HB 1240 "Assault Weapons Ban" Passes House

[actionshooter]

I expect it to be thrown out by the courts, but it could take years. I also expected the courts to rule Washington’s Capital Gains tax was an income tax and against our state constitution and they ruled it wasn’t an income tax. Bought and paid for or controlled by Sleezly or something fishy going on.

I expect that is their plan throw some laws in that will take years to rule on and than throw in some humdingers that will take even more years to set right. All to try to bankrupt the gun rights groups and encumber the lawful gun buyer.

 

It would be nice if they could be held liable for knowingly passing an unconstitutional law.....all who put the bill forward as well as the yes votes.  The blatant disregard for the constitution is sickening. 

!00%  Being prosecuted for knowingly pursuing legislation that is against the constitution would put an end to all the crazy  laws.... but it would get passed as quickly as term limits...

[passman65]

Will Not Comply!

[Ghost Hunter]

Charlton Heston said it best.

[bigtex]

I just read thru the whole Bill and I've got to say that is the BIGGEST crock of CRAP! I've ever read. Talk about unconstitutional. I guess we have to keep our fingers crossed and hope it doesn't take to long for this to be overturned somehow.

It will be overturned by Judge Benitez in California. Probably be the shortest lived “assault weapons ban” in the country. The democrats have no historical precedent to defend their garbage gun control.

Benitez's ruling will only apply to the CA assault weapons weapon.

As a District Court Judge he can only impose rulings which would affect his district. He can try and say it applies to the whole Ninth Circuit but based on prior history CA will seek an injuction to prevent that which the Ninth Circuit would grant and essentially put Benitez's ruling on hold. The case will then fall into the hands of the Ninth Circuit. Now the Ninth Circuit overruling CA's law would essentially nullify WA's new law.

[blackdog]

I killed that bill for many years but I am not there to do it this year.

[hughjorgan]

I just read thru the whole Bill and I've got to say that is the BIGGEST crock of CRAP! I've ever read. Talk about unconstitutional. I guess we have to keep our fingers crossed and hope it doesn't take to long for this to be overturned somehow.

It will be overturned by Judge Benitez in California. Probably be the shortest lived “assault weapons ban” in the country. The democrats have no historical precedent to defend their garbage gun control.

Benitez's ruling will only apply to the CA assault weapons weapon.

As a District Court Judge he can only impose rulings which would affect his district. He can try and say it applies to the whole Ninth Circuit but based on prior history CA will seek an injuction to prevent that which the Ninth Circuit would grant and essentially put Benitez's ruling on hold. The case will then fall into the hands of the Ninth Circuit. Now the Ninth Circuit overruling CA's law would essentially nullify WA's new law.

Correct me if I’m wrong Bigtex, but isn’t this case before the appeals court? So the ruling would be binding for the entire ninth circuit. Benitez has already ruled in favor of assault weapons bans are unconstitutional and AG Bonta appealed the ruling. Not long after that the Supreme Court ruled on BRUEN. With the Bruen case ruling came the texts, history, and tradition test that now governs laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.
 So now we’re waiting on the new test to be applied in the Miller v Bonta on appeal which appears to be taking a while.

[bigtex]

I just read thru the whole Bill and I've got to say that is the BIGGEST crock of CRAP! I've ever read. Talk about unconstitutional. I guess we have to keep our fingers crossed and hope it doesn't take to long for this to be overturned somehow.

It will be overturned by Judge Benitez in California. Probably be the shortest lived “assault weapons ban” in the country. The democrats have no historical precedent to defend their garbage gun control.

Benitez's ruling will only apply to the CA assault weapons weapon.

As a District Court Judge he can only impose rulings which would affect his district. He can try and say it applies to the whole Ninth Circuit but based on prior history CA will seek an injuction to prevent that which the Ninth Circuit would grant and essentially put Benitez's ruling on hold. The case will then fall into the hands of the Ninth Circuit. Now the Ninth Circuit overruling CA's law would essentially nullify WA's new law.

Correct me if I’m wrong Bigtex, but isn’t this case before the appeals court? So the ruling would be binding for the entire ninth circuit. Benitez has already ruled in favor of assault weapons bans are unconstitutional and AG Bonta appealed the ruling. Not long after that the Supreme Court ruled on BRUEN. With the Bruen case ruling came the texts, history, and tradition test that now governs laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.
 So now we’re waiting on the new test to be applied in the Miller v Bonta on appeal which appears to be taking a while.

In current form it's not before the Ninth Circuit yet, it's still on Benitez's desk. Assuming Benitez rules in favor of Miller in Miller v Bonta it'll then go before the Ninth Circuit (again). The Ninth Circuit ruling (which could be a year or more away) would affect WA.

[wags]

i wonder how they will enforce "imports" ?  Say I drive to Idaho and pick up a couple of 30 rd mags, or an upper or parts kit how would they know?

They won't know.
This is why these laws don't work. Criminals can drive to Idaho too.

[wags]

I’m still confused on the definition of importing firearms. If someone wants to move to Washington and they own banned firearms would they be banned from moving to Washington with those firearms?  If you own property in multiple states and legally buy a banned firearm in another state would you be banned from traveling back to Washington with that firearm?

Wouldn’t this be violation of the United States constitution and the right of citizens to travel between states? Especially since firearm ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment and it is illegal to prohibit citizens from keeping firearms?

You ask this question as though you believe the Democrats in Washington care about the Constitution. Funny.
It will be fun to watch SCOTUS swat this down. Of course Democrats will blame the Justices for upholding the Constitution.

[hunter399]

I killed that bill for many years but I am not there to do it this year.

Sucks your not still there,in the fight.

[Lucky1]

I killed that bill for many years but I am not there to do it this year.

Your replacement voted against it also.
Were you on a committee that kept it from moving on?

[blackdog]

I killed it in caucus, they don’t vote on the floor unless they already have the votes.

[turkeyfeather]

Refresh my memory.....what was the bill that stopped or limited you being able to loan a gun to someone?

[JimmyHoffa]

Refresh my memory.....what was the bill that stopped or limited you being able to loan a gun to someone?

That was an initiative

[turkeyfeather]

Refresh my memory.....what was the bill that stopped or limited you being able to loan a gun to someone?

That was an initiative

Yup....594 ....just found it.