High Cap Mag - Grandfathered in?

[salish]

I realize this has most likely been asked before, but I'm not finding anything on it. I have an old 9mm that belonged to my father. The gun is a 15-shot semi-auto and he had three mags for it. He bought the gun new in the mid 1960's and gave it to me around 1995. Are the 15-shot mags illegal for me to use in this handgun? I can see myself using it for self-defense when camping. Were mags like this "grandfathered" in to the new law on 10-round max magazines? Thank you.

[full choke]

I realize this has most likely been asked before, but I'm not finding anything on it. I have an old 9mm that belonged to my father. The gun is a 15-shot semi-auto and he had three mags for it. He bought the gun new in the mid 1960's and gave it to me around 1995. Are the 15-shot mags illegal for me to use in this handgun? I can see myself using it for self-defense when camping. Were mags like this "grandfathered" in to the new law on 10-round max magazines? Thank you.

Yes, you are ok on the mags unless you try to sell them.

Pretty damn sad that this is even a question in this state.

[chukardogs]

The law passed in 2022 that pertains to high capacity magazine only covers the sale and amanufacturing of.....
Off of Washington's website on firearm laws
On July 1, 2022, a law prohibiting the sale, attempted sale, manufacture and distribution of high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds went into effect in Washington. The law does not prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines.

 With the verbiage written as it is, someone would have to prove you purchased the magazine's after July 1st of 2022. The onus would be on the state to prove you purchased it illegally. Without a valid receipt proving that would be rather difficult.

[salish]

I realize this has most likely been asked before, but I'm not finding anything on it. I have an old 9mm that belonged to my father. The gun is a 15-shot semi-auto and he had three mags for it. He bought the gun new in the mid 1960's and gave it to me around 1995. Are the 15-shot mags illegal for me to use in this handgun? I can see myself using it for self-defense when camping. Were mags like this "grandfathered" in to the new law on 10-round max magazines? Thank you.

Yes, you are ok on the mags unless you try to sell them.

Pretty damn sad that this is even a question in this state.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm just as disturbed by this state's laws, it just makes me almost ill. I won't hesitate to use this, then. Hopefully, the issue will never come up in the field. Thanks again.

[salish]

The law passed in 2022 that pertains to high capacity magazine only covers the sale and amanufacturing of.....
Off of Washington's website on firearm laws
On July 1, 2022, a law prohibiting the sale, attempted sale, manufacture and distribution of high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds went into effect in Washington. The law does not prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines.

 With the verbiage written as it is, someone would have to prove you purchased the magazine's after July 1st of 2022. The onus would be on the state to prove you purchased it illegally. Without a valid receipt proving that would be rather difficult.

Thank you for the clarification, it really helps.

[chukardogs]

I've looked throughout the verbiage of the law banning high capacity magazines. It's very specific that the law doesn't prohibit high capacity magazines but nowhere does it differentiate between a new or used high capacity magazine. As far as I can tell, you can hand it down through your family but you can't sell them.
 I'll be surprised if this is allowed to stand as written. The law as written, makes your possession worthless. Seems to me the courts should dictate that the law has to differentiate between existing magazines and magazines bought after a certain date unless they're going to buy them from you to destroy. Just my opinion.

[salish]

I've looked throughout the verbiage of the law banning high capacity magazines. It's very specific that the law doesn't prohibit high capacity magazines but nowhere does it differentiate between a new or used high capacity magazine. As far as I can tell, you can hand it down through your family but you can't sell them.
 I'll be surprised if this is allowed to stand as written. The law as written, makes your possession worthless. Seems to me the courts should dictate that the law has to differentiate between existing magazines and magazines bought after a certain date unless they're going to buy them from you to destroy. Just my opinion.

Agree with you. It's pretty vague and I cannot help but think it's written this way deliberately with intent to screw gunowners over again later, and again after that. By that I mean it may be worded to give future anti-gun legislation an edge. I'm not a conspiracy enthusiast but I wouldn't put anything past our liberal politicians.

[chukardogs]

I know this won't be popular. I don't actually have a problem with the intent of the law. I've never owned a gun with a magazine that has held more than ten rounds. Every rifle I own is an old except a single shot Ruger #1. If the state wants to say, for the safety of its citizens, we want to pass this law, and they can pass the law then so be it. Anyone with a semblance of a brain knows it won't change anything and eventually, they'll figure out it has nothing whatsoever to do with the guns. Lessons worth learning sometimes come at a cost and usually takes the slower among us quite a while for it to sink in.
 I would hope the law is being challenged on the fact that they didn't differentiate between existing and new, when it comes to second hand sales. If they're going to do something like that, they really need to explain what happens when an estate ends up having to deal with an item they can't legally sell. I do agree that may have been done on purpose but to what end. They'd have to know that aspect will be challenged. 

[salish]

I know this won't be popular. I don't actually have a problem with the intent of the law. I've never owned a gun with a magazine that has held more than ten rounds. Every rifle I own is an old except a single shot Ruger #1. If the state wants to say, for the safety of its citizens, we want to pass this law, and they can pass the law then so be it. Anyone with a semblance of a brain knows it won't change anything and eventually, they'll figure out it has nothing whatsoever to do with the guns. Lessons worth learning sometimes come at a cost and usually takes the slower among us quite a while for it to sink in.
 I would hope the law is being challenged on the fact that they didn't differentiate between existing and new, when it comes to second hand sales. If they're going to do something like that, they really need to explain what happens when an estate ends up having to deal with an item they can't legally sell. I do agree that may have been done on purpose but to what end. They'd have to know that aspect will be challenged.

I understand completely. As for handguns I generally use S&W revolvers for home defense and a 1911 Lightweight Commander when I'm traveling. The only high cap gun I own is this 15 shot 9mm, and it hasn't been out of the safe in over 10 years. None of my rifles are newer than 1955, and most of them (and my shotguns) are well over a hundred years old. That said, I disagree strongly with this law based on the same arguments you have mentioned.

[Igor]

I know this won't be popular. I don't actually have a problem with the intent of the law.........If the state wants to say, for the safety of its citizens, we want to pass this law, and they can pass the law then so be it.

[KNOPHISH]

How can they pass a law that’s Unconstitutional? Federal way discount guns just got fined $3 million for selling them but when ruled by Supreme court as BS do they get their money back. Ban side show Bob.

[RustyNail]

I know this won't be popular. I don't actually have a problem with the intent of the law. I've never owned a gun with a magazine that has held more than ten rounds. Every rifle I own is an old except a single shot Ruger #1. If the state wants to say, for the safety of its citizens, we want to pass this law, and they can pass the law then so be it. Anyone with a semblance of a brain knows it won't change anything and eventually, they'll figure out it has nothing whatsoever to do with the guns. Lessons worth learning sometimes come at a cost and usually takes the slower among us quite a while for it to sink in.
 I would hope the law is being challenged on the fact that they didn't differentiate between existing and new, when it comes to second hand sales. If they're going to do something like that, they really need to explain what happens when an estate ends up having to deal with an item they can't legally sell. I do agree that may have been done on purpose but to what end. They'd have to know that aspect will be challenged.

So here is 50% of the problem. People like this who don't have a backbone and roll over. You're giving them an inch and they take a mile. You are slowly giving democrats excalty what they want. They take you "hi capacity" mags, take ur spring bear, taking fall bear I mean where does it stop? Where does someone like you draw the line? Any gun law is a violation to our constitution.

Sent from my SM-S916U1 using Tapatalk

[Dan-o]

I know this won't be popular. I don't actually have a problem with the intent of the law. I've never owned a gun with a magazine that has held more than ten rounds. Every rifle I own is an old except a single shot Ruger #1. If the state wants to say, for the safety of its citizens, we want to pass this law, and they can pass the law then so be it. Anyone with a semblance of a brain knows it won't change anything and eventually, they'll figure out it has nothing whatsoever to do with the guns. Lessons worth learning sometimes come at a cost and usually takes the slower among us quite a while for it to sink in.
 I would hope the law is being challenged on the fact that they didn't differentiate between existing and new, when it comes to second hand sales. If they're going to do something like that, they really need to explain what happens when an estate ends up having to deal with an item they can't legally sell. I do agree that may have been done on purpose but to what end. They'd have to know that aspect will be challenged.

It's fine for you not to own any "high cap" magazines.
That doesn't mean you need to agree with yet another infringement on our rights.
But I appreciate you being brave enough to post your opinion here.

[MADMAX]

Join

https://saf.org/

[chukardogs]

So from what I can tell, some of you stopped reading after I wrote, I don't have a problem with the intent of the law. I'm a hunter. I've been shooting guns since I was able to carry a gun. BB gun, then 22 rifle and so on. My grandfather bought me bricks of shells and I shot daily on twenty acres and the adjoining national forest land until I went in the military at 20. The Air force handed me a sorry excuse of a rifle and said here's 5 rounds to sight it in with and adjust it. I said, how about I shoot the 5 rounds, you let me do my certification and I'll get out of here. I shot expert marksman and handed them their target and their piece of garbage rifle and went on my way.
 A gun is a tool. It has a job. That job is to kill. Can you do other activities with it? Sure! It doesn't take away from the fact that it was designed and manufactured for one purpose, to kill.
That's what I use my rifles for. I keep them sighted in and I shoot enough to stay proficient with the different firearms that I use for the different hunting that I do. Beyond that, shooting isn't  a past time for me.
 Over the last twenty years or so, in my pursuits, deer hunting, grouse hunting, running my dogs on the various dirt roads throughout the cascades, the messes I have found at the end of logging roads, trash, appliances, you name it, some of which was left there by the shooting crowds have disgusted me. Brass everywhere. Disgusted me to the point that I started to question the idea that just anyone should be able to own a firearm. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to own a gun, join the military right out of high school. Prove you can handle it properly. Get a certificate that proves you can use a it proficiently and allows you to have and carry such a weapon. Obviously what we've been doing the last twenty years hasn't been working out so well. I'm a firm believer in the second amendment but I also believe people in this country have no idea what was sacrificed for every citizen to have these rights and because of this, I tend to believe there's a bunch of people that just maybe, don't deserve the rights they've been given. Especially the pigs that leave trash and such in the hills at the end of logging roads!
 I'm also the type that thinks a little deeper into things. For instance, the idea that "they're" going to take our guns. Twenty odd years ago, I read a statistic that estimated there was four firearms for every man, woman and child in this country and that number has done nothing but grown exponentially since. This country was founded on the principle, of the people, by the people, for the people and so on. So tell me, who exactly is going to go door to door in this country and collect guns? The cops, the military? Have ya ever stopped to consider the complete breakdown of society that the mere mention of such a farce would trigger? Most if not all cops would laugh and take a few days off. The military members would laugh and take a few days off. It's preposterous to think that sons and daughter, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, friends and relatives would go along with any of it. All that said, if the idiots that we elect these days to govern us think that banning high capacity magazines will make a *censored* load of difference in society today, than let em. Like I said before, some lessons are best learned the hard way and some people just take way longer to learn em. This country is young. There are governments much older that have learned a lot of lessons the hard way. The fact that no one really knows what doors have guns behind them and how many guns are behind those doors means no one in their right mind is going to raise their hand and volunteer for gun collection duty. At least not many that will live very long. One more thing, if the banning of high capacity magazines is getting people all fired up, hunters and shooters alike have got a real rude awakening coming. I think we're on generation number two or three of kids that have been sitting through active shooter drills in school. Give just a little thought into what happens when this country gets to generation five or six. Unless those kids were brought up around guns and understand the gun is just a tool, some of those individuals that had to sit in school while the government and the public came up with reasons why they couldn't protect them and then made them sit through the drills are going to make gun owners pay. Even an eight year old kid is smart enough to know that getting in a closet, getting under your desk, locking the class room door is a joke. Honestly, I can't blame them for feeling as they do. Society wonders why test scores have gone down, really? These are the ones that will be making laws over the next 30 to 40 years. High capacity magazines will be the least of your concerns in twenty years or so. Anyone with even half of a brain has to see the future ain't bright for gun owners or the country for that matter. We'll all be leaving our bolt action rifles at home, behind the front door and taking our single shots hunting. Good luck out there.