I suspect this, in turn, is because the pro-gun-control side is acutely aware that their hands are very tied, and so they’re unwilling to make bold moves for the fear of getting a strong court ruling against them that would hamper their small-scale efforts.

          Anyway, what track record we have favors strong recognition of RKBA so far:

          https://www.saf.org/wa-supreme-court-justice-richard-sanders-authors-significant-gun-rights-ruling/

          Note that this was a 6-3 ruling, too. Another good sign is that in that very same decision, WA state supreme court has actually recognized the applicability of the federal Second Amendment to the state via 14th Amendment, before the McDonald ruling (i.e. based solely on Heller). To the best of my knowledge, this was the only such case.

          So I feel pretty good about the court remaining on our side for a long time to come.

          >> The state constitution prohibits (and who would enforce it?) any alteration to the constitution in the future ? I

          No, and it’s actually amended quite often. But that requires a 2/3 supermajority in either chamber of the legislature to pass it, followed by a simple majority of electorate to approve. So long as Eastern Washington remains in the state, the Senate will remain split close to 50/50 (it’s currently favoring Republicans by 1 vote), so it’s an effective block even if all Dems turn pro-gun-control – which is not true in WA today, Democrats simply don’t vote as a single block on guns here (heck, we’ve had SBRs and silencers legalized in the past few years with overwhelming Democrat majority in favor).

          >> Is bullet-proof against state courts who rule that restrictions that make a community “feel safer” are legitimate ?

          Nothing is bullet-proof against this. It’s checks and balances, not checks and sledgehammer. But there’s always the state supreme court to appeal to, and as I have already explained, it’s pro-RKBA.

          >> Oh yes, and the state constitution regarding RTKBA is immune to federal intervention to overturn the state laws ?

          The state constitution, by definition, limits the power of state government only, so it does not play a role when it comes to applicability and constitutionality of federal laws. But we were specifically talking about state laws in general, and a specific state-level law in particular.

          >> Point is, the gun-grabbers never rest. They have no honor, and will never cease trying to impose their rule over the populace. Good people reach a conclusion to an issue, and then agree it is settled, and move on. Not so the dishonorable left.

          *cough* Roe v. Wade *cough*

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Roe v. Wade

          Who are those guys ?

  5. avatar mike oregon says:

    Does anyone else ever wonder “what actual problems could be solved if all these political jackholes would stop wasting time and money on this assault weapons crap?”

    1. avatar Special K says:

      Given the track record I do not want them to try to solve actual problems, either. The best act of government at this point would be to take steps to limit its own power and size, which will never happen.

  6. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Why stop here? Mandatory waiting periods if you want to purchase vodka-after all, binge drinking is an epidemic in America; smart technology in the form of an interlock device on every vehicle for sale in the state- and if you don’t retrofit it you need to sell it out of state, render your vehicle permanently inoperable, or surrender it to law enforcement. New York style purchase limits, while we’re at it. No more than three times the capacity of your shot glass every three months.

    It’s common sense, after all.

    Interesting side note. The mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray, which has been home to a hotbed of anti-2A law making, was the prime sponsor during his state senate days of an AWB that would have allowed for warrantless search of homes to check compliance. Said he had no idea his law said that. And that, yes, it was “probably unconstitutional”

    Washington used to be a pretty solid gun rights state where I would say this legislation has no chance. But with the anti-rights money pumped in from tech billionaires like Gates, Ballmer, Allen, Hanauer etc, along with a large migration of Bay Area techsters, bills like this have new life.

    1. avatar Dry Sider says:

      “…like Gates, Ballmer, Allen, Hanauer etc,”

      All who have world-class armed security…

      Grandfather clause and carve-out for LE and military.

      I say NO to all of it. Fortunately this IS NOT a ballot initiative. They will have to get it through committee, the house, senate and the gov’s desk.

      Not bloody likely.

      Still, F all of them.

      1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

        I’ve spoken to people who have been on the public waters of Lake Washington in boats, looking at the Gates compound, when out zooms a boat with serious looking sunglasses wearing guys telling them to keep moving. He has a lot of very high end personal security (read that former SF/etc-I’ve met a couple of them).

        Very generous of über rich folks with private armed security and fortified residences telling the simple folk what’s good for ’em.

        1. avatar Defens says:

          Might be interesting to tell them to piss off.

  7. avatar Scrubula says:

    The WA senate has a 3 seat lead of Republican and Independent senators.

    If this bill somehow passes there will definitely be a recall election.

  8. avatar Kyle says:

    As usual, LEO are exempt. Only way they can pass “Common Sense Gun Control” is to exempt LEO’s. If they didn’t it wouldn’t be enforced by anyone.

    and they know it.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      And in Washington the LEOs were overwhelmingly opposed to the absurd background check initiative. And all the LEOs I know have no interest in enforcing it. Didn’t stop politicians from loving it nor stop low info voters from supporting it to “do something.”

  9. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Well, they do lock you up for sitting in an stationary vehicle while intoxicated so that is step in the right (left?) direction. Pre-crime guess work is the way to go.

  10. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Good luck guys. Or defy this evil. It looks like the “left-coast” lives up to it’s nickname…

  11. avatar Bob301 says:

    Funny analogy. The Progressives brought us Prohibition early last century, and now the Progressives are trying to kill the 2nd amendment. In this case, they are targeting Washington. I moved to Arizona a few years back after living in Oregon nearly all my life. Oregon had been invaded by California Progressives and overthrew the native Oregonian controlled government…so I bailed. I didn’t think Washington was as vulnerable. Knowing Washingtonians though, I am certain that honest citizens and native Washingtonians “aim to misbehave” against this occupying Progressive hoard.

    1. avatar dph says:

      I’ve lived in Washington my whole life and love it here, but I hear Arizona calling my name. Just have to find somewhere where I won’t be a crispy critter in the summer.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Alaska?

        1. avatar AnyMouse says:

          I hear Flagstaff has four seasons. It is in the mountains and supposed to be cooler in summer, with sometimes snow in the Winter.

        2. avatar gipper says:

          Prescott is Gun town. Ruger, Gunsite Academy(Col Jeff Cooper founded), Davidson’s “Gallery of Guns”, Heck, the Community College has a curriculum for Gun smithing/ gun building to train employees for the local industry.
          Not sure if it gets a pinch warmer than Flagstaff, But it sees snow.
          and is not the oven of Phoenix.

    2. avatar jeff says:

      This is a huge problem..If you look at the bio for just about any Democrat politician in WA, probably more than half are from out of state, or educated out of state, and what state is that? typically….. California.

      I’ve lived here all my life. I’m only 32 but I’ve noticed a sharp change in state government attitude here in the past 15 years. My dad has confirmed it, it’s not just my lack of Long term perspective on this issue.

      We are looking at leaving this state in the next 5-10 years. Most likely Montana.

  12. avatar Amfivena says:

    I’ve started using a similar analogy in arguments with friends, family and coworkers. Want to end most highway deaths? Easy, national speed limit of 25 MPH everywhere. At 25 MPH, even a head-on collision is easily survivable. No one needs a car that goes faster than 25. If it saves one life it is worth it, right? When they try to say it isn’t the same as gun control…interrupt and point out how many people will die because they are too impatient to drive 25 MPH.

    1. avatar gipper says:

      “Stay alive Drive 25″…… It’s for the Children.

  13. avatar Scary5150 says:

    More guns means less crime! Last year in Utah we had around 8 homicides, only 3 involved firearms. Chicago, the gun control capital of the States, had nearly 3000! About a third of those involved firearms. To consult the actual numbers check w/the FBI criminal statistics website.
    My proposal for DUI laws is simple, 1st offence DUI, not involving death, injury, or property damage, results in losing your right to drive…Forever! No jail time, no fines, just the permanent loss of your driver’s license for the rest of your life. It’s time to embrace a zero tolerance policy towards drinking & driving.

    1. avatar Amfivena says:

      How about we just do away with the whole pre-crime thing? Let’s criminalize causing an accident. Blow through a red light and crash into someone – that’s a crime. Does it really matter if you were drunk, texting or day dreaming? Your inability to drive competently caused body and/or property injury to a fellow citizen. If I break your arm in a bar fight, that’s a felony. Break your arm because I crashed into you because I was driving too fast – well that’s somehow OK because it was an accident. Guns, cars, drugs, alcohol, etc. – punish the outcomes not the possibilities. Assume people are adults and use due process to isolate those who can’t live responsibly.

      1. avatar Arkansas kurt says:

        This exactly. There are an awful lot of our rights being infringed over our war on drunk driving.

        1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          Except that driving drunk is lije fitlring a gun in random directions. It’s reckless and even if no one got hurt the first time, sooner or later, someone dies.

          Why would we allow that?

    2. avatar John L. says:

      Uh, Scary, 3/8 ~ 1/3, so the rate of firearms used in a homicide in Utah is about the same as that in Chicago, according to your numbers.

      Also, the 2013 “Crime in Utah” report (last year with finalized numbers – bci.Utah.gov) states that firearms were used in 65.91% of homicides reported, and that there were a total of 51 homicides.

      Leave the making-stuff-up to the other side, please.

      1. avatar Scary5150 says:

        That’s why I posted that if you don’t believe my numbers, you can verify through the FBI Criminal Statistics database. In my state, we have a population of around 3.5 million. Having only 3 firearm related homocides, 8 murders overall, as compared to Chicago, just the city not all of Illinois, to have an average annual homocide rate of 2600 a year, w/a city population of I believe 8 million, & an average gun related homocide deaths at around 700, you do the math. If you don’t like my figures, learn some statistics. I’m very involved in my state’s politics & not keeping up on the numbers you have blatantly slammed me for, could me the difference between a bad bill being passed or not. Do your homework, you’ll debate better & change some minds. Or at the very least, get the liberals you confront to call you derogatory names.

        1. avatar John L. says:

          I checked the FBI page as well.

          You are wrong, plain and simple. For 2014, again the last year for which there is data, the FBI page lists Utah as having 67 murders and nonnegligent homicides (table 5).

          Get your facts straight before slamming others.

    3. avatar Adub says:

      To be fair, Utah is full of Mormons, who are religious white people, and Chicago is full of, yeah, not those…

  14. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Looks like a bunch of California progressives moved to Washington.
    Get ready for full retard. Oregon will quickly follow suit, just like with the background check law.
    Looks like I need to check out property in Idaho.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      Lived here my whole life but Seattle has suddenly turned its California Politics Amplifier to “11”

      All kidding aside there has been as fast a political shift to Crazyville in Seattle recently as I’ve ever seen. It’s always been more lefty liberal than the rest of the state and frankly that’s not always a bad thing. But over the last five years-wow.

  15. avatar Libertarian says:

    No pro gun bill at moment ?? SBS and Fullauto for example need to legalized there in combination white an nfa shall sign ore knife preemption 🙁
    Music and public event carry and an unlimited k12 ground parking not only drop out somebody ……….

  16. avatar Kyle says:

    All cars should be limited in the following manner:

    1) No more than 50 horsepower four-cylinder engine in each car

    2) 0-60 acceleration in no less than 12 seconds

    3) Top speed of no more than 60 mph

    4) Special license with justifiable need shown to purchase SUV, pickup truck, or van

    5) All SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans limited same as cars in 0-60 and top speed

    6) All SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans will have minimum numbers of horsepower needed

    7) Sports cars on public roads outlawed

    8) Law enforcement exempted from these restrictions. This sensible policy will prevent high-speed chases and easily allow law enforcement to chase down criminals

    1. avatar Scary5150 says:

      I’m all for it! More people die in automobile accidents each year, second highest death rate in this country. But instead of placing restrictions on vehicles, let’s make it harder to get a driver’s license. Make driver’s education a mandatory course in high schools beginning freshman year. Start driver’s ed at 14. Issue only learner’s permits at 16, regular driver’s licenses at 18. Commercial vehicles would require a 1 year trade tech certificate & a CDL lerner’s permit available at 19 with a full CDL license at 21. Each endorsement would require anywhere from 6 weeks to 12 months additional training. Make licenses extremely harder to get & very easy to take away. (The above suggestions are similar to driver’s license laws in Germany)

  17. avatar Mark says:

    I live in Washington and I’m calling my senators/reps. This is absurd. I urge other residents to do the same.

  18. avatar Mark says:

    Scary how people like to impose their will on others. It baffles me to no end….

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    WA is a state in violation of the Constitution, it’s statehood is now rescinded and it is now a Territory of the U.S. under the governance of the State of Oklahoma.

    Please refer all inquiries to Governor Mary Fallin’s office beotchez.

  20. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I believe in reasonable and sensible gun control so the 2nd Amendment only applies to your right to hunt ducks. Of course the 2A really only applies to the National Guard according to some people, even some who frequent this website.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Just curious, but what is your plan of action for 3 home invaders kicking in your door and heading towards you with the intent to do harm?

  21. avatar DerryM says:

    Hope you can vote this down in Washington State. The States are more dangerous to gun rights than the Feds these days, OTOH States are more friendly to gun rights than the Fed. Ironic, isn’t it?

  22. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    They’ve also introduced a bill to tax ammunition at 5 cents a round. There’s another that would allow cities to make their own laws regarding firearms on city property. I love living in Washington, but this crap pisses me off. Time to start calling my reps again.

  23. avatar Defens says:

    This will undoubtedly die in committee, as it has a couple times before. Ginny Burdick is a total fruitcake, and never fails to come down on the side of more restrictions to rights.

    Even if it does pass, the Washington State constitution is far less ambivalent on RKBA than the US Bill of Rights: Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

    This is rather ironic, because those like Gates, who would deprive the common man of RKBA, themselves maintain and employ “an armed body of men!”

    SAF is gearing up to fight both I-594 (our UBC law) AND the Seattle gun/ammo tax right now. Donations welcomed. If the stinker above were to pass, the court fight would be instant and furious, and massive non-compliance would ensue. County Sheriffs are already refusing to enforce the UBC, the likelihood of a AWB being enforced outside Seattle would be about as high as seeing the introduction of the new diesel powered, 3/4 Prius pickup edition.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      I just read the bill. Pretty ridiculous. Essentially it prohibits modern firearms. If it has a thumb-hole in the stock it’s prohibited! I give it very poor chance of advancing and let’s say it did, it clearly would be in violation of the Washington State Constitution. As you pointed out, Washington State Constitution’s Declaration of Rights provides stronger protections than the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        If I remember correctly, the proposed legislation is cut-and-paste from the bill pending in California. Might not be enough California in Washington today, but the next election, and/or the one after, you might see legislation declare Washington the State of Northern California. Oregon is not going to be an effective firewall.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        It prohibits way more than that. Pay attention to their definition of “barrel shroud”, and notice how it doesn’t include the usual verbiage about how a forend is not considered a shroud if it’s attached to the stock. So basically it bans all firearms that have any sort of protective covering around the barrel that prevents you from burning your hand on it. Literally interpreted, this bans pretty much all semi-auto rifles, short of something like Marlin 70PSS.

    2. avatar gipper says:

      Ginny Burdick is from Oregon and yes……
      Defens QUOTE:is a total fruitcake,( i would maybe say NUTCASE, gipper) and never fails to come down on the side of more restrictions to rights.

  24. avatar bunny says:

    THIS BILL IS DEAD ON ARRIVAL

    The SBR bill they passed in 2013 had something like 47-0 in senate and 90-7 in the house, then a democrat governor signed the bill.

    If they passed the SBR right after Sandy Hook, they will not pass this bill. AWB bills have died continuously in committee for several years now, plus it’s an election year and the Washington State Senate and House are close to 50/50 R to D.

  25. avatar Anonymous says:

    That’s right!

    Nobody “needs” a 16oz glass.
    Nobody “needs” an 80 proof beverage.

    They can drink a 10 proof beverage out of a 4oz glass. They should undergo a background check as well if they are gong to drink that nonsense.

  26. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    I hope this goes nowhere. I don’t want to move again.

  27. avatar .250 Savage says:

    I try not to use analogy or metaphors with liberals. They can’t handle it. They promptly reply to any comparison with classic lines from the bottomless liberal bastion of situational ethics: “thats different” or “it depends” and in their heads it is different and it does depend. To admit the validity of the analogy or metaphor would force them to confront their own hypocrasy; which, lets be honest, they are not going to do.

  28. avatar AR says:

    Sounds like they need “munchie control” there. Pepto in the morning after consuming 7 bags of chips? We need to protect the rudderless people who drink, smoke, and over consume empty calories.

  29. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    This is why you never elect leftist to office, on a side note maybe with weed being legal leftists will not show up to the polls as they will be totally stone and not want to go vote.

  30. avatar Chris says:

    Mainstream media and politicians have been using the term “assault weapon” as an instrument to further their anti-gun agenda.

    As a result, there’s a lot of confusion between the political term “assault weapon” and the technical term “assault rifle”.

    Wouldn’t it be good if a website like TTAG didn’t mix them up?

  31. avatar Ardent says:

    One wonders, if all the liberals in California eventually move to WA, OR, CO and etc, will there be a point where conservatives retake the state?

    Will ‘conservative flight’ from blue and blueing states lead to some states becoming super red?

    What will that mean for national elections?

    Is there a vaccine against liberal infestation? What might it/they be?

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Yes there is. You probably carry some around with you.

  32. avatar Jason says:

    Law enforcement needs to speak out against this unless they do in fact like being given special exemption as “chosen ones”.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Irony and sarcasm, right ?

  33. avatar Bill G says:

    It’s not the alcohol that causes car crashes, it’s the personal ownership of vehicles. Clearly the Government has sold out to the auto industry, which tries to sell more and more cars knowing full well that tens of thousands of people will be killed or maimed every year.

  34. avatar Steve says:

    I’ve been reading all the post and a lot of them blame people from California for your troubles. It seems if a few people from Cal can ruin your states (Oregon / Wash) then you are not as strong as you think you are. All I hear or read is,” We’ll do this if ” or ” We’ll do that If “. A lot of Barking but no action.
    Are you ready for the twist? Yes..I’m in California and I am planning to Move to Washington. Before you bring out the pitch forks and torches, let me explain why I am choosing Washington to move me Family to.
    From what I’ve read and the people I talked to, your state is a great place to live. You have beautiful land and it is not over populated. Crime in your state might be high for you, but its all relevant to where you live. Your Gun laws, at this time, are the main reason I picked Washington. Your State Constitution, for now, is Awesome.
    Most Californians Are not tree hugging liberals. Whats funny is, that is how Californians see people from Washington and Oregon.
    So If I move there I will do my best to fit in and keep Washington a Free State, but I think you need to step up your Actions and less talking. There cant be so many Californians in your state that it changes the out come of how you vote. Seems to me people are staying home on election day.

  35. avatar John says:

    First of all why is this article named for gun control and then goes into drinking and driving. Stupid. Having to have a special permit to buy a truck or suv. Max speed of 60. Ya…ok. that whole comment is plain stupid. Comment on germany’s driving laws. Move to Germany. This is the United States. We don’t need or want European thought process hear.

    About gun control. Seattle’s savior Obama has already asked the military what it would take to disarm the US citizen. They laughed at him. Civil war…that is what Obama wants. He would be able to call for martial law and stay in the white house. We won’t be fighting american law enforcement or military. We will be fighting the UN peacekeeping force, and ya…they will take your gun from your cold dead hand. The other countries of the world would like nothing better than to come here and relieve us of our guns.

  36. avatar John says:

    One more thing…if you want to keep your gun rights. Do not and I repeat DO NOT vote for the murderous snake Hillary. If anyone wants to know what her agenda is and what she is capable of, research Whitewater gate. How her and Bill got away with that is beyond me.

    1. avatar Radio Randy says:

      Hellary sucks! No, that can’t be right…otherwise, why would Bill have needed Monica?

  37. avatar Radio Randy says:

    By all means…let’s disarm the state’s citizens and THEN import large numbers of Syrian refugees (including terrorists and rapists). I heard Governor Inslee was having trouble recruiting new WSP officers…maybe this is his solution?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email